In defence of the Coercion Thesis and modest conceptual methodology
This is the author’s reply to a book symposium on law and coercion. Himma’s book – Coercion and the Nature of Law (OUP 2020) – had two principal objectives. The first was to show it is a necessary condition for a normative system to count as one of law that it includes prohibitions on violence and t...
Tallennettuna:
| Julkaisussa: | URI:https://journals.openedition.org/revus, |
|---|---|
| Päätekijä: | |
| Aineistotyyppi: | Article ou chapitre numérique |
| Julkaistu: |
Revus
2023
|
| Aiheet: | |
| Linkit: | Accès Université d'Orléans et IFPM Accès Université d'Orléans et IFPM |
| Yhteenveto: | This is the author’s reply to a book symposium on law and coercion. Himma’s book – Coercion and the Nature of Law (OUP 2020) – had two principal objectives. The first was to show it is a necessary condition for a normative system to count as one of law that it includes prohibitions on violence and theft that are backed by detriment that counts as a sanction in virtue of being reasonably contrived to deter enough noncompliance to enable the system to minimally achieve its function of keeping the peace (the Coercion Thesis). The second was to defend and illustrate the methodology of modest conceptual analysis as defined by Frank Jackson. The book was critically discussed by Brian Bix, Thomas Bustamante, Frank Jackson, Paolo Di Lucia and Lorenzo Passerini Glazel, Anna Pintore, Pablo Rapetti and Kara Woodbury-Smith in the 45th issue of Revus. |
|---|