• Brian Leiter Karl N. Llewellyn Professor of Jurisprudence and Director of the Center for Law, Philosophy & Human Values, University of Chicago.




Filosofia do Direito, Jurisprudência, Teoria do Direito


This essay offers a programmatic statement for a realist theory of law.  Although I have been influenced by (and written about) the work of earlier American, Scandinavian, Italian and other legal realists, this is not an essay about what others have thought.   This is an essay about what I take realism about law to mean and what its theoretical commitments are; I shall use other realists to sometimes illustrate the distinctive positions of a realist theory of law, but will make clear where I depart from them. A realist theory of law involves both a “realist” and a “naturalistic” perspective on law.  Let me explain how I understand these perspectives.


Não há dados estatísticos.


BURGE, T. Origins of Objectivity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010.

CHOMSKY, N. Review of Skinner's. Verbal Behavior. Language, v. 35, 1959, p. 26–58.

FODOR, J. The Language of Thought. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Co, 1975.

GARDNER, J.; MACKLEM, T. Review of Legality by Scott Shapiro. Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews, 2011. See https://ndpr.nd.edu/news/legality/.

GUASTINI, R. Rule-Scepticism Restated. In: GREEN, L.; LEITER, B. (eds.). Oxford Studies in the Philosophy of Law, v. 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011.

Hart, H.L.A. (2012). The Concept of Law. 3rd Edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

HOLTERMANN, J. Naturalizing Alf Ross’s Legal Positivism: A Philosophical Reconstruction. Revus, v. 24, 2014, p. 165–186.

LEITER, B. Naturalizing Jurisprudence. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.

LEITER, B. Explaining Theoretical Disagreement. University of Chicago Law Review, v. 76, 2009, p. 1215-1250.

LEITER, B. Praise of Realism (and Against Nonsense Jurisprudence). Georgetown Law Journal, v. 100, 2012, p. 865-893.

LEITER, B. Constitutional Law, Moral Judgment, and the Supreme Court as Super-Legislature. Hastings Law Journal, v. 66, 2015, p. 1601-1616.

LEITER, B. Derecho Constitucional, Juicio Moral y la Supreme Corte como Súper-Legislatura. In: VERÁSTEGUI, A. Martínez (ed.). La Constitución como objeto de interpretación. Ciudad de México: Supreme Corte de Justicia de la Nación, 2016.

LEITER, B. Moral Psychology with Nietzsche. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019.

LEITER, B. Legal Positivism as a Realist Theory of Law. In: MINDUS, P.; SPAAK, T. (eds.). The Cambridge Companion to Legal Positvism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020.

LORD, C. G.; ROSS, L.; LEEPER, M.R. Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, v. 37, n. 11, 1979, p. 2098–2109.

MYERS, D. Discussion-Induced Attitude Polarization. Human Relations, v. 28, n. 8, 1975, p. 699-715.

QUINE, W.V.O. Pursuit of Truth. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press, 1990.

RAZ, J. Authority, Law, and Morality. The Monist, v. 68, n. 3, 1985, p. 295-324.

RAZ, J. The Morality of Freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986.

RAZ, J. Notes on Value and Objectivity. In: LEITER, B. (ed.). Objectivity in Law and Morals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.

SCANLON, T.M. Being Realistic about Reasons. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014.

SHAPIRO, S. Legality. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press, 2011.

SUNSTEIN, C. The Law of Group Polarization. Journal of Political Philosophy, v. 10, n. 2, 2002, p. 175-195.

ZUBER, J.; CROTT, H.; WERNER, J. Choice Shift and Group Polarization: An Analysis of the Status of Arguments and Social Decision Schemes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, v. 62, 1992, p. 50-61.




Como Citar

Leiter, B. (2020). WHAT IS A REALIST THEORY OF LAW?. REI - REVISTA ESTUDOS INSTITUCIONAIS, 6(1), 334–345. https://doi.org/10.21783/rei.v6i1.454



Artigos Internacionais