Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

What Positivism?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Judges Against Justice

  • 1596 Accesses

Abstract

How could the reference to positivism survive for so long as an explanation of the readiness of German judges to accommodate the oppression and tyranny of the Nazi regime? First of all, “positivism” was used in an undefined manner without a clear concept of “legal positivism” and with emphasis on different things. Radbruch equals the situation of the judiciary with the situation in the army: in the army, the slogan was “an order is an order”; in the administration of justice, it was “a law is (a) law” (Gesetz ist Gesetz). But what conception of legal positivism lies behind such a conception of law?

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Both the case and the comments are published in Juristische Wochenschrift 1934, pp. 1744–1747.

  2. 2.

    Scheuner (1934), p. 190.

  3. 3.

    See Mahmud (1994), pp. 110–113.

  4. 4.

    Paulson (1994).

  5. 5.

    See Rüthers (2012), p. 277.

  6. 6.

    Trial of the Major War Criminals before the International Military Tribunal, Nuremberg 14 November 1945–1 October 1946, vol. 17, p. 489.

  7. 7.

    The Justice Trial, p. 1012.

  8. 8.

    Schmitt (1934), col. 947.

  9. 9.

    Scheuner (1934), p. 202.

  10. 10.

    Hart (1957).

  11. 11.

    Hart (1957), p. 603.

  12. 12.

    Ott and Buob (1997), p. 462.

  13. 13.

    See Paulson (1994).

  14. 14.

    Rüthers (2012), p. 95.

  15. 15.

    See Paulson (1994), p. 325.

  16. 16.

    See Fraenkel (1941), p. 110.

  17. 17.

    Scheuner (1934), p. 203.

  18. 18.

    See Maus (1989), pp. 80–103.

  19. 19.

    See also the summary by Hattenhauer (1989), p. 26.

  20. 20.

    Hart (1957), pp. 610–613.

  21. 21.

    Rüthers (2012), p. 505.

  22. 22.

    Hart (1957), p. 607.

  23. 23.

    Dyzenhaus (2010), pp. 174–175.

  24. 24.

    Rotberg (1947).

  25. 25.

    Oppler (1947).

  26. 26.

    Behrends (1989), p. 38.

  27. 27.

    See pp. 98–100 above.

  28. 28.

    See Hempfer (1974), p. 103.

References

  • Behrends O (1989) Von der Freirechtsbewegung zum konkreten Ordnungs- und Gestaltdenken. In: Dreier R, Sellert W (eds) Recht und Justiz im “Dritten Reich”. Surkamp, Frankfurt am Main, p 38

    Google Scholar 

  • Dyzenhaus D (2010) Hard cases in wicked legal systems pathologies of legality, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Fraenkel E (1941) The dual state a contribution to the theory of dictatorship. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart HLA (1957) Positivism and the separation of law and morals. Harv Law Rev 71:593–629

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hattenhauer H (1989) Wandlung des Richterleitbildes. Im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert. In: Dreier R, Sellert W (eds) Recht und Justiz im “Dritten Reich”. Surkamp, Frankfurt am Main

    Google Scholar 

  • Hempfer W (1974) Die nationalsozialistische Staatsauffassung in der Rechtsprechung des Preußischen Oberverwaltungsgerichts. Dunker & Humblot, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mahmud T (1994) Jurisprudence of successful treason: Coup d’Etat and common law. Cornell Int Law J 27:49–140

    Google Scholar 

  • Maus I (1989) “Gesetzesbindung” der Justiz und die Struktur der nationalsozialistischen Rechtsnormen. In: Dreier R, Sellert W (eds) Recht und Justiz im “Dritten Reich”. Surkamp, Frankfurt am Main, pp 80–103

    Google Scholar 

  • Oppler K (1947) Justiz und Politik. Deutsche Rechts-Zeitschrift 2:323–326

    Google Scholar 

  • Ott W, Buob F (1997) Did legal positivism render German jurists defenceless during the Third Reich? In: DeCoste FC, Schwartz B (eds) The Holocaust’s ghost: writings on art, politics, law and education. University of Alberta Press, Edmonton

    Google Scholar 

  • Paulson SL (1994) Lon L. Fuller, Gustav Radbruch and the “Positivist” theses. Law Philos 13:313–359

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rotberg HE (1947) Entpolitisierung der Rechtspflege. Deutsche Rechts-Zeitschrift 107–110

    Google Scholar 

  • Rüthers B (2012) Die unbegrenzte Auslegung: Zum Wandel der Privatrechtsordnung im Nationalsozialismus 7. Ausg. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheuner U (1934) Die nationale Revolution Eine Staatsrechtliche Untersuchung. Archiv des Öffentlichen Rechts 166–220

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt C (1934) Der Führer schützt das Recht zur Reichstagsrede Adolf Hitlers vom 13. Juli 1934. Deutsche Juristen-Zeitung, col. 945–950

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

    Hans Petter Graver

Authors
  1. Hans Petter Graver
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Graver, H.P. (2015). What Positivism?. In: Judges Against Justice. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-44293-7_15

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation