Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-8zxtt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-10T11:24:58.694Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

27 - Gustav Radbruch’s Critique of Legal Positivism

from Part VI - Critique

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 January 2021

By
Martin Borowski
Edited by
Torben Spaak  and
Patricia Mindus
Torben Spaak
Affiliation:
Stockholms Universitet
Patricia Mindus
Affiliation:
Uppsala Universitet, Sweden
Get access

Summary

Borowski argues that Radbruch’s very important criticism against legal positivism is to be found not in his writings on legal positivism but in his own legal philosophy, especially the so-called Radbruch formula; that the Radbruch formula entails a rejection of the separation thesis on both the level of the criteria for the identification of valid legal norms and the level of the nature of law; and that Radbruch’s explicit claim that legal positivism was to blame for the situation in Germany is unconvincing because the Nazis did not, as a matter of fact, hold that law is law and should be applied according to its plain meaning in all circumstances, but were actually willing to apply a statute contrary to its wording if this suited their purposes.

Keywords

Gustav Radbruchbasal criterionvalid lawmoralityrelativism
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Companion to Legal Positivism , pp. 627 - 650
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alexy, R. 1992. Begriff und Geltung des Rechts. Alber.Google Scholar
Alexy, R. 1997. Der Beschluß des Bundesverfassungsgerichts zu den Tötungen an der innerdeutschen Grenze vom 24. Oktober 1996. Jungius.Google Scholar
Alexy, R. 1999. ‘A Defence of Radbruch’s Formula’. In Dyzenhaus, D. (ed.). Recrafting the Rule of Law: The Limits of Legal Order. Hart: 15–39.Google Scholar
Alexy, R. 2002. The Argument from Injustice: A Reply to Legal Positivism. Trans. Paulson, B. Litschewski and Paulson, S. L.. Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Alexy, R. 2008. ‘On the Nature and the Concept of Law’. Ratio Juris 21: 281–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexy, R. 2018. ‘Gustav Radbruchs Rechtsbegriff’. In von Arnauld, A., Augsberg, I. and Meyer-Pritzl, R. (eds.). 350 Jahre Rechtswissenschaftliche Fakultät der Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel. Mohr Siebeck: 237–49.Google Scholar
Baratta, A. 1959. ‘Relativismus und Naturrecht im Denken Gustav Radbruchs’. Archives for Philosophy of Law and Social Philosophy 45: 505–37.Google Scholar
Bix, B. 2011. ‘Radbruch’s Formula and Conceptual Analysis’. American Journal of Jurisprudence 56: 45–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borowski, M. 2015. ‘Begriff und Geltung des Rechts bei Gustav Radbruch’. In Borowski, M. and Paulson, S. L. (eds.). Die Natur des Rechts bei Gustav Radbruch. Mohr Siebeck: 229–65.Google Scholar
Borowski, M. 2018. Grundrechte als Prinzipien. 3rd ed. Nomos.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borowski, M. 2019. ‘Radbruch’s Formula and Human Rights’. In La Torre, M., Niglia, L. and Susi, M. (eds.). The Quest for Rights. Edward Elgar: 27–48.Google Scholar
Dreier, H. 1997. ‘Gustav Radbruch und die Mauerschützen’. Juristenzeitung 52: 421–34.Google Scholar
Dreier, H. 2015. ‘Die Radbruchsche Formel – Erkenntnis oder Bekenntnis?’. In Borowski, M. and Paulson, S. L. (eds.). Die Natur des Rechts bei Gustav Radbruch. Mohr Siebeck: 1–22.Google Scholar
