Abstract

Abstract This chapter responds to David Dyzenhaus's critique of legal positivism. Dyzenhaus fails to attend to a number of important distinctions among different varieties of legal positivism, and he ascribes to legal positivists various objectives which no legal positivist in fact pursues.

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.