Jurisprudence and Legal Theory I
This lecture will consider a range of issues in principles of law with particular emphasis on
various dimensions of the relationship between law and morality.
Requirements:
Students are required to read each week's assignments carefully and participate regularly in
discussions. In preparation for a session, one must very carefully read the assigned material.
Active participation in class discussions is expected. The course format will typically be a
combination of lecture and discussion, with discussion dominating. It will be a small class,
and there will be plenty of opportunity for close argument. On the other hand, inadequate
preparation or lack of attendance will make the experience excruciating. Each student must
make a presentation during the first term. This in-class presentation will be on one of the
general questions listed below. (Roughly ten to fifteen minutes long). You will be expected to
clear your topic at the end of the third week’s session. Your presentation must be discussing
one of the further questions but also dealing with the general questions.
COURSE SCHEDULE AND THE QUESTIONS OF EACH LECTURE
Questions 1st Lecture
General Question: What does “Jurisprudence” term mean?
Further questions:
What does “Philosophy of Law” term mean?
What is the “Jurisprudence” for?
What is the purpose of this class and what do you expect from it?
Questions 2nd Lecture
General Question: What is THE law?
Further questions:
What are the rules of social order that govern our social behavior?
What is the relationship between morality and law?
What is justice?
What is legal system?
What is legal theory about?
Readings 2nd Week
Mark Tebbit, Philosophy of Law An Introduction,2nd edition Routledge, 2005.
Title : 1 Morality, justice and natural law
Page: 3-14
Further Readings:
H. L. A. Hart, “Positivism and the Separation of Law and Morals” Reviewed work(s):.
Source: Harvard Law Review, Vol. 71, No. 4.
Peter Cane, Taking Law Seriously: Starting Points of the Hart/Devlin Debate, The Journal
of Ethics, Jan., 2006, Vol. 10, No. 1/2 (Jan., 2006).
Questions 3rd Lecture
General question: What connections and overlaps are there between morality and
the law?
Further questions:
Which sense of connection between morality and law is required for natural law
theory?
What does the separation thesis separate?
Who was right in Hart/Devlin Debate?
Movie analysis and discussion
Questions 4th Lecture
What is the difference between the ideas of justice and equity?
Are either of them indispensable to the concept of law?
Is the spirit of the law more import-ant than the letter of the law?
What is the heart of the traditional dispute between natural law theory and positivism?
Is the pursuit of justice an essential feature of law?
*Movie analysis and discussion
Questions 5th Lecture
General question: Were the early positivists successful in exposing the weaknesses
of natural law theory and common law thinking?
Further questions:
What were the essential features of Austin’s legal positivism?
Explain Hume’s influence on the separation thesis. How might one defend natural law
theory against positivism?
To what extent was the new legal realist movement merely an American version of
legal positivism?
*Movie analysis and discussion
Questions 6TH Lecture
General question: Explain and critically examine the realist revolt against legal
formalism. Which version of rule-scepticism, if any, do you find the most
convincing?
How might one defend natural law theory against legal realism?
All things considered, how realistic was American legal realism?
*Movie analysis and discussion
Questions 7TH Lecture
General question: Is it possible to have a morally neutral description of law?
Further questions:
Explain and evaluate Hart’s criticism of Austin’s command theory of law.
Is Hart’s concept of law more convincing than Austin’s?
Questions 8th Lecture
Compare Hart’s positivism with Kelsen’s pure theory of law.
Is the key to the unity of a legal system to be found in Kelsen’s basic norm or Hart’s
rule of recognition?
What are the criteria for legal validity?
Can the injustice of a law invalidate it as law?
Is Fuller’s theory of natural law more successful than traditional versions in
countering the standard positivist criticisms?
*Movie analysis and discussion
9th Lecture
Midterm Exam (due to the academic calender)
10th Lecture
After the exam before the exam: Evaluation of the exam questions and answers
Questions 11th Lecture
General question: What are the sources of Law?
What does it mean "LEGAL FAMILIES"?
What does it mean "LEGAL SYSTEMS"
What does it mean "CIVIL LAW"
What does it mean "COMMON LAW"
What does it mean "SOURCES OF LAW"
What does it mean "GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF LAW”
Further reading: Jaap Hage, Antonia Waltermann, Bram Akkermans (eds), and
Introduction to Law Springer 2017.
Questions 12th Lecture
What does Theory of Principles of Law say?
What is The Role of the General Principles of Law in Judiciary?
General Principles and the Judiciary in a Comparative Perspective
Further Reading: Laura Pineschi, General Principles of Law - The Role of the Judiciary,
Springer, 2015.
Questions 13th Lecture
What does Theory of Principles of Law say?
What is The Role of the General Principles of Law in Judiciary?
General Principles and the Judiciary in a Comparative Perspective
Further Reading: Laura Pineschi, General Principles of Law - The Role of the Judiciary,
Springer, 2015.
14th Lecture
FİNAL EXAM
Plagiarism
Plagiarism constitutes serious academic misconduct, and can have severe disciplinary
consequences. Whenever one is using someone else's ideas in the presentation,
whether one is quoting directly or summarizing, citations must be provided.
Unintentional plagiarism should not be possible – when in any doubt, always give a
citation. All work submitted for credit for this course must be your own work. If, in
writing your presentation, you use other legitimate scholarly sources (e.g.,
books/journal articles, scholarly online resources such as the Stanford Encyclopedia
of Philosophy), or consult other students, then you must cite them and give full and
accurate credit to those sources. For instance if you are to refer a sentence or an
definition from Dennis Patterson book you should give citation as follow:
Dennis M. Patterson (ed.) Philosophy of Law and Legal Theory: An Anthology,
Blackwell Pub. 2003, p.3
Grading
ACTIVITIES PERCENTAGES
Midterm exam 30%
Exam 60 %
In-class presentation performance& Class attendance
10%
and participation (questions / comments
Examination
There will be TWO examinations for this course, during the first term. The one-hour
examination will range over all of the material covered in the course. It will be a
written examination and taken during the examination week. It will be an open
resource exam and you are requested to choose two questions from the list above.
Texts
Main Text book we are using Mark Tebbit, Philosophy of Law: An Introduction,
Routledge, 2005 (Part I: up to p. 70) will be pass in as an electronic copy at the class.
Main text book:
Mark Tebbit, Philosophy of Law: An Introduction, Routledge, 2005 (Part I: up to p. 70)
Further Readings:
Larry May & Jeff Brown (eds.) Philosophy of Law: Classic and Contemporary Readings
Wiley-Blackwell, 2010.
Dennis M. Patterson (ed.) Philosophy of Law and Legal Theory: An Anthology,
Blackwell Pub., 2003.
Brian Bix, Jurisprudence theory and context, Durham, 2012.
H. L. A. Hart, “Positivism and the Separation of Law and Morals” Reviewed work(s):.
Source: Harvard Law Review, Vol. 71, No. 4.
Peter Cane, Taking Law Seriously: Starting Points of the Hart/Devlin Debate, The
Journal of Ethics , Jan., 2006, Vol. 10, No. 1/2 (Jan., 2006).
Laura Pineschi, General Principles of Law - The Role of the Judiciary, Springer, 2015.
Jaap Hage, Antonia Waltermann, Bram Akkermans (eds), Introduction to Law Springer
2017.
Rona Aybay, Introduction to Law , Der 2020.
