Three models of legal postpositivism

Abstract

In this paper I pose a comparative distinction among three models of legal postpositivism. Initially I introduce two influential proposals that suggest abandoning positivism for different reasons: the first, as incompatible with the prevailing constitutionalisation of contemporary legal orders; the second, based on the
idea that a function inherent in the theoretical approach of legal practice is to intervene in social reality, orienting it towards transformations of justice. My claim is that neither of these two conceptions gives good reasons for leaving aside legal positivism. In the final part, I defend the thesis that an integral approach to the normative question, establishes the basis of a plausible model of postpositivism.