Lars Erik Lindahl

The concept of legal power is important in the law since, with regard to actions having legal effect, the “exercise of legal power” delimits those actions for which manifestation of intention to achieve a legal effect is essential for the effect to ensue. The paper proposes a definition that captures this feature of legal power and marks it off from “direct effect,” as well as from permissibility and practical ability to achieve the legal effect. This analysis of power is limited to the “immediate” legal power of a physical person characterized by the power-holder achieving a legal result by the power-holder's own behaviour. It is argued that in the literature on power the concept of legal power is frequently construed in such a way that it becomes either too broad or too narrow.

As emphasized by Jeremy Bentham and the analytical school, logical consistency is a requirement for rational legislation. For understanding consistency between norms, a logical scrutiny of normative conflicts is needed. In our paper, a framework for the fine structure of such conflicts is introduced and explained. “Normative conflict” is defined relative the framework and different types of conflict distinguished. The framework consists of a formal language in which norms of a legal system can be represented, accompanied by a set of logical rules and general principles. These rules and principles are such that their application to sentences describing the contents of a legal system discloses conflicts within legal systems. Important elements in legislation are capacitative norms, relating to legal power, or “legal competence,” to achieve a valid legal result by an act–in–the–law. The analysis encompasses conflicts between deontic norms relating to obligations and permissions, on one hand, and norms relating to legal power, on the other. The analysis is applicable both to conflicts within a national legal system and to supranational normative conflicts, for example conflicts between national law and EU law

Legal terms, such as “ownership,”“contract,”“validity,”“negligence,” are used as middle terms in legal deduction. The paper distinguishes two problems regarding this use. One is the logical function of terms for deduction within a normative system. Specific problems dealt with in this connection are meaning, definition, and economy of expression. The other problem connected with middle terms is the “moulding” and possible manipulation of the meaning of legal terms, for arriving at desired conclusions in a given scheme of inference. It is indicated how the moulding of contested legal concepts, if not restricted, will obscure the ratio of legal rules. This problem is relevant, inter alia, to arguments ex analogia in the law.

The paper intends to show, that W. N. Hohfeld's theory of fundamental jural relations is relevant to economic theory, and that Hohfeld's system can be reconstructed by the concepts of 'liberty space' and 'ability space', understood as an agent's Spielraum for action. The first half of the paper is devoted to an exposition of Hohfeld's system and to the question of its relation to the economic analysis of property rights. The second half concerns Spielraum theory and the reformulation of Hohfeldian distinctions in terms of liberty spaces and ability spaces. It is argued that the reformulation is useful, inter alia, for describing exchange of property rights by contract. El artículo intenta mostrar: que la teoría de las relaciones jurídicas fundamentales de W. N. Hohfeld es relevante para la teoría económica y que el sistema de Hohfeld puede ser reconstruido mediante los conceptos de "espacio de libertad" y "espacio de capacidad", entendidos como el Spielraum para la acción del agente. La primera mitad del artículo está dedicada a la exposición del sistema de Hohfeld y al problema de su relación con el análisis económico de los derechos reales. La segunda mitad se refiere a la teoría del Spielraum y a la reformulación de las distinciones hohfeldianas en términos de espacio de libertad y espacio de capacidad. Se argumenta que esta reformulación es útil, inter alia, para describir el cambio de los derechos reales mediante contratos

The paper discusses normative systems and their revision within an algebraic framework. If a system is logically well-formed, certain norms, called connecting norms, determine the system as a whole. It is maintained that, if the system is well-formed, a relation at least as low as determines a lattice or quasi-lattice of its connecting norms. The ideas are presented mainly in the form of comments on a legal example concerning acquisition of movable property by extinction of another person's previous rights.

In the present paper we study how subsystems of a normative system can be combined, and the role of such combinations for the understanding of hypothetical legal consequences. A combination of two subsystems is often accomplished by a normative correlation or an intermediate concept. To obtain a detailed analysis of such phenomena we use an algebraic framework. Normative systems are represented as algebraic structures over sets of conditions. This representation makes it possible to study normative systems using an extension of the theory of Boolean algebras, called the theory of Boolean quasi‐orderings.