Massimo La Torre

Le droit est traditionnellement lié à la pratique du commandement et de la hiérarchie. Il semble qu’une règle juridique établisse une immédiate relation entre une norme supérieure et une norme inférieure. La conception hiérarchique et impérative peut néanmoins être remise en cause dès lors que la phénoménologie de la règle juridique est appréhendée d’un point de vue interne, celui de ceux que l’on peut considérer comme les « utilisateurs » de la règle plutôt que ceux qui la subissent. Une approche tournée vers la pratique pourrait, de cette façon, conduire à une théorie du droit plus ouverte et, d’une certaine façon, moins idéologique ou sectaire. C’est – comme le défend cet article – le programme ou mieux la promesse que l’on trouve dans l’ouvrage principal de Hart, le Concept de droit. Cet article tente de rendre cette promesse plus transparente sans toutefois dissimuler les difficultés de sa stratégie narrative et argumentative

This paper discusses some models purported to legitimise a European supranational legal order. In particular, the author focuses on an application of the so‐called regulatory model to the complex structure of the European Community and the European Union. First of all, he tackles the very concept of legitimacy, contrasting it with both efficacy and efficiency. Secondly, he summarises the most prominent positions in the long‐standing debate on the sources of legitimation for the European Community. Thirdly, in this perspective, he analyses several, sometimes contradictory, notions of the rule of law. His contention is that we can single out five fundamental notions of the rule of law and that some but not all of them are incompatible with or oppose democracy. Finally, the paper addresses the regulatory model as a possible application of the rule of the law to the European supranational order. The conclusion is that the regulatory model should be rejected if it is presented as an alternative to classical democratic thought, though it might be fruitful if reshaped differently and no longer assessed from a functionalist standpoint of deliberation.

Law seems to be irremediadibly connected to the experience of coercion and to a structure of hierarchy. This is so because it has traditionally been defined as a set of authoritative prescriptions, usually commands backed by the menace of a sanction, an evil eventually applied through the use of overwhelming violence. Law has also been related to some kind of structure or system which is intrinsically hierarchical, both in the sense of the hierarchy of people whose conduct is addressed by the law and in the sense of the logical interdependence of the legal prescriptions themselves. The British legal philosopher H. L. A. Hart criticizes in his celabrated book The Concept of Law powerfully the command theory and also reshapes the theory of the hierarchical structure of rules. The paper will tries to follow Hart’s attack to the traditional imperativistic view and will then focus on his treatment of international law. The aim is to show on the one side how promising Hart’s approach could be, and on the other side how poor however his conceptualization of international law at the end of the day reveals to be.

There are few problems to which legal philosophers have devoted more attention than the relationship between morality and law, or, said in different terms, between the “good” and the “obligatory”. One might think that all that should and could be said about it has already been uttered or written. Nevertheless philosophy — and legal philosophy is no exception — is just this: rethinking old problems which are in fact always new,1 and for which no definitive solution is given — nor is possible, I would add — and which need a permanent effort of reassessment. There is no reason for disappointment or despair in this endless work. It is neither pointless nor irrelevant

Law seems to be irremediadibly connected to the experience of coercion and to a structure of hierarchy. This is so because it has traditionally been defined as a set of authoritative prescriptions, usually commands backed by the menace of a sanction, an evil eventually applied through the use of overwhelming violence. Law has also been related to some kind of structure or system which is intrinsically hierarchical, both in the sense of the hierarchy of people whose conduct is addressed by the law and in the sense of the logical interdependence of the legal prescriptions themselves. The British legal philosopher H. L. A. Hart criticizes in his celabrated book The Concept of Law powerfully the command theory and also reshapes the theory of the hierarchical structure of rules. The paper will tries to follow Hart’s attack to the traditional imperativistic view and will then focus on his treatment of international law. The aim is to show on the one side how promising Hart’s approach could be, and on the other side how poor however his conceptualization of international law at the end of the day reveals to be.