Inclusive Positivism and the Courts: Reconciling Legality and Legitimacy in Contemporary Democracies
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.61978/legalis.v3i4.1119Keywords:
Legal Positivism, Inclusive Positivism, Constitutional Law, Legal Theory, Moral Reasoning, Hybrid Jurisprudence, Judicial LegitimacyAbstract
This article critically reassesses legal positivism in the context of contemporary constitutional adjudication. Legal positivism traditionally maintains a strict separation between legal validity and moral reasoning, but modern courts increasingly rely on moral and constitutional principles to justify legal outcomes. This study analyzes four landmark legal texts: Miller v Secretary of State for Exiting the EU (UK), S v Makwanyane (South Africa), Neubauer v Germany, and the European Union’s AI Act. Through doctrinal and comparative methodology, the research explores how judicial reasoning in each case explicitly reflects or diverges from exclusive and inclusive positivist theory. While Miller and the AI Act affirm source-based legality, Makwanyane and Neubauer reveal the judiciary's turn toward principle-based legitimacy. The findings suggest that inclusive positivism, and in some cases interpretivism, better reflects how courts navigate complex rights issues. The article concludes by proposing a hybrid jurisprudential model that retains the structural benefits of legal positivism while incorporating codified moral principles, offering a balanced approach suited to modern constitutional democracies.
References
Adamidis, V. (2021). Populism and the Rule of Recognition. Populism, 4(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1163/25888072-bja10016 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/25888072-BJA10016
Amram, D., Cignoni, A., Banfi, T., & Ciuti, G. (2022). From P4 Medicine to P5 Medicine: Transitional Times for a More Human-Centric Approach to AI-based Tools for Hospitals of Tomorrow. Open Research Europe, 2, 33. https://doi.org/10.12688/openreseurope.14524.1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.12688/openreseurope.14524.1
Angeleri, S. (2021). Access to Health Care for Venezuelan Irregular Migrants in Colombia: Between Constitutional Adjudication and Human Rights Law. The International Journal of Human Rights, 26(6), 1056–1082. https://doi.org/10.1080/13642987.2021.2002303 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13642987.2021.2002303
Barkāne, I. (2022). Questioning the EU Proposal for an Artificial Intelligence Act: The Need for Prohibitions and a Stricter Approach to Biometric Surveillance1. Information Polity, 27(2), 147–162. https://doi.org/10.3233/ip-211524 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3233/IP-211524
Bouchard, K. (2024). Waluchow’s Constitutional Morality and the Artificial Reason of the Common Law. Problema Anuario De Filosofía Y Teoría Del Derecho, e18773. https://doi.org/10.22201/iij.24487937e.2025.19.18773 DOI: https://doi.org/10.22201/iij.24487937e.2025.19.18773
Boura, M. (2024). The Digital Regulatory Framework Through EU AI Act: The Regulatory Sandboxes’ Approach. Athens Journal of Law, 10(3), 385–398. https://doi.org/10.30958/ajl.10-3-8 DOI: https://doi.org/10.30958/ajl.10-3-8
Bustamante, T. (2021). Can Raz’s Pre-Emption Thesis Survive Under a Dworkinian Theory of Law and Adjudication? Isonomía - Revista De Teoría Y Filosofía Del Derecho, 55, 179–192. https://doi.org/10.5347/isonomia.v0i55.488 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5347/isonomia.v0i55.488
Caviedes, C. (2022). A Core Case for Supermajority Rules in Constitutional Adjudication. International Journal of Constitutional Law, 20(3), 1162–1187. https://doi.org/10.1093/icon/moac072 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/icon/moac072
Cefaliello, A., & Kullmann, M. (2022). Offering False Security: How the Draft Artificial Intelligence Act Undermines Fundamental Workers Rights. European Labour Law Journal, 13(4), 542–562. https://doi.org/10.1177/20319525221114474 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/20319525221114474
Chiappetta, A. (2023). Navigating the AI Frontier: European Parliamentary Insights on Bias and Regulation, Preceding the AI Act. Internet Policy Review, 12(4). https://doi.org/10.14763/2023.4.1733 DOI: https://doi.org/10.14763/2023.4.1733
