3

A question on Jurisprudence (Legal Theory) here

Command Theory of Law

has been closed apparently because the question is not considered to be specific enough.

The answer here

Are interdisciplinary Law Theory subjects allowed?

confirms that questions on Jurisprudence are within the scope of Law SE.

Law Stack Exchange is not a general discussion forum but I wonder whether too high a bar is being set for questions on Jurisprudence and the like. Such questions will almost inevitably be less precise than a question on substantive law.

We are unlikely to get a question like:

"Is is a fair criticism of the Command Theory of Law that, whilst it has some explanatory power in relation to criminal law, its description of contract law is artificial as nobody is commanded to contract."

because someone who formulates such a question will probably be able to answer it themselves.

I think "what criticisms are made of the Command Theory of Law" should be accepted as a question.

Update The question is now showing that it has been closed because it it is opinion based but isn't all law (in Common Law systems at least) ultimately opinion based? How can you understand a judgment of an appellate court without considering opinions? How can you study Legal Theory without considering the various theories?

3

I think "what criticisms are made of the Command Theory of Law" should be accepted as a question.

I agree. The post in its initial version was hard to address for multiple reasons, but the current version is concrete enough (to a great extent as a result of your edit). Furthermore, the revision history reflects the OP's agreement with the expansion you contributed.

The label of opinion-based mischaracterizes the question. Indeed, the question "can be answered with facts and citations" (see the direction right after Opinion-based) insofar as the excerpt or paraphrase you inserted can be contrasted with how other renown exponents have defined law.

8
  • I'm not necessarily saying it is wrong to call it opinion based. Just that it should not be closed for such a reason because opinions (and not just those of renowned exponents) are part of it.
    – Nemo
    Oct 15 at 20:08
  • 1
    "I'm not necessarily saying it is wrong to call it opinion based." I hear you. But on SE sites the label is used for pointing out that the matter is too subjective to be answered on the basis of verifiable and authoritative sources. Hence the terms of facts and citations, respectively. The label is not really a blanket prohibition of people's opinions in a post which otherwise is well premised on said sources. Oct 15 at 20:31
  • OK. Well the post is still closed at the moment. Will it be opened now so that it can be answered?
    – Nemo
    Oct 15 at 22:04
  • @Nemo "Will it be opened now so that it can be answered?" It depends on whether it reaches 5 Reopen votes (right now there are only two, including mine), or a moderator decides to reopen it. Oct 15 at 22:50
  • Personally, I'm still confused as to what the "it" in the last sentence is. It might be clearer if you used the actual noun rather than an ambiguous pronoun.
    – Dale M Mod
    Oct 18 at 0:02
  • @DaleM I hear you. The issue of whether the post will be reopened depends on whether the post reaches 5 Reopen votes, or a moderator decides to reopen that post. Oct 18 at 9:56
  • @DaleM I'm not sure which it it is that you are referring to or whether your comment is a response to my earlier comment. What I meant to say above was "I'm not necessarily saying it is wrong to call the question opinion based. Just that the question should not be closed for such a reason because opinions (and not just those of renowned exponents) are part of jurisprudence."
    – Nemo
    Oct 18 at 10:51
  • @Nemo that’s exactly the problem with pronouns.
    – Dale M Mod
    Oct 18 at 20:00

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .