Different theories of law have different views on the nature and foundation of law as well as on the relationship between law and morals. The crucial question adopted in the proposed workshop is the role of justice in legal knowledge, in practice, in legal interpretation.
Traditionally, natural law jurisprudence and legal positivism have maintained two opposite views on the role of justice. On the other hand, these two doctrines have many different versions. Therefore, there are room for many different variants and modifications of these theories. In addition, there are other approaches to legal theory and philosophy, as well. The workshop is a platform for these different approaches.
According to the natural law jurisprudence, valid law is an actualization of a certain kind of justice. Principles of natural law, protecting human goods, have the ruling position in legal thinking and interpretation. In this sense, according to a supporter of natural law doctrine, there is a necessary relationship between law and justice, more precisely, between acceptable law and certain given principles of justice. Valid and acceptable legal rules are treated as actualizations of those principles of justice. Accordingly, the crucial content of valid and acceptable law is determined and fixed.
According to legal positivism, law is a factual phenomenon. Law appears as rules and decisions, that is, as outcomes of human will. Most often, law is treated as the outcome of human decisions. According to the supporters of positivism, valid law is not dependent on certain and given principles of justice or morals. That is, valid and acceptable law of a society is not treated as the outcome of certain given human principles of justice. Those principles of justice are not treated as the necessary background of law or as the starting point of legal knowledge. Instead, most often, valid law is treated as the outcome of human decisions and will both in the form of statutes and precedents. Most often, principles of justice and morals are perceived as individual valuations or opinions. Accordingly, the crucial content of valid and acceptable law is not determined or fixed. Instead, it is the outcome of human will and decisions.
Jurisprudence has often appeared as critical presentations. The supporters of natural law have expressed well known critic against legal positivism, and, in the same way, the supporters of legal positivism have expressed well known critic against natural law. In addition, supporters of other theories on law have expressed critic against both of them. The workshop is a platform for these critics, that is, for these negative approaches.
On the other hand, a critical approach is not enough. A supporter of a theory of law has to present a convincing and relevant theory of law as well as about legal knowledge and interpretation, that is, what is legal knowledge and legal interpretation, how shall they be understood and what is the foundation of legal knowledge and interpretation. The nature of law and the principles or evaluations of justice and especially the relationship between valid law and principles of justice is the crucial matter. Often, the outcome is the explanation and exposition of legal knowledge and interpretation. The workshop is a platform for these positive approaches, as well.