Almost a full century separates Alice in Wonderland (1865) of Charles Lutwidge Dodgson(who will be referred by his pseudonym, Lewis Carroll) and the second, lengthier and more elaborate edition of Hans Kelsen’s Pure Theory of Law (1960; first edition published in 1934). And yet, it is possible to argue that the former anticipates and critically addresses many of the philosophical assumptions that underlie and are elemental to the argument of the latter. Both texts, with the illuminating differences that arise from their disparate genre, have as one of their key themes norms and their functioning. Wonderland, as Alice soon finds out, is a world beset by rules of all kinds: from the etiquette rituals of the mad tea-party to the changing setting for the croquet game to the procedural insanity of the trial with which the novel ends. Pure Theory of Law, as Kelsen emphatically stresses, has the Grundnorm as the cornerstone upon which the whole theoretical edifice rests (see Green, 2003; Posner, 2005).This paper discusses some of the assumptions underlying Kelsen’s argument as an instance of the modern worldview that Lewis satirically scrutinizes. The first section («Sleepy and stupid») discusses Lewis’ critique of the idea that, to correctly apprehend an object (in the case of Kelsen’s study, law), one has to free it from its alien elements. The second section («Do bats eat cats?») discusses the notion of systemic coherence and its impact on modern ways of thinking about truth, law and society. The third section («Off with their heads!») explores the connections between readings of systems as neutral entities and the perpetuation of political power. The fourth and final section («Important, Unimportant») explains the sense in which a «critical anticipation» is both possible and useful to discuss the philosophical assumptions structuring some positivist arguments. It also discusses the reasons for choosing to focus on Kelsen’s work, rather than on that of Lewis’ contemporary John Austin, whose The Province of Jurisprudence Determined (published in 1832) remains influential in legal debates today. / Casi un siglo entero separa a Alicia en el país de las Maravillas (1865) de Charles Lutwidge Dodgson (a quien nos referiremos por su seudónimo, Lewis Carroll) y a la segunda, más larga y más elaborada edición de la Teoría pura del derecho (1960) de Hans Kelsen —cuya primera edición fue publicada en 1934—. Y, sin embargo, es posible argumentar que la primera obra anticipa y trata en forma crítica a muchos de los supuestos filosóficos que fundamentan y son elementales en los razonamientos sobre la última. Ambos textos, con las diferencias iluminadoras que surgen de sus géneros dispares, tienen como uno de sus temas clave las normas y su funcionamiento. El país de las maravillas, como Alicia pronto descubre, es un mundo sitiado por regulaciones de todo tipo: desde los rituales de etiqueta de la merienda de locos hasta los arreglos cambiantes para el juego de croquet y la insensatez procesal del juicio con el que termina la novela. La Teoría Pura del derecho, como enfáticamente recalca Kelsen, tiene a la Grundnorm (norma fundamental) como la piedra angular sobre la que reside todo el edificio teórico (véanse Green, 2003; Posner, 2005).Este trabajo discute algunos de los supuestos en los que se basa el razonamiento de Kelsen como un ejemplo de la moderna visión del mundo a la que satíricamente analiza Carroll. La primera sección («Somnolienta y atontada») discute la crítica de Carroll a la idea de que, para comprender un objeto (en el caso del estudio de Kelsen, el derecho), uno tiene que liberarlo de sus elementos ajenos. La segunda sección («¿Comen murciélagos los gatos?») discute la noción de coherencia sistémica y su impacto sobre las formas modernas de pensamiento sobre la verdad, el derecho y la sociedad. La tercera sección («¡Que les corten la cabeza!») explora las conexiones entre las lecturas de sistemas como entidades neutrales y la perpetuación del poder político. La cuarta y última sección («Importante, No importante») explica el sentido en el que una «anticipación crítica» es tanto posible como útil para discutir los supuestos filosóficos que estructuran algunos argumentos positivistas. Esta sección también discute las razones para elegir concentrarse en el trabajo de Kelsen, más que en el del contemporáneo de Carroll John Austin, cuya obra La provincia de la jurisprudencia determinada (publicada en 1832) continúa influyendo hoy en los debates legales.

The topic of the thesis is the connection of the renowned bard and writer William Shakespeare with the Law. The thesis points out some of the most interesting legal remarks, which can be found during the course of the study of the Shakespeare's texts. The aim of the thesis is to broaden the knowledge of the depth of Shakespeare's plays, romances and sonnets and their legal connotation that never ceases to amaze both the general public, and the readers of legal education. The thesis is prefaced by the treatise regarding the connection of the law with the literature through the Law and Literature movement. The following chapter notes reasons why is it appropriate to study literary texts for the practice of legal professions, namely in the connection to the courts' decisions. Decisions of the US Supreme Court and the Czech Constitutional Court are mentioned in the thesis. In the following lines the author notes the issues one might face while translating the Shakespeare's remarks, especially those of legal connotation ; and mentions some of Shakespeare's law-related remarks. A notable portion of the thesis deals with three plays and their law-related contents. In the passage regarding the comedy Measure for Measure, Shakespeare's interest in a topic that is still actual nowadays is pointed out - the...

