Universal Legal Concepts? A Criticism of “General” Legal Theory

Abstract. General theory of law (general jurisprudence, allgemeine Rechtslehre) has often claimed to deal with general or universal concepts, i.e., concepts which are deemed to be common to any legal system whatsoever. At any rate, this is the classic determination of such a field of study as provided by John Austin in the nineteenth century—a determination, however, which deserves careful analysis. In what sense, indeed, can one assert that some legal concepts are common to different legal systems? And, above all, in what sense can one assert that some concepts are common to different languages and cultures? My paper sets out to discuss such questions—although, obviously, they are too complicated to be answered in a single paper. The first section reconstructs the Austinian argument for general jurisprudence by placing it in its historical context. The second section tries to apply to legal concepts some suggestions derived from the contemporary debate on conceptual relativism. The third section, returning to the Austinian problem, comes to the following conclusion: Even if conceptual relativism were true and there were no general or universal legal concepts, this would not invalidate in any way the didactic and scientific value of (general) theory of law.     

“Critical Empiricism” in American Legal Studies: Paradox,Program, or Pandora's Box?

This essay was originally presented at the Conference on American and German Traditions of Sociological Jurisprudence and Critical Legal Thought organized by the Center for European Legal Policy, Bremen, Federal Republic of Germany, July 10-12, 1986. Subsequent versions were discussed at the Department of Sociology, Northwestern University (February 1987) and the Workshop on Legal Theory at the University of Virginia Law School (March 1987). Comments by participants at these events, members of the Amherst Seminar, Boaventura Santos, Kristin Bumiller, and G. Edward White are gratefully acknowledged. An earlier version of the paper appears in Joerges & Trubek, eds., Critical Legal Thought in Germany and America: A German-American Debate (Baden-Baden: NOMOS, 1989).     

“Bubbles”—A Spot Diagnosis

Abstract: Aspiration of blood is a phenomenon observed in violent and natural death scenarios. Bloodstain patterns evolving from expectoration of aspired blood may look suspicious of a violent genesis and thus mislead crime scene investigators. In the present case, a woman was found lying in a pool of blood on the kitchen floor. Furthermore, bloodstains covered her face, clothing, and surrounding furniture and walls. Bloodstain pattern analysis and medicolegal inspection of the suspected scene of crime were carried out and revealed dispersed stains with enclosed gas bubbles in the absence of signs of physical violence leading to the assessment of a natural manner of death. The bloodstains were attributed to expiration of blood because of an internal bleeding. Medicolegal autopsy confirmed the on‐site diagnosis as a fatal esophageal varix rupture was found.     

WHEN “WHAT WORKS” NEVER DID: DODGING THE “SCARLET M” IN CORRECTIONAL REHABILITATION

相似文献