This doctoral thesis analyzes the systematic role of Kant's conception of happiness in his moral, legal and political theory. Although many of his conclusions and arguments are directly or indirectly influenced by his conception of human happiness, Kant's underlying assumptions are rarely overtly discussed or given much detail in his works. Kant also provides different and apparently incompatible definitions of happiness. This research explores the domains of Kant's practical philosophy in which his conception of happiness plays a systematic role: the relation between the natural need of human beings to pursue happiness and the ends-oriented structure of the human will; Kant's anti-eudaimonism in ethical theory; Kant's claim that we have an indirect duty to promote our own happiness and the problem that under certain circumstances, the indeterminacy of happiness makes it not irrational to choose short term satisfaction at the costs of one's overall, long term happiness, given Kant's conception of non-moral choice as expectation of pleasure; Kant's justification of the duty to adopt the happiness of others as our ends (the duty of beneficence) and the latitude and eventual demandingness of this duty; finally, since Kant also subsumes subsistence needs and welfare under the concept of happiness of individuals, I also engage with the question of state provision for the poor in the Kantian Rechtsstaat and explore Kant's conception of equity or fairness (Billigkeit) as an alternative to the traditional minimalist and the welfare interpretations of the Kantian state.

What are the possible bases for the authority of the Australian Constitution? Why should people and judges ever obey the text of the Constitution? The developing tools of analytical jurisprudence assist in answering these questions. Despite its currency, the concept of "sovereignty" provides little assistance in understanding how law provides reasons for action. The concept of authority is more useful. The text of the Australian Constitution has authority in that it provides presumptive reasons for action, overruled when they appear sufficiently erroneous on a cursory examination. The Constitution is part of the Australian legal system. A legal system is normally identified partly by moral norms. These moral norms themselves require that legal systems also be identified where possible by reference to the directives of a previous de facto authority - even when that previous authority no longer has power to make new legal norms. A legal system will be "legitimate" if any improvement to be achieved by revolution would be outweighed by the uncertainty revolution creates. Against this theoretical background, various theories about the Constitution's authority can be assessed. Although the enactment of the Constitution by the Imperial Parliament provides the Constitution with legal authority, it does not confer moral legitimacy. Contrary to a growing judicial and academic consensus in Australia, the Constitution's legitimate authority is not derived from the "will of the people". Nor is it derived from the Constitution's Founders. The will of the people cannot be identified reliably, and wound not provide sufficient reasons for action. The Constitution does embody a federal compact between the colonies. Because it is worthwhile to keep political promises, the polities of the States should fulfil this compact, even though the compact only imposes weak obligations on the Commonwealth. Other possible bases for the Constitution's authority are also inadequate. These include claims that judges are bound to apply the Constitution because their authority is based upon it; that the Constitution embodies "associate obligations", and that the Constitution isa commitment to protect individual rights and democracy. Instead the Constitution has legitimate authority principally because it coordinates individual action towards desirable goals. The Australian Constitution settles the location of authority by authority.

La modernité juridique porte en elle deux projets parfois contradictoires : le constitutionnalisme et la démocratie, c’est-à-dire la volonté de préserver la liberté de l’individu en limitant le pouvoir par la Constitution et celle d’associer les individus à l’élaboration des normes. Ce double projet se traduit dans le concept de démocratie constitutionnelle, dont il existe deux grandes conceptions. La première, dominante au sein de la doctrine juridique, fait de la protection des droits et libertés par un juge constitutionnel le point central de l’équilibre à réaliser entre liberté individuelle et exercice du pouvoir en commun. L’hypothèse qui sera la nôtre est de considérer que cette conception est soutenue par des discours à la fois descriptifs et prescriptifs, issus des autorités normatives ou de la doctrine, reposant essentiellement sur des présupposés libéraux. La mutation des droits de l’homme en droits fondamentaux ne peut se comprendre que dans le cadre d’une philosophie politique libérale, une conception particulière de la liberté, des droits et de la démocratie, ainsi que dans un contexte historique spécifique. Il existe cependant une seconde conception de la démocratie constitutionnelle, reposant, quant à elle, sur la philosophie républicaine. Celle-ci entend se séparer d’une conception trop centrée sur le juge, pour réévaluer le rôle des institutions élues et du peuple, dans la concrétisation de la Constitution. Ce républicanisme juridique, longtemps ignoré par la doctrine française, mais davantage théorisé à l’étranger, apporte ainsi des réponses utiles aux diverses évolutions venues perturber le champ classique du droit constitutionnel : développement des droits fondamentaux, déploiement de la justice constitutionnelle, érosion de la responsabilité politique, disparition du peuple, évolutions de la souveraineté. À cetitre, l’étude du républicanisme permet à la fois de mettre en lumière les limites de la conception libérale dominante de la démocratie constitutionnelle, tout en proposant une conception renouvelée de celle-ci. / Constitutionalism, and Democracy, are the two projects of modernity. The concept of constitutional democracy carries theses two projects. There are two conceptions of constitutional democracy. The first one is the most popular in legal scholarship. It is centred on rights-based judicial review. Our hypothesis is that this conception of constitutional democracy is backed up by descriptive and normative discourses resting on liberal assumptions. Therefore, the evolution from human rights to fundamental right is based on a specific conception of freedom, rights, democracy, and a specific historical context. This dominant view is not the only view. The second conception of constitutional democracy is based on republican philosophy. The republican view intent to overtake the judicial-centred conception of democracy, by rehabilitating elected institutions and the people themselves. This legal republicanism is widely ignored by French scholars, but very dynamic abroad, gives us tools to grasp recent constitutional evolutions : the expansion of fundamental rights, the growth of constitutional adjudication, the attrition of political responsibility, the disappearance of the people, the mutation of sovereignty. Therefore, republicanism brings to light the limits of dominant liberal conception of constitutional democracy, and put forward a renewed one.

