What do you think?
Rate this book
The Hart-Fuller Debate in the Twenty-First Century
This book presents the papers and comments on those papers delivered at a colloquium held at the Australian National University in December 2008 to celebrate 50 years since the publication in the Harvard Law Review of the famous and wide-ranging debate between HLA Hart and Lon L Fuller. These essays do not to re-run that debate and they are not confined to discussion of the jurisprudential issues canvassed by Hart and Fuller. Rather they pick up on strands in the debate and re-think them in the light of social, political and intellectual developments in the past 50 years and changed ways of understanding law and other normative systems. This collection looks forward rather than backward using the debate as a point of departure and inspiration.
360 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2010
1 person is currently reading
8 people want to read
About the author
Peter Cane
45 books1 followerLibrarian Note: There is more than one author in the Goodreads database with this name.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
May 20, 2019
This book basically is a collection of essays written by bunch of professors to present at a colloquium held in 2008.
Someone who sees the title and finds the book intriguing enough to start reading must already has (at least) a basic opinion about the contrast between legal formalism and positive law. Peter Cane claims that the book’s aim was not to rerun this famous debate, rather the plan was to rethink it in the light of progress we made on the legal theory field in the past 50 years. This blurb was actually the main reason I started reading this. It even had the potential to be revolutionist for me in some ways, but tbh I am a bit disappointed. Almost every argument stated in the book can be defined as conservative and some of them were even refuted years ago. Excluding the 7th essay written by Jeremy Waldron and the 13th one written by Philip Pettit, this book didn’t help me to gain a different point of view on the subject as I hoped it would. For anyone who has some core knowledge about legal thinking, reading 'The Concept of Law' by HLA Hart and 'The Morality of Law' by Fuller will be enough to interpret the teories and reach a valid conclusion about them.
Someone who sees the title and finds the book intriguing enough to start reading must already has (at least) a basic opinion about the contrast between legal formalism and positive law. Peter Cane claims that the book’s aim was not to rerun this famous debate, rather the plan was to rethink it in the light of progress we made on the legal theory field in the past 50 years. This blurb was actually the main reason I started reading this. It even had the potential to be revolutionist for me in some ways, but tbh I am a bit disappointed. Almost every argument stated in the book can be defined as conservative and some of them were even refuted years ago. Excluding the 7th essay written by Jeremy Waldron and the 13th one written by Philip Pettit, this book didn’t help me to gain a different point of view on the subject as I hoped it would. For anyone who has some core knowledge about legal thinking, reading 'The Concept of Law' by HLA Hart and 'The Morality of Law' by Fuller will be enough to interpret the teories and reach a valid conclusion about them.
Displaying 1 of 1 review