Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The Hart–Fuller debate is an exchange between the American law professor Lon L. Fuller and his English counterpart H. L. A. Hart, published in the Harvard Law Review in 1958 on morality and law, which demonstrated the divide between the positivist and natural law philosophy. Hart took the positivist view in arguing that morality and law were ...
Fuller was a professor of law at Harvard Law School for many years, and is noted in American law for his contributions to both jurisprudence and the law of contracts. His 1958 debate with the British legal philosopher H. L. A. Hart in the Harvard Law Review (the Hart–Fuller debate) was important in framing the modern conflict between legal ...
A pupil of Hart's, Joseph Raz was important in continuing Hart's arguments of legal positivism after Hart's death. This included editing in 1994 a second edition of Hart's The Concept of Law, with an additional section including Hart's responses to other philosophers' criticisms of his work. [35]
Drawing its name from Hart & Sacks' textbook The Legal Process (along with Hart & Wechsler's textbook The Federal Courts and the Federal System, considered a primary canonical text of the school), it is associated with scholars such as Herbert Wechsler, Henry Hart, Albert Sacks and Lon Fuller, and their students such as John Hart Ely and ...
Herbert Lionel Adolphus Hart FBA (/ h ɑːr t /; 18 July 1907 – 19 December 1992) was a British legal philosopher.One of the most influential legal theorists of the 20th century, he was instrumental in the development of the theory of legal positivism, which was popularised by his book, The Concept of Law.
H. L. A. Hart was probably the most influential writer in the modern school of analytical jurisprudence, [1] [2] [3] though its history goes back at least to Jeremy Bentham. Analytical jurisprudence is not to be mistaken for legal formalism (the idea that legal reasoning is or can be modelled as a mechanical, algorithmic process). Indeed, it ...
Harris, 465 U.S. 37 (1984) — A state appellate court, before it affirms a death sentence, is not required to compare the sentence in the case before it with the penalties imposed in similar cases if requested to do so by the prisoner. Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149 (1990) — Mandatory appellate review is not required in death penalty cases.
But to be a valid rule, the legal system of which the rule is a component must, as a whole, be effective. According to Hart, any rule that complies with the rule of recognition is a valid legal rule. For example, if the rule of recognition were "what Professor X says is law", then any rule that Professor X spoke would be a valid legal rule.