Le travail ici présenté offre une approche originelle des notions juridiques développées par Hans Kelsen dans ses efforts vers l'élaboration d'une théorie "pure" du droit. Cette étude est basée sur une analyse philosophique des principaux concepts juridiques qui ont, à leur tour, des caractéristiques philosophiques pertinentes, principalement les notions qui sont apparemment "partagées" entre les domaines juridique et philosophique, sans pour autant garder les mêmes significations sémantiques. La notion la plus pertinente à avoir ces caractéristiques est peut-être celle de "validité", étant donné qu'il s'agit d'une notion présente tant dans le domaine de la logique quant dans le domaine juridique; Dans ce sens, nous prétendons approcher aussi les notions de fiction normative, de science du droit, de conflits entre normes (qui sont aussi erronément appelés "contradictions entre normes"), et la règle d'inférence comme elle est appliquée dans le contexte de la création normative, donnant lieu à des notions trompeuses comme celle de raisonnement pratique. La notion de raisonnement pratique est d'ailleurs très riche concernant ce contexte de comparaison, et elle sera particulièrement traitée en fonction des autres notions problématiques qu'elle génère dans le champ normatif, telles que le Dilemme de Jørgensen; Cette notion, étant employée dans différents cas problématiques du droit, nous offre une opportunité de présenter une approche alternative pour le traitement logique du processus de justification dans la création d'une norme. Nous avons pour objectif aussi d'analyser les notions de condition logique et juridique, qui représentent un changement dans la perspective de Kelsen concernant l'utilité et la légitimité de l'application de la logique dans le champ normatif du droit. Une telle étude comparative, même si elle semble être fondamentale pour éclaircir les notions en question dans ces domaines respectifs, reste une tâche jamais réalisée dans une telle manière systématique. L'objectif de cette étude est de fournit un panorama clair concernant les limites entre les champs de la philosophie (spécialement la logique) et les normes juridiques. La compréhension des relations entre les notions "homonymes" doit aussi expliquer pourquoi elles sont utilisées de forme erronée aussi fréquemment quand les philosophes discutent du droit, mais aussi quand les juristes cherchent des justifications pour les concepts dans leurs théories. Ainsi, le contexte de cette étude est le positivisme juridique tel qu'il est présenté par le philosophe du droit Hans Kelsen. Notre choix est justifié par le fait que lathéorie de Kelsen s'avère l plus conforme à notre approche philosophique d'orientation logique et analytique. L’œuvre qui servira de base à notre investigation est la "Théorie Générale des Normes" (1979), surtout dû au fait de représenter l'intensité des efforts de son auteur pour traiter les problèmes juridiques liés à des aspect philosophiques ou logiques. Cela est particulièrement remarquable dans le cas de la possibilité d'application de la logique aux normes, mais aussi concernant les notions problématiques comme celle de norme fondamentale comme fiction ou encore la notion de substrat indifférent au mode. / The present work offers an original approach on the legal notions developed by Hans Kelsen in his attempts towards a “pure” theory of Law, based on a philosophical analysis of the main legal concepts that have a strong philosophical feature, namely those notions which are somehow “shared” between the two fields in their name, but not always in their meaning. While the most striking notion to be approached via a philosophical perspective would probably be that of legal validity (since validity is a central term also in Logic), we aim, in the same way, to approach the notions of legal fictions, the notion of science in Law, normative conflicts or “contradictions” as they are commonly – and wrongly – named, and the rule of inference as it is applied in the context of normative creation, giving place to the wrong notion of practical reasoning. The notion of practical reasoning is very rich in this context of comparison, and will be a special one, as it serves for us to analyze traditional problems of legal theory, such as Jørgensen’s dilemma, as well as it offers us the opportunity of providing our own alternative of a logical treatment of the process of legal justification of the creation of a norm. We aim to analyze the notion of legal and logical conditions as well, which represent a changing in Kelsen’s perspective on the utility and legitimacy of the application of logic to the legal domain. Such a comparative study, even if it appears to be fundamental for clarifying those notions in their respective fields, is a task never before developed in this systematic manner. The objective of such a study is to provide a clear overview of the boundaries between the fields of philosophy (especially logic) and the legal norms. A clear understanding of the relations between those “homonym” notions may explain why they are most of the time misused when philosophers talk about law, as well as when lawyers try to justify the concepts composing the legal theory.The context of this study is the legal positivism as it is explained by the legal-philosopher Hans Kelsen. This choice is justified by the fact that Kelsen’s legal theory appears to be the most suitable frame for an analytical, logic-oriented investigation. The work emphasized will be the General Theory of Norms (1979), mainly because of the fact that this book represents how intensively Kelsen dedicated himself to the legal problems mostly related to philosophy or logic, namely the question of the application of logic to norms and the clarification of problematic notions such as the basic norm as a fiction or, still, the notion of modally indifferent substrate.

