Since the reform and opening up，There is a more obvious characteristic of law research in my country，That is the law of the department law to do Germany，Theoretical Law Master British and American。Sort out the evolution of contemporary British and American philosophy，Refine its basic problems，It is an important task in front of the theoretical law workers in my country。There is a clearer starting point for contemporary British and American law philosophy，That is, the concept of law published in 1961。This book systematically cleans up the legal philosophy tradition since Austin，and established the basic form of contemporary legal research。After published in Devin's famous "Rules Model I" (1965)，The legal empirical camp represented by Hart launched a long argument with Devin，The context of contemporary British and American philosophy can almost be attributed to the label "Hart -Devkin's dispute"。

bet365 Play online games

Whether in the standard narrative of textbooks，Still in a large number of second -hand documents，Hart -Devkin's dispute is based on principles，The main text basis is "Rules Model I"。In this article，Devkin will be attributed to three propositions: first，The law of a community bet365 live casino games is a set of specific rules，Their legal identity is confirmed by its adopted or development method，instead of considering its content quality。Second，Effective legal rules have exhausted the law，Therefore, if a case is not covered by such rules，Judges and other officials will exercise free tailoring，This means transcending the law，Create a new law or add the old law in accordance with foreign standards。third，Saying that someone has legal obligations means that his case is controlled by valid legal rules，If this legal rules do not exist，Then he has no legal obligations。

Through a detailed portrayal of difficult cases，Devkin responded to these three propositions: first，Laws In addition to the rules also include principles; second，Free tailoring in a strong sense，is on a certain question，Officials are not restricted by the standards set by relevant authority; third，Legal Empirical III propositions -There is no legal obligation when there is no valid legal rule -premise with the first proposition，After negating the first proposition，This proposition naturally cannot be established。

We know，The core of Hart's legal theory is recognition rules。According to the above analysis，Devin's fatal criticism of Hart seems to be，Except for rules，Legal specifications also include moral principles，The legal identity of these principles cannot be confirmed by identifying the rules，Therefore, Hart's analysis of the law Bet365 lotto review is failed。More generally，Legal empirical spectral testing methods have failed because of this。This is the interpretation of the early theory of Devkin。According to this，Legal empirical camps have developed two theoretical solutions: tolerance empiricalism and exclusive empiricalism，Try to respond to Devkin。In the second edition of the Concept of Law (1994)，It can be considered，Hart adopted tolerance and empiricalism as its own response plan。

　　Different theoretical differences in the philosophy

Although legal empiricalists believe，I have successfully responded to the challenges proposed based on the principle，But Davin himself thinks，This response flows in appearance，is entangled with irrelevant classification problems，instead of the normative problem he cares about。In fact，As early as the article written in 1972, "Rules Mode II"，He has clearly pointed out，The key is not the principle of the law; what he really wants to say is，The legal recognition process cannot be independent of political and moral factors，Completely formalized; the reason why he pays attention to principles，Just because the principle provides a certificate for legal propositions。

"Legal Empire" (1986) was published，Devkin's law philosophy scene is full。At the same time，Criticism against Dvkin，Hart clarified its theoretical positioning in the second edition of the second edition of the "Concept of Law"。From this，Devin's debate with legal empiricalists bet365 Play online games has entered a more abstract level。This is not to say that the relevant discussion has a substantial promotion，Just the opposite，At this time, the confrontation between the two sides is not as targeted as the previous stage。"The Legal Empire" was published，Legal empirical camps are more and more clearly aware of，The challenges proposed by Devkin are extremely fundamental，Can't pass easily。For example, Charlo admits frankly，Legal empiricalists have not yet made effective responses to the Legal Empire。It can be said，Devkin's challenge is beyond the scope that can accommodate traditional issues within the legal philosophy，He is committed to putting forward a new picture of the philosophy of law，Therefore, his criticism is a salary -based salary。So，The discussion of legal philosophy since the 1990s is increasingly the theoretical color，Relevant scholars no longer entangle excessive tangling specific legal philosophy issues，They realize that each other's differences are too deep，What should I study for the philosophy of Fa、How to study and other prerequisite issues lack basic consensus。

　　Understand legal normative: move towards practical philosophy

Do not confront the specific discipline issues，Reflection on the subject itself，This phenomenon indicates，The philosophy of contemporary British and American law has fallen into fundamental confusion and even crisis，It means that the conventional parade has been shaken，The new research paradigm bet365 best casino games has not been established。But for more than ten years later，The British and American French philosophy has gradually diluted Hart -Devin's dispute，With a more clear development direction，Mo Mo、Xia Pi Luo、Greenberg and other new generations of scholars' works are quite clear and clear、Freshly refers to the fresh style of the core。The main points of it，Researchers nearly realized in the late realization of，Many problems in the field of legal philosophy still have to return to the philosophy of law、Political Philosophy、Moral philosophy, etc.，Around the reasons for action、Core contemporary contemporary practice philosophical framework of normativeity and other core concepts is processed。

From the perspective of theoretical resources，Hart -Devkin's dispute with strong language philosophy。For example，The Concept of Law is generally considered to be the fruit of daily language philosophy in the field of law; Devkin's theory also starts from the level of language philosophy，Two theoretical tools, two theoretical tools:，Criticizing the old saying、Put forward a new saying。In general，In this long debate，The development of language philosophy will always quickly spread to the field of law philosophy，French philosophers have also proposed some original language philosophy views。But since late，New theories in the field of legal philosophy are often in action philosophy、The influence of ethics。For example，The planning theory bet365 best casino games of Shapiro is deeply benefited from the relevant expositions of Branceman; ethical scientist Zhang Meilu took over the highest status of Oxford Jurisprudence in the legal philosophy in 2017，Hart of Hart of Oxford Jurisprudence as a language philosopher more than half a century ago。

As part of the philosophy of practice，The fundamental question that the law needs to answer is how to understand the standardization of the law。Simply resorting to facts can not solve our confusion on legal normative issues。The root of this confusion is，Law is a specification，but it has a strong fact orientation。The difficulty of answering the question of "what is the law" is the normative and factual orientation of coordinating the law。

The highlights of normative issues help to clarify the moral concern behind the discussion of the philosophy of law、Political position。Dharma philosophy is essentially political philosophy、Part of the moral philosophy，Only in the framework of practice philosophy，Many problems can be thoroughly discussed。Such an open theoretical position also helps contemporary British -American philosophy to get out of a narrow professional circle，Effective dialogue with other academic genres，and make a specific response to the urgent problem in the real society。

(Author Unit: School of Philosophy and Law and Government of Shanghai Normal University)