Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-qxdb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T14:36:13.234Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Democratic Intellect and the law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

Neil MacCormick
Neil MacCormick*
Affiliation:
University of Edinburgh
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The occasion of the publication of a survey of jurisprudence teaching in the law schools of the United Kingdom is a good occasion for reflecting upon the point of jurisprudence teaching in a law school. There are indeed other good occasions for such reflection, and in fact this paper was initially prepared for such an other occasion. By the invitation of the Editor, it now appears in this Journal in revised form as an outrider to Barnett and Yach's survey ofjurisprudence teaching in the United Kingdom.

One cannot but compliment the authors on the thoroughness of their survey work and on the richness of detail of their report. This comment will not seek to rival that richness.

Type
Research Article
Information
Legal Studies , Volume 5 , Issue 2 , July 1985 , pp. 172 - 182
Copyright
Copyright © Society of Legal Scholars 1985

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

1. The original version of this paper was presented as the Presidential Address to the Society of Public Teachers of Law at its Annual Conference in Edinburgh on 19 September 1984. The present version has been substantially revised in style (though not much in substance) under the helpful, and gratefully received, advice of the Editor and of Professor William Twining and Mr Zenon Bankowski.

4. Davie, G. E. The Democratic Intellect (Edinburgh, 1961)Google Scholar.

3. Davie, Op tit, pp 105–126 Google Scholar; at p 120 for the quotation below from Hamilton.

4. See Davie, op cit, pp 47–55, 81–82Google Scholar and compare MacCormick, ‘The Idea of Liberty: Some Reflections on Lorimer's Institutes’, in Hope, V. (ed) Philosophies of the Scottish Enlightenment (Edinburgh, 1984), pp 233–248 Google Scholar, for a view of Lorimer's contribution to legal philosophy.

5. See Roger Scruton, ‘Laying Down the Law’ The Times, 20 December 1983; also The Times (letters), 27 December 1983 (Lawton LJ), 18 January 1984 (N. MacCormick).

6. See Detmold, M. J. The Unity of Lam and Morality (London, 1983), pp 89–90 Google Scholar.

7. Simpson, A. W. B. ‘The Common Law and Legal Theory’, in Simpson, (ed) Oxford Essays in Jurisprudence, Second Series (Oxford, 1973), pp 77–100 Google Scholar.

8. W. L. Twining Evidence and Legal Theory’ (1984) 47 MLR, 261–283 at 266.

9. See Hägerström, A. Inquiries into the Nature of Law and Morals (Stockholm, 1953)Google Scholar; Olivecrona, K. Law as Fact (especially 1st edn, London, 1939; 2nd edn, London, 1971)Google Scholar; Cain, M. and Hunt, A. Marx and Engels on Law (London, 1979)Google Scholar; Collins, H. Marxism and Law (Oxford, 1982)Google Scholar.

10. See MacCormick, D. N. and Weinberger, O. Grundlagen des Institutionalistischen Rechtspositivismus (Berlin, 1985)Google Scholar, to be published next year in English as An Institutional Theory of Law: New Approaches to Legal Positivism (Dordrecht, 1986); MacCormick ‘Law as Institutional Fact’ (1974) 90 LQR 102–129; G. E. M. Anscombe, ‘On Brute Facts’, (1958) 18 Analysis 6S72; Searle, J. R. Speech Acts (Cambridge, 1969) pp 50–53 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11. See Lyons, David Ethics and the Rule of Low (Cambridge, 1984), chs 1–3Google Scholar.

12. CJ Weinberger ‘Facts and Fact-Descriptions’ in MacCorrnick and Weinberger, op cit above n 10, ch 3.

13. See Tur, R. H. S. ‘What is Jurisprudence?’ (1978) Philosophical Quarterly 148–161 Google Scholar.

14. See MacCormick, H. L. A. Hart (London, 1981), ch 2–4 Google Scholar; and cf V. Villa ‘Legal Science between Natural and Human Sciences’ (1984) 4 LS, 251–273 at 264–268.

15. See MacCormick ‘Contemporary Legal Philosophy: the Rediscovery of Practical Reason’ (1983) 10 JLS 1–18.

16. (London, 1976), especially at pp 1–6, 49–72.

17. 2nd Edn, London, 1978.

18. See Simmonds, N. E. The Decline of Juridical Reason (Manchester, 1984)Google Scholar.

19. See MacCormick, ‘The Rational Discipline of Law’ (1981) Jur. Rev., 146–160.