caa a22 4500 388081295 CHVBK 20180307125216.0 cr unu---uuuuu 161130e199906 xx s 000 0 eng 10.2307/2585404 doi S0003055400217413 pii (NATIONALLICENCE)cambridge-10.2307/2585404 McCormick John P. Yale University Three Ways of Thinking "Critically” about the Law [Elektronische Daten] [John P. McCormick] Radical criticisms of liberalism's method of legal adjudication focus on its excessive formalism, its tendency to foster indeterminacy, and its naive maintenance of the separation of political from legal concerns. I examine these arguments as they appear in the work of Carl Schmitt, on the Right, and the Critical Legal Studies (CLS) movement, on the Left. Jürgen Habermas has recently attempted to refute the positions of these most scalding twentieth-century critics of liberal adjudication. I argue that by so extensively engaging these theorists, and in fact liberalism itself, on their own grounds, Habermas has abandoned some of the distinctive strengths of what he previously practiced as a critical social theory in his new reflexive or discourse theory of law. Copyright © American Political Science Association 1999 American Political Science Review Cambridge University Press 93/2(1999-06), 413-428 0003-0554 93:2<413 1999 93 PSR https://doi.org/10.2307/2585404 text/html Onlinezugriff via DOI 1 research-article jats NATIONALLICENCE 856 40 https://doi.org/10.2307/2585404 text/html Onlinezugriff via DOI NATIONALLICENCE 100 1- McCormick John P. Yale University NATIONALLICENCE 773 0- American Political Science Review Cambridge University Press 93/2(1999-06), 413-428 0003-0554 93:2<413 1999 93 PSR CC0 http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0 nationallicence BK010053 XK010053 XK010000 NATIONALLICENCE NATIONALLICENCE NL-cambridge