This dissertation outlines a theory of law capable of explaining both the legal systems of domestic states and other types of legal phenomena different from state law that I will call non-state legal phenomena. Central examples of non-state law include indigenous and customary laws, the international legal order, the European Union, and transnational commercial law. This theoretical framework aims to formulate and resolve questions about the common features shared by different types of legality and the distinctive legal character of non-state legal phenomena. It also sets the stage for doctrinal and politico-moral inquiries about these phenomena. My account draws liberally from central themes of HLA Hart’s theory of state law that I deem applicable outside the domestic context. One key idea is the notion of normative order or unified complexes of interrelated rules that regulate specific domains of action. The refined Hartian view that I develop here distinguishes between two kinds of normative orders, sets and systems, which differ in their characteristic features and that allow for different doctrinal and moral inquiries. While these tools can be used to explain both state and non-state normative phenomena, I shall consider as law the normative orders of political communities, i.e. groups whose participants efficaciously employ intense forms of social pressure to secure conformity to norms that regulate pressing politico-moral issues. With these elements in place, the legal domain can be characterized as a constellation of sets and systems that constitute political communities at the state, non-domestic, international, supra-national, and potentially global levels. The argument proceeds as follows. Chapter 1 sets the stage of this inquiry. Chapter 2 explicates the key insights of the Hartian framework. Chapter 3 defends the applicability of this framework to non-state contexts. Chapter 4 illustrates its explanatory virtues by applying it to two regimes of international trade law. The conclusion summarizes the central insights of this view and highlights the avenues for future research. / Thesis / Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) / This dissertation outlines a theory of law capable of explaining both state and non-state legal phenomena. This theoretical framework aims to formulate and resolve questions about the common features shared by different types of legality and the distinctive legal character of non-state legal phenomena, and to help to set the stage for further inquiries about them. My account draws liberally from HLA Hart’s theory of state law. The argument proceeds as follows. Chapter 1 sets the stage of this inquiry. Chapter 2 explicates the key insights of the Hartian framework. Chapter 3 defends the applicability of this framework to non-state contexts. Chapter 4 illustrates its explanatory virtues by applying it to two regimes of international trade law. The conclusion summarizes the central insights of this view and highlights the avenues for future research.

This thesis has three objectives. Its primary objective is to examine, and critically evaluate, the theoretical accounts offered by Hans Kelsen and Joseph Raz to explain the temporal continuity and discontinuity of legal systems. In particular, it evaluates the explanatory power of those accounts by combining an abstract analysis of the accounts in principle and an evaluation based on systematically applying them to one concrete, historically circumstanced instance: the legal systems of British derivation in Australia between 1788 and 2001. The thesis thus tests each account’s factual fit: how adequately it corresponds to, accords with, and persuasively makes sense of, the facts – including complex social facts, attitudes and normative standards – for which it purports to offer an account. Second, the thesis aims to demonstrate, more generally, the utility of applying theoretical accounts to a particular historical instance to complement abstract analysis. Third, the thesis aims to advance the understanding of the evolution of Australian legal systems between 1788 and 2001. These three objectives are achieved through the critical exposition and reconstruction of the accounts, their development and enrichment where refinement is appropriate, their application to the specific context of Australia and their evaluation, individually and in comparison.