Dagan, H., Kreitner, R., & Kricheli‐Katz, T. (2018). Legal Theory for Legal Empiricists. Law & Social Inquiry, 43(02), 292–318. https://doi.org/10.1111/lsi.12357 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/lsi.12357
Efendi, A., & Sudarsono, S. (2024). The Procedural Law of State Administrative Courts as the Rule of Adjudication: Exploring Hart’s Theory. Arena Hukum, 17(1), 190–209. https://doi.org/10.21776/ub.arenahukum.2024.01701.11 DOI: https://doi.org/10.21776/ub.arenahukum.2024.01701.11
Fitriyah, A., & Abdulovna, D. D. (2024). EU’s AI Regulation Approaches and Their Implication for Human Rights. Media Iuris, 7(3), 417–438. https://doi.org/10.20473/mi.v7i3.62050 DOI: https://doi.org/10.20473/mi.v7i3.62050
Golpayegani, D., Pandit, H. J., & Lewis, D. (2023). Comparison And Analysis Of 3 Key AI Documents: EU’s Proposed AI Act, Assessment List For Trustworthy AI (ALTAI), And ISO/Iec 42001 AI Management System. 189–200. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-26438-2_15 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-26438-2_15
Hartwell, C. A. (2017). The Coevolution of Finance and Property Rights: Evidence From Transition Economies. Journal of Economic Issues, 51(1), 73–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/00213624.2017.1287488 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00213624.2017.1287488
Krapyvin, E., & Malyshev, B. V. (2024). The Role of H. L. A. Hart’s «Rule of Recognition» in Contemporary Anglo-American Legal Positivism. Uzhhorod National University Herald Series Law, 1(84), 78–82. https://doi.org/10.24144/2307-3322.2024.84.1.10 DOI: https://doi.org/10.24144/2307-3322.2024.84.1.10
Lucas Henrique Muniz da Conceição. (2019). Insearchofthebrazilianconstitutionalethos:acomparativestudyofliberalconstitutionalism. Revistadaacademiabrasileiradedireitoconstitucional, 11(20), 202–227. https://doi.org/10.24068/2177.8256.2019.11.20;202.227 DOI: https://doi.org/10.24068/2177.8256.2019.11.20;202.227
Mahadew, B. (2024). Limitation on Payment by Cash to Combat Money Laundering: A Comparative Assessment of the Laws of Mauritius and France. Journal of Money Laundering Control, 28(1), 80–92. https://doi.org/10.1108/jmlc-04-2024-0064 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/JMLC-04-2024-0064
Nannini, L. (2024). Habemus a Right to an Explanation: So What? – A Framework on Transparency-Explainability Functionality and Tensions in the EU AI Act. Aies, 7, 1023–1035. https://doi.org/10.1609/aies.v7i1.31700 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1609/aies.v7i1.31700
Nye, H. (2022). Raz and the Rule of (Authoritative) Law. Ratio Juris, 35(3), 258–272. https://doi.org/10.1111/raju.12359 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/raju.12359
Pagallo, U., Ciani, J., & Durante, M. (2022). The Environmental Challenges of AI in EU Law: Lessons Learned From the Artificial Intelligence Act (AIA) With Its Drawbacks. Transforming Government People Process and Policy, 16(3), 359–376. https://doi.org/10.1108/tg-07-2021-0121 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/TG-07-2021-0121
Pagallo, U., & Durante, M. (2022). The Good, the Bad, and the Invisible With Its Opportunity Costs: Introduction to the ‘J’ Special Issue on “The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Law.” J — Multidisciplinary Scientific Journal, 5(1), 139–149. https://doi.org/10.3390/j5010011 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/j5010011
Pasupuleti, M. K. (2024). Legal and Regulatory Frameworks for AI in Cybersecurity: Strategies Against Threats and Fraud. 1–18. https://doi.org/10.62311/nesx/97890 DOI: https://doi.org/10.62311/nesx/97890
Perry, S. D. (2023). Precedent as Generalized Second-Order Reasons. 335–349. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780192857248.003.0026 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780192857248.003.0026
Placani, A. (2021). Joseph Raz’s Service Conception and the Limits of Knowability. Ratio Juris, 34(3), 207–223. https://doi.org/10.1111/raju.12326 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/raju.12326
