8/7/2019 PDF Vol 12 No 02 599-600 Positivism Special Preface FINAL

1/2

SpecialIssueTheManyFatesofLegalPositivism

PrefaceTheManyFatesofLegalPositivismByOttoPfersmann,AndrsJakab&JrgenBusch*

Probablythemostinterestingdebateinlegaltheoryofthe20thcentury,thedebateabout

legalpositivism, isappearingtofadeaway. Thecontributionstothisspecial issueaimto

analyzethequestionastowhythis ishappening. Weaskedtheauthorstoconsiderthe

followinghypotheses,whicharepartlycontradicting:

(1)Positivism is(orwas)onlyananswertothehistoricalchallengesof industrial

societiesand thenation state. In the21st century, itsplausibilityhas seriously

diminished.

(2) The theoretical landscape has become so diversified (there are so many

different strands of positivism) that themere denotation of a legal theorist as

positivistdoesnotsaymuchabouthimorher. Apositivistandanatural lawyer

canbenearer toeachother inmostof the jurisprudentialquestions, than two

legalpositivistsofdifferentstrandsoflegalpositivism.

(3)Everyargumenthasalreadybeenstated inthedebate,sowekeeprepeating

ourselves (andour respective theoreticalancestors). So, it isnot irrelevant,but

simplyboring.

(4)Positivismhasprovedtobeaplausibleexplanationonthestructureoflaw,but

itcannotexplainsatisfactorilythephenomenonofadjudication. So,thoughnot

false, it is just irrelevant to most of the questions that really matter for

jurisprudence. Itsexplanatoryforceistoolimited.

(5) Legal positivism is based on epistemological assumptions that are outdated

today (cf. esp. Putnam). Objective truthabout the law isnotpossible,asour

knowledge is necessarily based on improvable epistemological presumptions

(Quine).

*OttoPfersmannisProfessorinComparativeConstitutionalLawandLegalTheory,UniversityofParisIPanthon

Sorbonne. Email:otto.pfersmann@univparis1.fr. Andrs Jakab isAssociate Professor inConstitutional Law,

PzmnyPterCatholicUniversityBudapest. Email:ajakab@jak.ppke.hu. JrgenBusch isResearchFellow in

LegalTheory,UniversityofVienna. Email:juergen.busch@univie.ac.at.

8/7/2019 PDF Vol 12 No 02 599-600 Positivism Special Preface FINAL

2/2

[Vol.12No.02600 Ge rman L aw J ou rna l(6)Legalpositivismhas lostmuchof itsattractivenessbecausethe illusionof its

political/moralneutralityhasbeendestroyed. Theseparationoflawandmorality

isamoralchoiceitself.

The above listwas nevermeant to be a questionnaire, and the authors indeed took a

ratherliberalapproachinansweringouroriginalquestionsandtheydidsowebelieve

totheadvantageofthefinalresult. Partlybecauseofthis,andpartlybecause it isusual

withtopicsof legaltheoryanyway,wedidnotreachany finalconclusionsastowhether

theabovestatementsarejustfalsecommonplaces(andpositivistsconceptualizationshave

thus a good explanatory force on general legal questions), or whether the above

statementsareactuallyrealandunsolvableproblems,so legalpositivismbelongsonlyto

thehistoryoflegaltheory. Butwedefinitelythinkthatthereaderwillbeabletoforma

morefoundedopinionafterhavingreadthecontributions.

Thecontributionstothisspecial issuearemostlybasedonpaperspresentedataspecial

workshop of the 2009 IVRWorld Congress inBeijing organized by the present editors.

Fourcolleagueswere sokind tooffer theirparticipationexpost facto (NigelSimmonds,Mtys Bdig, Thomas Bustamante, Alexander Somek), and thus made our electronic

conference volumemore comprehensiveeven thoughwe know that the topicwehave

chosenoffersendlessissuestodiscuss.

Thecontributionsfollowinpairsfromwhichthesecondisalwaysacommentonthefirst

one. WearegratefultotheeditorsoftheGermanLawJournalforacceptingourproposal.WethankLisaGilesforherhelpineditingthecontributions.