To interpret is to seek understanding. This formulation hides as much as it reveals and I propose to unpack it. I argue that interpreting is only a part of what legal theorists and practitioners do. In Part I, I attempt an ‘in vitro’ analysis and present the bare concept of interpretation: interpretation is an activity that needs an object; interpreting is reasoning about meaning when there is a possibility of mistake about that meaning. Part II focuses on two domains of interpretation: musical performance and adjudication. I rely on Joseph Raz’s account of interpretation as explanation or display and identify the former domain as a paradigm of display and the latter as a paradigm of explanation. Both are examples of interpretation for others and involve a claim to theoretical authority on the part of interpreters. But, unlike musicians- who interpret only works of music- judges interpret a great variety of objects. Musical interpretation is identified by its object, whereas legal interpretation is not. Legal interpretation is explanation of legal meaning. I then discuss the tenets of the minimalist view of legal interpretation: (i) legal rules are not interpretable and legal texts are not primary objects of legal interpretation; (ii) there is a difference between interpretative authority (a form of theoretical authority) and legal authority (a form of practical authority) and interpretative conclusions can be theoretically authoritative without being exclusionary reasons for action; (iii) Interpreting and adjudicating are different activities. Interpretation explains, adjudication resolves. Legal interpreters do not produce legal rules: they are required to be guided by them.

This thesis contends certain contentious court cases can be traced beyond their legal roots to deep, sometimes incommensurable philosophical disagreements. However, the unitary nature of the judicial system effectively forces the court to take sides, putting its institutional weight and moral authority behind one set of principles and not another. Following Cover, I contend that this encourages future litigants to rephrase their claims in the court’s preferred normative language, thus influencing our normative environment. The theories which guide judicial decisions, however, are generally insufficiently attentive to the court’s normative influence. In response, I attempt adapting Dworkin’s Law as Integrity around Cover’s more sociological view. Chapter 1 examines Cover’s view, Chapter 2 explores Syndicat Northcrest v. Amselem and Delmaagukw v. B.C. as case studies, and Chapter 3 adapts Dworkin around Covers view. My conclusions argue that further inspiration can be drawn from EU Coordinate Constitutionalism and Sui Generis aboriginal rights.

This thesis is about the legitimacy of political authority in general and international legal institutions (ILIs) in particular. It is divided into two parts with three chapters corresponding to each part. The first part presents an account of legitimate political authority that is based on Joseph Raz's service conception of authority but also makes some important modifications to it. The central claim of the first part is that the legitimacy of political authorities in general, as measured by the standard of Raz's Normal Justification Thesis, depends in a crucial way on the ability of the subjects to get involved –more so than Raz is prepared to admit– in the activities that are relevant in the political domain. The thesis offers a general account of legitimate political authority, i.e. one that is valid for any type of political authority. The second part, however, examines the implications of this account for the legitimacy of ILIs. These are non-state authorities, such as the World Trade Organisation or the International Criminal Court, that deal with problems of global political relevance. Because of this global approach, the subjects of ILIs (i.e. those whose reasons are to be served by the ILI) are not confined to the boundaries of regions or states, but distributed across the world. ILIs operate by creating, interpreting, and applying public international law. Despite some striking differences between ILIs and other types of political authority (particularly states), I argue that they all ought to be measured by the same standard of legitimacy, namely the Normal Justification Thesis. But I also argue that the requirements for meeting this standard of legitimacy may vary according to the type of political authority (especially with regard to the requirement of democracy).

This thesis examines the role that scholarly digests and commentaries played in the formation of legal rules in the Muslim legal institution known as the madhhab. I posit that a shared approach to legal rule-determination, and the respect of juristic precedent that it entails, underlies the jurisprudential processes of all of the four post-classical Sunni madhhabs (the Ḥanafī, Mālikī, Shāfi'ī, and Ḥanbalī), and unites them in a wider ‘madhhab-law tradition’. Taking the Ḥanafī madhhab as a case study, the thesis analyses a commentary written by the late Mamluk jurist Ibn Quṭlūbughā (d. 879/1474) upon the digest of the celebrated Abbasid-era Abū al-Ḥusayn al-Qudūrī (d. 428/1037). In discussing the madhhab's heritage of precedent, Ibn Quṭlūbughā's commentary weaves an intricate tapestry of quotations and references from previous jurists and works, providing us with insight into how author-scholars reacted to, and interacted with, other jurists over space and time. Chapter 1 provides a short introduction to the lives of Qudūrī and Ibn Quṭlūbughā, and the contexts within which they produced their works. Chapter 2 employs both quantitative and qualitative analysis of the commentary, in order to deduce historical and geographical patterns out of which a periodisation of rule-determination in the Ḥanafī madhhab is proposed. In Chapter 3, Ibn Quṭlūbughā's jurisprudential theory of rule-determination is studied, examining both the justifications and the processes employed by jurists in arriving at a legal rule in the Ḥanafī madhhab. Chapter 4 then turns to the craft of commentary itself, analysing over eighty case examples for the logical relationships, rhetorical devices, and legal arguments that inform the actual practice of rule-determination through commentary. A final chapter then summarises the conclusions, and situates them within a broader discussion as to the nature of the madhhab-law tradition.