In most European languages other than English there are two words for law corresponding conveniently to these two senses of ‘legal’: lex and ius, Gesetz and Recht, loi and droit, and so on. Legal positivists need not deny that there is a moralized sense of ‘law’ captured in the second term in each of these pairs.
could probably talk about Dworkin here with the criticisms he makes of semantic approaches?
The latter either claims to be legitimate or is believed to be so, and is effective in imposing its will on many over whom it claims authority, perhaps because its claim to legitimacy is recognized by many of its subjects. But it does not necessarily possess legitimacy.
referring to de facto authority
Shapiro declares that ‘he could not and for much . . . the same reasons that felled [Incorporationism]’ (Shapiro, ‘Way’, 501).
in reference to whether Hart could have been an inclusive positivist.
The courts should be easily accessible
JR reform making RoL less accessible?