Four Graves of Modern Philosophy of Law: Reflection on the Views by Bjarne Melkevik
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction. The article is devoted to the consideration of four theses of the famous scientist B. Melkevik. The attitude of researchers to his ideas is polar: from recognition of him as an outstanding thinker to harsh criticism of his views. We will discuss their points of view and present our view on the ideas of this Norwegian-Canadian thinker. The chosen topic has not been the subject of a special analysis.Methodology and materials. When writing this text, logical methods of analysis and synthesis, methodological methods of doctrinal interpretation of Melkevik’s four key propositions and his work “Philosophy of law in the current of modernity” are used. We also studied the following works by the scholar: “Why is it necessary to study the philosophy of law?”, “Legitimacy and Human rights”, “Marxism and the philosophy of law: Bazukanis as a model”, “Why Individual Freedom and the Autonomy of Law Stand or Fall Together” (co-author — O. Melkevik, “The strong rule of law state: how to resist modern destructive authoritarianism”, “Legal epistemology and already-law”, “Jurgen Habermas and the Theory of communicative action”, “Habermas and Rolls”, etc. We used the works by M. V. Antonov, V. I. Kruss, V. V.Ogleznev, A. V. Polyakov and others. We believe that the information we have allows us to draw certain conclusions.Research results and their discussion. Four propositions by B. Melkevik are analyzed: to free oneself from the task of dictating the rules of doctrinal creativity; the philosophy of law must free oneself from the trap of statism; it is necessary to take seriously the autonomy of individuals; the philosophy of law must refuse from funding. At the end of the article, conclusions are drawn and the author’s position is formulated.Conclusions. The main result is that what B. Melkevik calls graves for the modern philosophy of law, we would call risks. His concept is the understanding of law through the communication of individuals, intersubjective relations with their freedom and in compliance with democratic procedures and procedural restrictions. Law according to B. Melkevik is an art applied in practice. Individuals should be the masters of law.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".