Skip to main content
Log in


Legal dogmatics in Continental European law (scientia iuris, Rechtswissenschaft) consists of professional legal writings whose task is to systematize and interpret valid law. Legal dogmatics pursues knowledge of the existing law, yet in many cases it leads to a change of the law. Among general theories of legal dogmatics, one may mention the theories of negligence, intent, adequate causation and ownership. The theories produce principles and they also produce defeasible rules. By means of production of general and defeasible theories, legal dogmatics aims at obtaining a system of law that is both internally coherent and harmonized with its background in morality and (political) philosophy. Legal dogmatics is necessary in the context of constitutional constraints on the majority rule. Only if the courts act on the basis of Reason they can be a legitimate counterpart of the majority rule. And Reason cannot be exhausted by particular decision making. It also needs a more abstract deliberation, given by expert jurists. However, legal dogmatics has been a target of several kinds of criticism: empirical, morally-political, epistemological, logical, and ontological. The position taken in this article is to answer such criticism by mutually adjusting philosophy and the practices of the law.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions


  • Aarnio, A., Reason and Authority. A Treatise on the Dynamic Paradigm of Legal Dogmatics. Aldershot e.a.: Ashgate/ Dartmouth, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexy, R., Theorie der Grundrechte. Baden-Baden: Nomos (Frankfurt/M. 1986: Suhrkamp), 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexy, R., Basic Rights and Democracy in Jürgen Habermas's Procedural Paradigm of the Law. Ratio Juris 7 (1994).

  • Alexy, R., On the Structure of Legal Principles. Ratio Juris (2000).

  • Alexy, R. and Peczenik, A., The concept of coherence and its significance for discursive rationality, Ratio Juris 3(1) (1990).

  • Andersson, H., Skyddsändamål och adekvans. Uppsala: Justus, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  • Castañeda, H.-N., On Philosophical Method. Indianapolis: Nous Publications, 1980.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J., Deliberation and Democratic Legitimacy, in R.E. Goodin and P. Pettit (eds), Contemporary Political Philosophy, Reprinted in 1997. Blackwell Philosophy Anthologies, 1989.

  • Dahlman, C., Good Coherence and Bad Coherence. Associations (2000).

  • Dworkin, ??., Taking Rights Seriously. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1977.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eckhoff, T., Rettskildelaere. 3 uppl. Oslo: Tano, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ekelöf, P.O., Teleological Construction of Statutes, Scandinavian Studies in Law 2 (1958).

  • Gutmann, A. and Thompson, D., Why deliberative democracy is different? Social Philosophy & Policy 17(1) (2000).

  • Habermas, J., Faktizität und Geltung. Beiträge zur Diskurstheorie des Rechts und des demokratischen Rechtsstaats. Frankfurt/M: Suhrkamp. Cit. from 4 ed. Darmstadt 1994: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hage, J.C., Reasoning with Rules. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hage, J.C. and A. Peczenik, Law, Morality and Defeasibility, Ratio Juris (2000).

  • Hare, R.M., Moral Thinking. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1981.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kagan, S., The Limits of Morality. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larenz, K., Methodenlehre der Rechtswissenschaft. 5 ed. Berlin Heidelberg New York Tokyo: Springer-Verlag, 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehrberg, B., Förutsättningsläran. Uppsala, 1989.

  • Lehrer, K., Coherence and the Truth Connection: A reply to my critics. I: Bender (red.) The Current State of the Coherence Theory. Dordrecht/ Boston/ London: Kluwer, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehrer, K., Theory of Knowledge. London: Routledge, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehrer, K., Self-Trust. A Study of Reason, Knowledge, and Autonomy. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindahl, L., An algebraic analysis of normative systems, Ratio Juris (2000).

  • Malt, G.-F., To glemte linjer i tradisjonell rettsfinningslaere. Tidsskrift for Rettsvitenskap.

  • Nicander, Hans. 1995/96. Lojalitetsplikt före, under och efter avtalsförhållanden, Juridisk Tidskrift (1992).

  • Peczenik, A., Causes and Damages. Lund: Juridiska föreningen, 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peczenik, A., On Law and Reason. Dordrecht / Boston / London: Kluwer, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peczenik, A., Vad är rätt. Stockholm: Norstedts, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peczenik, A., Jumps and Logic in the Law, in H. Prakken and G. Sartor (eds), Logical Models of Legal Argumentation. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1997, pp. 141–174.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peczenik, A., 1) A Coherence Theory of Juristic Knowledge. 2) Second Thought on Coherence and Juristic Knowledge, in A. Aarnio, R. Alexy, A. Peczenik, W. Rabinowicz and J. Wolenski (eds), Coherence Theory of Law. Lund: Juristförlaget, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peczenik, A., Värdenihilismen och den konstruktiva juridiken, Juridisk Tidsskrift (1999).

  • Pollock, J.L., Contemporary Theories of Knowledge. Rowman & Littlefield, 1986.

  • Posner, R., Utilitarianism, Economics, and Legal Theory, 8 Journal of Legal Studies 103 (1979).

  • Posner, R., The Ethical and Political Basis of the Efficiency Norm in Common Law Adjudication, 8 Hofstra Law Review 487, (1980).

  • Posner, R., The Problems of Jurisprudence. Harvard University Press, 1990.

  • Prakken, H. and Sartor, G., Logical Models of Legal Argumentation. Dordrecht e.a.: Kluwer, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rabinowicz, W., Peczenik's Passionate Reason. I, in A. Aarnio, R. Alexy, A. Peczenik, W. Rabinowicz and J. Wolenski (eds), Coherence Theory of Law. Lund: Juristförlaget, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raz, J., Practical Reason and Norms. London: Hutchinson, 1975.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raz, J., The Authority of Law; Essays on Law and Morality. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raz, J., Ethics in the Public Domain. Essays in the Morality of Law and Politics. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reidhav, D., Utilitas et Pactum et Industria. Lund: Mimeographed, 1998.

  • Rodhe, K., Gränsbestämning och äganderättstvist. Lund, 1944.

  • Rodhe, K., Allmän privaträtt-avtalsrätt-obligationsrätt, SvJT (1971).

  • Ross, A., On Law and Justice. London: Stevens, 1958.

    Google Scholar 

  • Savigny, F.C., System des heutigen römischen Rechts. Berlin: Band 1, 1840.

  • Savigny, F.C., Vorlesungen über juristische Methodologie 1802–1842. Herausgegeben und eingeleitet von Aldo Mazzacane. Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio Klostermann, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schauer, F., Playing by the rules. A Philosophical Examination of Rule-Based Decision Making in Law and in Life. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simmonds, N.E., in M.H. Kramer, N.E. Simmonds and H. Steiner (eds), A Debate over Rights. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spector, H.M., Self-Ownership and Efficiency, in Justice, Morality and Society. A Tribute to Aleksander Peczenik. Lund: Juristförlaget, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wedberg, A., Some Problems in the Logical Analysis of Legal Science. Theoria (1951.)

  • Wolenski, J., Coherence and Knowledge. I, in A. Aarnio, R. Alexy, A. Peczenik, W. Rabinowicz and J. Wolenski (eds), Coherence Theory of Law. Lund: Juristförlaget, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wróblewski, J., The Judicial Application of Law.Dordrecht-Boston-London: Kluwer, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zitting, S., An Attempt to Analyse the Owner's Legal Position, Scandinavian Studies in Law 3, 1959.

Download references


Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Peczenik, A. Scientia Iuris - An Unsolved Philosophical Problem. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 3, 273–302 (2000).

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: