Legal Positivist

Context:
- They can (typically) support a Legal Positivist Position (and oppose a natural law position or a legal realist position).
- They can (typically) be associated with the belief that Legal Systems and Moral Systems are separable.
- They can (typically) argue for a clear distinction between Law-As-It-Is and Law-As-It-Should-Be.
- They can (often) emphasize that the validity of a law can be determined by its source rather than its content.
- They can (often) reject the idea that there are Inherent Rights or Natural Rights independent of codified legal rights.
- ...
Example(s):
- Jeremy Bentham: Advocated for the codification of laws based on the principle of utility.
- John Austin: Defined law as a command issued by the uncommanded commander.
- H.L.A. Hart: Distinguished between primary and secondary rules and emphasized the separation of law and morality.
- Joseph Raz: Emphasized the idea of legal authority and its essential nature in the understanding of law.
- ...
Counter-Example(s):
- Ronald Dworkin: Argued against the positivist distinction between law and morality and promoted the idea of law as integrity.
- A Natural Law Theorist: believe that there's an inherent moral order to the universe, and laws should be based on this moral order.
- A Legal Realist.
- ...
See: Moral Positivist, Political Positivist, Natural Law Theory, Jurisprudence.

References

(Hart, 1961) ⇒ H.L.A. Hart. (1961). “The Concept of Law.”
- NOTE: Detailed discussions on the fundamental principles of legal positivism.

(Austin, 1832) ⇒ John Austin. (1832). “The Province of Jurisprudence Determined.”
- NOTE: Austin's seminal work laying down the framework for legal positivism.