Legal systems such as those in the United States and Canada, which include fundamental rights of political morality in their constitutions, present an interesting and difficult problem for legal positivists. Are such moral standards to count among the existence or validity conditions of laws, or are they better understood as fundamental objectives or justification conditions which laws may or may not achieve or respect in practice? The first option, known as inclusive legal positivism, expands the traditional positivist separation thesis to mean that although there is no necessary connection between law and morality in general, it is possible that in some systems it is a necessary truth that laws reproduce or satisfy certain demands of morality. The second option, known as exclusive legal positivism, denies this possibility, and maintains instead that it is never a necessary condition that laws reproduce or satisfy certain demands of morality, even if such demands are constitutionally recognized. On the exclusive account, in the context of constitutional states such as the U.S. and Canada, the separation thesis is expanded to mean that there is no necessary connection between the existence and content of laws and the demands of political morality typically included in constitutions. In this thesis I defend exclusive positivism and argue that it best follows from the traditional positivist commitment to separate existence conditions oflaw from justification conditions of law, and further, avoids what I take to be decisive problems with inclusive positivism. Specifically, I argue that Joseph Raz's notion of a directed power, and not reliance on an inclusive rule of recognition, best explains the duty of judicial review in Charter cases. The fundamental rights of political morality recognized in the Charter are best understood as constitutional objectives which all subordinate laws in Canada ought to respect, yet may fail to do so in practice. Finally, I argue that the concepts, distinctions, and arguments deployed in the internal positivist debate are also of value in the wider and ongoing debate between H.L.A. Hart and Ronald Dworkin over the nature of law. / Thesis / Master of Arts (MA)

Le droit des personnes et de la famille est le théâtre régulier de discussions passionnées sur le rôle des juristes. Authentiques « cas pratiques de philosophie du droit », la réparation du préjudice de naissance handicapée, l’ouverture du mariage aux personnes de même sexe, ou encore la réception de la gestation pour autrui réalisée à l’étranger, ont été pour eux l’occasion de prendre position, dans des directions radicalement opposées, sur la place du droit et la fonction du juriste dans la société. Classique, cette question épistémologique a été substantiellement renouvelée par les évolutions politiques et juridiques contemporaines. L’étude se propose d’apporter un double regard, critique et constructif, à cette discussion.Si les doctrines philosophiques ou sociologiques contestant ou minimisant la juridicité des règles régissant la vie personnelle ou familiale doivent être écartées, on ne peut manquer d’observer les spécificités du droit des personnes et de la famille. À cet égard, l’ancestrale querelle des jusnaturalistes et des positivistes, régulièrement convoquée pour rendre compte des débats contemporains, peine à rendre compte de la réalité du rôle du juriste dans cette matière. Cette insuffisance invite à porter un nouveau regard sur le rôle occulté du juriste en droit des personnes et de la famille : celui de l’intellectuel engagé. Cette posture, utile, que le juriste ne devrait pas craindre, n’est pas sans conséquence sur ses devoirs ou sa formation. Elle permet également d’envisager sous un nouveau jour les frontières du droit, de la morale et du politique, le droit ou le juste apparaissant comme le trait d’union, le médiateur, entre l’éthique et la politique, entre le bon et l’utile. / Law of Persons and Family generates passionate discussions on the role of jurist. Compensations for children born handicapped, the opening of marriagetosame-sex couples, or surrogacy carried out abroad, represent authentic “practical cases of philosophy of law” that allow them to take a stand, in opposite directions, on the place of the law and the role of legal professionals in society. This classic epistemological question has been substantially renewed by contemporary political and legal developments. The aim of this study is to provide a critical and constructive perspective to the discussion. Philosophical or sociological doctrines challenging or minimizing the legality of the rules governing personal or family life must be rejected and law of Persons and Family specificities must be considered. In this respect, the ancestral dispute between ‘naturalists’ and ‘positivists’, duly summoned to reflect on contemporary debates, hardly echoes the reality of the role of the lawyer in this matter.This deficiency invites us to take a new look at the hidden role of the jurist in the law of persons and family: the committed intellectual one. The jurist’s useful stand, that he should not fear, has consequences on his training and duties.It also helps to consider in a new light the borders of law, morality and politics, the right or the fair appearing as the hyphen, the mediator, between ethics and politics, and between the good and the useful.