<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim">
 <record>
  <leader>     caa a22        4500</leader>
  <controlfield tag="001">388074078</controlfield>
  <controlfield tag="003">CHVBK</controlfield>
  <controlfield tag="005">20180307125156.0</controlfield>
  <controlfield tag="007">cr unu---uuuuu</controlfield>
  <controlfield tag="008">161130e199901  xx      s     000 0 eng  </controlfield>
  <datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2="0">
   <subfield code="a">10.1017/S0841820900002174</subfield>
   <subfield code="2">doi</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2="0">
   <subfield code="a">S0841820900002174</subfield>
   <subfield code="2">pii</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="a">(NATIONALLICENCE)cambridge-10.1017/S0841820900002174</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="a">Marmor</subfield>
   <subfield code="D">Andrei</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="4">
   <subfield code="a">The Separation Thesis and the Limits of Interpretation</subfield>
   <subfield code="h">[Elektronische Daten]</subfield>
   <subfield code="c">[Andrei Marmor]</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="520" ind1="3" ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="a">There are many versions of legal positivism; perhaps as many as there are legal positivists around. All the versions of legal positivism, however, subscribe to the so-called Separation Thesis. This thesis basically maintains that detenriining what the law is, does not necessarily, or conceptually, depend on moral or other evaluative considerations about what it ought to be in the relevant circumstances. Legal positivists differ, however, and quite substantially, over the appropriate interpretation of this thesis. The so-called ‘strong', or ‘exclusive' version of legal positivism maintains that moral considerations never determine the legal validity of norms. ‘Soft' positivists, on the other hand, do maintain that there is a close relation between legal validity and morality, but they hold that this relation is, at best, a contingent matter; it does not derive from the nature of law or legal reasoning as such. Soft-positivists claim that moral considerations determine legal validity only in certain cases, namely, in those cases which follow from the rules of recognition that happen to prevail in a given legal system.</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="540" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="a">Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1999</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="t">The Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence</subfield>
   <subfield code="d">Cambridge University Press</subfield>
   <subfield code="g">12/1(1999-01), 135-150</subfield>
   <subfield code="x">0841-8209</subfield>
   <subfield code="q">12:1&lt;135</subfield>
   <subfield code="1">1999</subfield>
   <subfield code="2">12</subfield>
   <subfield code="o">CJL</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0">
   <subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1017/S0841820900002174</subfield>
   <subfield code="q">text/html</subfield>
   <subfield code="z">Onlinezugriff via DOI</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="908" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="D">1</subfield>
   <subfield code="a">research-article</subfield>
   <subfield code="2">jats</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="950" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="B">NATIONALLICENCE</subfield>
   <subfield code="P">856</subfield>
   <subfield code="E">40</subfield>
   <subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1017/S0841820900002174</subfield>
   <subfield code="q">text/html</subfield>
   <subfield code="z">Onlinezugriff via DOI</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="950" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="B">NATIONALLICENCE</subfield>
   <subfield code="P">100</subfield>
   <subfield code="E">1-</subfield>
   <subfield code="a">Marmor</subfield>
   <subfield code="D">Andrei</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="950" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="B">NATIONALLICENCE</subfield>
   <subfield code="P">773</subfield>
   <subfield code="E">0-</subfield>
   <subfield code="t">The Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence</subfield>
   <subfield code="d">Cambridge University Press</subfield>
   <subfield code="g">12/1(1999-01), 135-150</subfield>
   <subfield code="x">0841-8209</subfield>
   <subfield code="q">12:1&lt;135</subfield>
   <subfield code="1">1999</subfield>
   <subfield code="2">12</subfield>
   <subfield code="o">CJL</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="900" ind1=" " ind2="7">
   <subfield code="b">CC0</subfield>
   <subfield code="u">http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0</subfield>
   <subfield code="2">nationallicence</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="898" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="a">BK010053</subfield>
   <subfield code="b">XK010053</subfield>
   <subfield code="c">XK010000</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="949" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="B">NATIONALLICENCE</subfield>
   <subfield code="F">NATIONALLICENCE</subfield>
   <subfield code="b">NL-cambridge</subfield>
  </datafield>
 </record>
</collection>