This thesis evaluates how effectively the trilogy's laws and law enforcers further the ends of the fictional laws. The study examines the trilogy's law enforcers' responses to Snopes violations and bendings of the laws to evaluate the laws and their enforcers. The enforcers' responses to Snopes wrongs make clear how well the laws are written. These responses also reveal how well the enforcers themselves are able to achieve the objectives of the laws. It is argued in the thesis that although the laws are effectively written, the law enforcers fail to enforce the laws and, consequently, fail to achieve the laws' ends. It is also shown that the enforcers invariably harm innocent persons when they fail to enforce the law.

For the last forty years, Jane Eyre criticism has understandably focused on Bertha Mason Rochester as a marginalized, abused, and silenced mixed-race woman. Although Jane's childhood friend Helen Burns is a very different and much less controversial character, she and Bertha suffer similar deaths from the culpable neglect of their guardians. Both women serve as the impetus of a bystander's dilemma: the perennial question of whether a person is obligated to protect another's life or dignity at the risk of his or her own. Because contemporary law imposed no duty to rescue upon bystanders, this paper uses the commentary of Victorian legal theorist John Austin to create a standard against which to judge the ethical merit of the choices made by bystanders throughout the novel. Maria Temple, superintendent of Lowood, is a bystander to the fatal abuse heaped upon her students; she has the power to expose the school's brutal conditions, but chooses to remain silent so that she can keep her job and her limited power. Her choice, while practical, makes her complicit in Helen's death. When Jane becomes bystander to Bertha's dangerously negligent captivity, she chooses to flee Thornfield rather than intervene. Though many critics have decried her selfishness, Jane makes a practical and ethical choice because she has so little chance of helping Bertha and so much to lose in the attempt. Just as Miss Temple is able to protect Jane because of her self-serving decisions, Jane in turn is able to protect Adèle. Yet all these successes are predicated upon earlier neglect of persons unable to protect themselves, as Helen and Bertha remind us. There is no comfortable solution to the bystander's dilemma.

No description available.

No description available.

While most of the Law and Literature books and articles stress from the beginning the distinction between Law in Literature and Law as Literature, my approach is from the standpoint of Law teaching. A course on Law and Literature will help the students not only to write better, but it may convey the students facts that surround the work of the formal legal systemas the human condition or the legal culture, as well as a legal perspective thatis, so to speak, engraved in the human mind. The so-called didactic school is treated and criticized. The distinction between Law in Literature and Law as Literature cuts across the whole work. / Mientras en la mayoría de trabajos sobre Derecho y literatura desde el inicio se hace la distinción entre derecho en la literatura y derecho como literatura, en el presente trabajo la aproximación es desde el punto de vista de la enseñanza del derecho. Lo que se postula es que un curso sobre derecho y literatura tendrá efectos en los aspectos formales de la educación jurídica (aprender a escribir bien), pero también le mostrará al estudiante diversos aspectos de la realidad, como el conocimiento de las interioridades de la psiquis humana y la influencia del entorno en las actividades de los individuos, el entendimiento de la cultura legal y la captación de que determinadas categorías jurídicas son, en cierto modo, instintivas. También se aborda y critica la que se denomina tesis edificante. La distinción entre derecho en la literatura y derecho como literatura corta transversalmente las diversas materias tratadas.

This dissertation tries to locate Milton's optimistic view of man and nature as expressed in Comus, Doctrine and Discipline of Divorce, and Paradise Lost in the long tradition of natural law that goes back to Aristotle, Cicero, and Aquinas.

Not available / text

The ability to decisively benefit from ample sources of freshwater represents a pivotal challenge for American Indian nations and their self-determination in the western United States. Climate change, population growth, and capitalist pressures continue to escalate demand for water in an already dry land. This project set out to listen and add practical perspective to the importance of water as reflected in various forms of stories in the context of American Indian reserved water rights. It explores dynamic confluences and divergences of worldviews that influence American Indian nations' relationships with water in the present sociopolitical context. The integral relationship between literatures, laws, and tribal sovereignty constructs this study's theoretical framework as it broadens scholarship on this connection to include the implications of water rights. This approach leads to a critical, or perhaps "literary critical," background for examining two major water rights struggles in the western United States; the first being court decisions on the Wind River Indian Reservation, home of the Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho Tribes, and secondly, the Klamath-Trinity Basin, where four federally recognized tribes recently partook in water rights settlement negotiations. Litigation and negotiations over vital water are presently limited to the minefield of ambiguous Western narratives on the values and uses of Indian water rights. While each conflict has its unique circumstances and personalities, EuroAmerican stories of control and superiority continue to justify the exploitation of water and subjugation of Indigenous human rights. Alternative forums might make room for restorying and more sustainably managing water.