Dreier, R. 1981. ‘Bemerkungen zur Rechtserkenntnistheorie’. In Aarnio, A., Niiniluoto, I. and Uusitalo, J. (eds.). Methodologie und Erkenntnistheorie der juristischen Argumentation. Duncker & Humblot: 89–105.Google Scholar
Dreier, R. 1993. ‘Gesetzliches Unrecht im SED-Staat? Am Beispiel des DDR-Grenzgesetzes’. In Haft, F. et al. (eds.). Strafgerechtigkeit. Festschrift für Arthur Kaufmann. C.F. Müller: 57–92.Google Scholar
Dreier, R. 2011. ‘Gustav Radbruchs Rechtsbegriff’. In Mahlmann, M. (ed.). Gesellschaft und Gerechtigkeit. Festschrift für Hubert Rottleuthner. Nomos: 17–44.Google Scholar
Dreier, R. 2015. ‘Kontinuitäten und Diskontinuitäten in der Rechtsphilosophie Radbruchs’. In Borowski, M. and Paulson, S. L. (eds.). Die Natur des Rechts bei Gustav Radbruch. Mohr Siebeck: 183–228.Google Scholar
Dyzenhaus, D. 2010. Hard Cases in Wicked Legal Systems. 2nd ed. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Engisch, K. 1949–50. ‘Gustav Radbruch als Rechtsphilosoph’. Archives for Philosophy of Law and Social Philosophy 38: 305–16.Google Scholar
Evers, H.-U. 1956. Der Richter und das unsittliche Gesetz. De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Funke, A. 2003. ‘Überlegungen zu Gustav Radbruchs “Verleugnungsformel”’. Archives for Philosophy of Law and Social Philosophy 89: 1–16.Google Scholar
Haldemann, F. 2005. ‘Gustav Radbruch vs. Hans Kelsen: A Debate on Nazi Law’. Ratio Juris 18: 162–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hart, H. L. A. 1958. ‘Positivism and the Separation of Law and Morals’. Harvard Law Review 74: 593–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoerster, N. 2006. Was ist Recht? C.H. Beck.Google Scholar
Kant, I. 1996. ‘The Conflict of the Faculties’. Trans. Gregor, M. J. and Anchor, R.. In Wood, A. W., di Giovanni, G. and Kant, I. (eds.). Religion and Rational Theology. Cambridge University Press: 233–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kant, I. [1797]1999. Metaphysical Elements of Justice. First part of the Metaphysics of Morals. Trans. Ladd, J.. 2nd ed. Hackett.Google Scholar
Kelsen, H. 1945. General Theory of Law and State. Trans. Wedberg, A.. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Kelsen, H. [1961]1967. Pure Theory of Law. Trans. Knight, M.. University of California Press.Google Scholar
Kelsen, H. [1934]1992. Introduction to the Problems of Legal Theory. Trans. Paulson, B. Litschewski and Paulson, S. L.. Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Müller, I. 1991. Hitler’s Justice: The Courts of the Third Reich. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Neumann, U. 2007. ‘Naturrecht und Positivismus im Denken Gustav Radbruchs. Kontinuitäten und Diskontinuitäten’. In Härle, W. and Vogel, B. (eds.). Vom Rechte, das mit uns geboren ist. Aktuelle Probleme des Naturrechts. Herder: 11–32.Google Scholar
Neumann, U. 2015. ‘Zum Verhältnis von Rechtsgeltung und Rechtsbegriff’. In Borowski, M. and Paulson, S. L. (eds.). Die Natur des Rechts bei Gustav Radbruch. Mohr Siebeck: 129–49.Google Scholar
Paulson, S. L. 2006. ‘On the Background and Significance of Gustav Radbruch’s Post-War Papers’. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 26: 17–40.Google Scholar
Paulson, S. L. 2008. ‘Ein ewiger Mythos: Gustav Radbruch als Rechtspositivist’. Juristenzeitung 63: 105–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paulson, S. L. 2015. ‘Zur Kontinuität der nichtpositivistischen Rechtsphilosophie Gustav Radbruchs’. In Borowski, M. and Paulson, S. L. (eds.). Die Natur des Rechts bei Gustav Radbruch. Mohr Siebeck: 151–82.Google Scholar
