L'indétermination et l'interprétation chez les positivistes analytiques: un échange avec Austin, Kelsen, Hart et ...Dworkin (Indeterminacy and Interpretation by Analytical Positivists: An Exchange with Austin, Kelsen, Hart and...Dworkin)

French Abstract: John Austin, Hans Kelsen et Herbert Hart sont trois positivistes analytiques ayant comme caracteristiques communes d'avoir aborde de facon tres elaboree le theme de l'indetermination des regles et du pouvoir discretionnaire voire legislatif des juges. Ronald Dworkin, un des critiques les plus importants de ce courant au cours du XXe siecle (et principalement de la theorie elaboree par Hart), s'est justement appuye sur cette dimension du droit pour remettre en question la coherence de leur theorie. Meme si Dworkin a finalement ete incapable de detruire completement l’appareil conceptuel des analytiques, ayant lui-meme ete force de s'amender et de corriger sa propre theorie, ses attaques ont eu pour effet de mettre en exergue les lacunes de cette approche. Ses critiques ont aussi force les analytiques corriger certains aspects de leur theorie, et notamment a abandonner la separation absolue du droit des autres aspects de la vie en societe tels que la justice et ]a morale qu'ils soutenaient jusqu'alors. Enfin, si ces trois auteurs acceptent l'idee que des elements extra-juridiques ont une influence sur les tribunaux au moment de l’interpretation, aucun d'entre eux ne nous fournit explicitement d'indices permettant de decouvrir l'identite de ces facteurs. Seul Kelsen nous offre certains indications des ces elements (grâce au syllogisme de Kelsen) mais pour utiliser ceux-ci, nous devons recourir a une reconstruction et une reinterpretation de ses travaux dont il refusera probablement les conclusions.English Abstract: John Austin, Hans Kelsen and Herbert Hart are three analytical positivists who share the common characteristic of having examined in depth the issue of the uncertainty of rules of law and of the discretionary, even the legislative power of judges. Ronald Dworkin, one of the main critics of this trend in the 20th century, and especially of the Hart theory, relied on that very dimension of law to question the consistency of the latter's theory. Although Dworkin has been unable ultimately to completely destroy the conceptual framework of these analysts, and was forced to amend and correct his own theory, his attacks helped point out the deficiencies in this approach. His critical comments also led analysts to amend certain aspects of their theory, and namely forced them to abandon their thesis that law is completely separated from other aspects of life in society, for example to cease to distinguish between justice and morality as they used to do. Finally, if these three authors accept the idea that extrajudicial elements do come into play to influence judges when interpreting, the law, neither one explicitly guides us into discovering what actually are these factors. Only Kelsen gives us some indication of these factors (through his syllogistic reasoning), but in order to use these factors, a restructuring and reconstruction of his work would be necessary that would lead to conclusions that the latter would very likely reject.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.