Truly General Jurisprudence
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 21687109 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Felipe Jiménez (0009-0005-8200-3903, University of Southern California, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2026 |
| Volume | 32 |
| Publication date | 2026-01-01 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Legal Theory (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1352-3252 • E-ISSN: 1469-8048 |
| Publisher | Cambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1017/s1352325226100858 |
| OpenAlex | W7155515756 |
| Language | EN |
There has been a recent turn toward a new form of nonpositivism in Anglo-American jurisprudence. This paper focuses on the theories articulated by Mark Greenberg and Scott Hershovitz (I label their views as the “New Legal Anti-Positivism” or NLAP). NLAP argues that questions about legal rights and obligations are moral questions; that legal reasoning is a form of moral reasoning; and that there is no domain of legal normativity that stands independently of moral considerations. This paper doesn’t offer a decisive argument against NLAP. Instead, it argues that NLAP is distinctively American: it relies on certain aspects of American legal practice that are not representative of other legal systems. To the extent that general jurisprudence attempts to offer a relatively general theory of law, theories that can accommodate variations across legal cultures are better than those that cannot. This is a relevant consideration against NLAP
Jurisprudence · Legal formalism · Legal practice · Legal realism · Moral rights · Philosophy of law · Evolving Legal Systems and Governance · Philosophical Ethics and Theory · Political Philosophy and Ethics
| Highly cited | No |
|---|