Radbruch, G. [1914]1993 (RGA vol. 2). Grundzüge der Rechtsphilosophie. Quelle & Meyer. Reprinted in Kaufmann, A. and Radbruch, G. (eds.). Gesamtausgabe or Collected Works vol. 2: Rechtsphilosophie II. C.F. Müller: 9–204.Google Scholar
Radbruch, G. 1924. ‘Die Problematik der Rechtsidee’. Die Dioskuren. Jahrbuch für Geisteswissenschaften 3: 43–50. Reprinted in RGA vol. 2: 460–7.Google Scholar
Radbruch, G. [1932]1973. Rechtsphilosophie. Eds. Wolf, E. and Schneider, H.-P.. 8th ed. Koehler. Reprinted in RGA vol. 2: 206–450.Google Scholar
Radbruch, G. [1932]1950. ‘Legal Philosophy’. Trans. Wilk, K.. In Wilk, K. (ed.). The Legal Philosophies of Lask, Radbruch, and Dabin. Harvard University Press: 47–224.Google Scholar
Radbruch, G. 1934. ‘Le Relativisme dans la Philosophie du Droit’. Archives de Philosophie du Droit et de Sociologie Juridique 4: 105–10.Google Scholar
Radbruch, G. 1937–8. ‘Le But du Droit’. Annuaire de l’Institut de Philosophie du Droit et de Sociologie: 48–59.Google Scholar
Radbruch, G. 1945. ‘Fünf Minuten Rechtsphilosophie’. Rhein-Neckar-Zeitung from 12 September. Reprinted in RGA vol. 3: 78–9.Google Scholar
Radbruch, G. 1946. ‘Gesetzliches Unrecht und übergesetzliches Recht’. Süddeutsche Juristenzeitung 1: 105–8. Reprinted in RGA vol. 3: 83–93.Google Scholar
Radbruch, G. 1947. ‘Gesetz und Recht’. Stuttgarter Rundschau January: 5–6. Reprinted in RGA vol. 3: 96–100.Google Scholar
Radbruch, G. 1948. Vorschule der Rechtsphilosophie. Schubert, H. and Stoltzenburg, J. (eds.). Scherer. Reprinted in RGA vol. 3: 121–227.Google Scholar
Radbruch, G. [1934]1957. ’Der Relativismus in der Rechtsphilosophie’. In Radbruch, G.. Der Mensch im Recht. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: 80–7. Reprinted in RGA vol. 3: 17–22.Google Scholar
Radbruch, G. [1937]1957. ‘Der Zweck des Rechts’. In Radbruch, G.. Der Mensch im Recht. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: 88–104. Reprinted in RGA vol. 3: 39–50.Google Scholar
Radbruch, G. 1999. ‘Nachwort-Entwurf’. In Dreier, R. and Paulson, S. L. (eds.). Rechtsphilosophie. Studienausgabe. C.F. Müller: 193–208. Reprinted in RGA vol. 2: 25–39.Google Scholar
Radbruch, G. 2003. Rechtsphilosophische Tagesfragen. Eds. Adachi, H. and Teifke, N.. Nomos.Google Scholar
Radbruch, G. 2006a. ‘Five Minutes of Legal Philosophy’. Trans. Paulson, B. Litschewski and Paulson, S. L.. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 26: 13–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radbruch, G. 2006b. ‘Statutory Lawlessness and Supra-Statutory Law’. Trans. Paulson, B. Litschewski and Paulson, S.L.. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 26: 1–11.Google Scholar
Schröder, J. 2005. ‘Gab es im deutschen Kaiserreich einen Gesetzespositivismus?’. In Baumann, W. et al. (eds.). Gesetz, Recht, Rechtsgeschichte. Festschrift für Gerhard Otte. Sellier: 571–9.Google Scholar
Seidel, K. 1999. Rechtsphilosophische Aspekte der ‘Mauerschützen’-Prozesse. Duncker & Humblot.Google Scholar
Spaak, T. 2009. ‘Meta-ethics and Legal Theory: The Case of Gustav Radbruch’. Law and Philosophy 28: 261–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waldron, J. 1996. ‘Kant’s Legal Positivism’. Harvard Law Review 109: 1535–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiegandt, M.-A. 2004. Unrichtiges Recht. Mohr Siebeck.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×