Show simple item record

dc.creatorHimma, Einar Kenneth
dc.date.accessioned2024-05-21T10:56:19Z
dc.date.available2024-05-21T10:56:19Z
dc.date.issued2012
dc.identifier.issn0003-2565
dc.identifier.urihttps://ralf.ius.bg.ac.rs/handle/123456789/1550
dc.description.abstractThe concept of legal obligation is utterly central to legal practice. But positivism lacks a comprehensive account of legal obligation, focusing only on the second-order recognition obligations of officials with no account of the first-order legal obligations of citizen. As legal obligations are conceptually related to legally valid norms, this failure calls into question positivism’s theory of legal validity. In this essay, I develop Hart’s account of social obligation and supplement his account of the second-order legal obligations of official qua official with an account of the first-order obligations of citizens. The latter is constituted, I argue, by social pressure in the form of the authorization of the state’s coercive machinery for non-compliance.en
dc.rightsopenAccess
dc.sourceAnali Pravnog fakulteta u Beogradu
dc.subjectlegal positivismen
dc.subjectlegal obligationen
dc.subjectenforcementen
dc.subjectcoercionen
dc.titleCoercive enforcement and a positivist theory of legal obligationen
dc.typearticle
dc.rights.licenseCC BY
dc.citation.epage242
dc.citation.issue3
dc.citation.other60(3): 216-242
dc.citation.rankM24
dc.citation.spage216
dc.citation.volume60
dc.identifier.rcubconv_3101
dc.type.versionpublishedVersion


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record