Ramos, S., & Ellul, J. (2024). Blockchain for Artificial Intelligence (AI): Enhancing Compliance With the EU AI Act Through Distributed Ledger Technology. A cybersecurity Perspective. International Cybersecurity Law Review, 5(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1365/s43439-023-00107-9 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1365/s43439-023-00107-9
Riesthuis, T. (2023). The Legitimacy of Judicial Decision-Making: Towards Empirical Scrutiny of Theories of Adjudication. Utrecht Law Review, 19(2), 75–86. https://doi.org/10.36633/ulr.877 DOI: https://doi.org/10.36633/ulr.877
Rosenbaum, H., Gumusel, E., Sanfilippo, M. R., Sweeney, M. E., Sawyer, S., & Zhou, Z. (2024). Exploring Some Impacts of Advances in Artificial Intelligence: A Social Informatics Approach. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 61(1), 818–821. https://doi.org/10.1002/pra2.1109 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/pra2.1109
Rubisz, S. (2024). Legal Liability of an Organisation Using Artificial Intelligence. Scientific Papers of Silesian University of Technology Organization and Management Series, 2024(212), 493–507. https://doi.org/10.29119/1641-3466.2024.212.29 DOI: https://doi.org/10.29119/1641-3466.2024.212.29
Sanchez, L. M. (2024). The Epistemological Turn of the Twentieth Century’s Legal Positivism. Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy, 53(1), 93–120. https://doi.org/10.5553/njlp/.000114 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5553/NJLP/.000114
Schwemer, S. F., Tomada, L., & Pasini, T. (2022). Legal AI Systems in the EU’s Proposed Artificial Intelligence Act. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/kpz5t DOI: https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/kpz5t
Selwyn, N., Akbari, A., Taylor, S. M., Matulionytė, R., Goldenfein, J., Smith, M., Zalnieriute, M., Limante, A., Kuhlmann, S., Hert, P. D., Loideain, N. N., Gentile, G., Engel, A. K., Kavoliūnaitė-Ragauskienė, E., Fidler, M., Belli, L., Lee, J., Lynch, N., & Bergh, S. I. (2024). The Cambridge Handbook of Facial Recognition in the Modern State. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009321211 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009321211
Sindhu, J. (2024). Public Reason and Constitutional Adjudication in India. Comparative Constitutional Studies, 2(1), 140–149. https://doi.org/10.4337/ccs.2024.01.11 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4337/ccs.2024.01.11
Sopiński, M. (2020). Rozumowanie Prawnicze Jako Rozumowanie Praktyczne W Świetle Nowej Teorii Prawa Naturalnego Johna M. Finnisa. Archiwum Filozofii Prawa I Filozofii Społecznej, 84–98. https://doi.org/10.36280/afpifs.2020.1.84 DOI: https://doi.org/10.36280/AFPiFS.2020.1.84
Stadnyk, M., Chekhovych, S. B., Yermakova, H., Kolyukh, V., & Nurullaiev, I. S. o. (2022). The Factors of Constitutional Support for the Rule of Law in the System of Public Authorities. Wseas Transactions on Environment and Development, 18, 182–190. https://doi.org/10.37394/232015.2022.18.20 DOI: https://doi.org/10.37394/232015.2022.18.20
Tan, D., Sudirman, L., & Fiorentine, J. (2024). The Urgency to Renew Bankruptcy Law Requirements and Summary Proof in Indonesia. Legal Spirit, 8(1), 113. https://doi.org/10.31328/ls.v8i1.5081 DOI: https://doi.org/10.31328/ls.v8i1.5081
Veale, M., & Borgesius, F. Z. (2021). Demystifying the Draft EU Artificial Intelligence Act. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/38p5f DOI: https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/38p5f
Wahab, S. N., Bahar, N., & Radzi, N. A. M. (2021). An Inquiry on Knowledge Management in Third-Party Logistics Companies. International Journal of Business Innovation and Research, 24(1), 124. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijbir.2021.111977 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1504/IJBIR.2021.111977
Wessells, K. R., Manger, M. S., Tsang, B. L., Brown, K. H., & McDonald, C. M. (2024). Mandatory Large-Scale Food Fortification Programmes Can Reduce the Estimated Prevalence of Inadequate Zinc Intake by Up to 50% Globally. Nature Food, 5(7), 625–637. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-024-00997-w DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-024-00997-w
