Check out Brian Bix on Raz, Methodology in Jurisprudence, just posted on Jotwell. Here is a taste:
-
Even assuming that Raz (and Hart, and others) are correct that the proper focus of legal theory is conceptual analysis (and, as earlier noted, there are doubters, including prominently, Brian Leiter, e.g., here (2007)), other questions remain that Raz’s article does not get to. How can we tell whether “we” have one concept of law or more than one? If there is more than one, should the theorist select just one, and if so, on what grounds should a selection be made? Finally, if theories of law are just efforts to elaborate our concept(s) of law, why do theorists commonly act as if something more important is at stake? Are they simply mistaken?