Svein Eng

• Eng, Svein (2023). Concept or Context? The Exchanges between Ross and Kelsen on Valid Law and Efficacy. Ratio Juris. ISSN 0952-1917. 36(1), s. 72–92. doi: 10.1111/raju.12373. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv Vis sammendrag

  Abstract The aim of this paper is to point out the salient patterns of agreement and dis‐ agreement between Alf Ross and Hans Kelsen's analyses of valid law and efficacy. I argue that the disagreement has the character of systemic postulation on the part of both interlocutors. My main thesis is that the disagreement is not one of philosophical principle, but one that must be resolved on the basis of pragmatic considerations, i.e., the choice between the two valid‐law schemes pertains neither to necessity nor to truth, but to expediency and values.

• Eng, Svein (2020). "Rettskildelærens grunnlag": Problemstillingen og en hovedtese, Uten sammenligning. Festskrift til Eivind Smith 70 år. Fagbokforlaget. ISSN 9788245033007. s. 193–239. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Eng, Svein (2020). Rettskildelære og publikasjonspraksis. Lov og Rett. ISSN 0024-6980. 59(3), s. 141–148. doi: 10.18261/issn.1504-3061-2020-03-03. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv Vis sammendrag

  Forfatteren tar utgangspunkt i den premiss at rettskildenes publikasjon bør være rettskildemessig nøytral, dvs. at valget av publikasjonsmåte ikke bør påvirke rettskildelærens innhold. Artikkelens hovedkasus til illustrasjon av de prinsipielle spørsmål er prejudikatlæren og betydningen i denne sammenheng av at underrettenes redegjørelse for sakens faktum blir publisert. Forfatteren viser at publikasjonsmåten for dommer i denne relasjon ikke har levet opp til den norm å tjene rettskildelæren. Drøftelsen leder opp til det prinsipielle spørsmål om publiseringen av rettskildene bør organiseres på en annen måte enn i dag, herunder om det overordnede ansvar bør være statlig og lovregulert.

• Eng, Svein (2016). Legal Philosophy in Norway in the 20th Century. I Pattaro, Enrico & Roversi, Corrado (Red.), A Treatise of Legal Philosophy and General Jurisprudence. Vol. 12: Legal Philosophy in the Twentieth Century: The Civil Law World. Springer. ISSN 9789400714786. s. 761–783. doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-1479-3_23. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Eng, Svein (2014). Why Reflective Equilibrium? I: Reflexivity of Justification. Ratio Juris. ISSN 0952-1917. 27(1), s. 138–154. doi: 10.1111/raju.12035. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv Vis sammendrag

  Abstract. In A Theory of Justice (1971), John Rawls introduces the concept of "reflective equilibrium". Although there are innumerable references to and discussions of this concept in the literature, there is, to the present author's knowledge, no discussion of the most important question: Why reflective equilibrium? In particular, the question arises: Is the method of reflective equilibrium applicable to the choice of this method itself? Rawls's drawing of parallels between Kant's moral theory and his own suggests that his concept of "reflective equilibrium" is on a par with Kant’s concept of "transcendental deduction". Treating these two approaches to justification as paradigmatic, I consider their respective merits in meeting the reflexive challenge, i.e., in offering a justification for choice of mode of justification. My enquiry into this topic comprises three parts. In this first part, I raise the issue of the reflexivity of justification and question whether the reflexive challenge can be met within the framework of A Theory of Justice.

• Eng, Svein (2014). Why Reflective Equilibrium? III: Reflective Equilibrium as a Heuristic Tool. Ratio Juris. ISSN 0952-1917. 27(3), s. 440–459. doi: 10.1111/raju.12052. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Eng, Svein (2014). Why Reflective Equilibrium? II: Following Up on Rawls's Comparison of His Own Approach with a Kantian Approach. Ratio Juris. ISSN 0952-1917. 27(2), s. 288–310. doi: 10.1111/raju.12039. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Eng, Svein (2013). "Lovene spør ikke om beveggrunner" Ibsen og Kant om handlingsmotivasjon og rett. I Stub, Marius & Kraby, Ida Hjort (Red.), Forsker og formidler. Festskrift til Erik Magnus Boe på 70-årsdagen 17. april 2013. Universitetsforlaget. ISSN 9788215022017. s. 110–137. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Eng, Svein (2011). Lost in the System or Lost in Translation? The Exchanges between Hart and Ross. Ratio Juris. ISSN 0952-1917. 24(2), s. 194–246. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9337.2011.00482.x. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv Vis sammendrag

  ABSTRACT. According to the received opinion there is a theoretical incompatibility between Herbert Hart's The Concept of Law and Alf Ross's On Law and Justice, and, according to the received opinion, it stems above all from Hart's emphasis on the internal point of view. The present paper argues that this reading is mistaken. The Concept of Law does not go beyond On Law and Justice in so far as both present arguments to the effect that law is based on a shared understanding between participants in a project perceived by every participant to be a project in common. The paper demonstrates that there are substantive parallels between Hart's combination of "acceptance" or "acknowledgement" and a "critical reflective attitude" and Ross's combination of "motivation" or "feeling" and a "coherent whole of meaning and motivation". The main conclusion is that the views of norms and normativity put forward in The Concept of Law and On Law and Justice are very close in essential respects, and, more specifically, that the two works are at root identical in their representation of the basis of normativity in reality.

• Eng, Svein (2009). Kant om rettens videreføring: borgernes lydighetsplikt og de styrendes reformplikt. I Leirfall, Anita & Sandmel, Thor (Red.), Enhet i mangfold. Festskrift i anledning Johan Arnt Myrstads 60-årsdag. Unipub forlag. ISSN 9788230311790. s. 97–105. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Eng, Svein (2005). Fused Modality. An Integral Part of Lawyers' Form of Life. Ratio Juris. ISSN 0952-1917. 18(4), s. 429–433. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv Vis sammendrag

  ABSTRACT. In this reply to Dahlman (2004), the focus is on aspects that I take to be of general interest. The point to be emphasised is the absence of a critically reflexive mode of questioning on the part of Dahlman and, in general, on the part of the position he represents, namely, an empiricist and logical paradigm of atemporal cognition and control. It is argued that lawyers' thinking de lege lata – with its distinctive connection to normativity and morals, through the unity of the temporal and institutional dimensions in fused modality – can never be understood within such a framework.

• Eng, Svein & Dokka, Trond Skard (2004). Om studiet av tekster. I Ariansen, Per; Bostad, Inga; Mathisen, Steinar & Rabbås, Øyvind (Red.), Tekster i filosofi- og vitenskapshistorie. Universitetet i Oslo. ISSN 9788291670478. s. 1–18. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Eng, Svein & Dokka, Trond Skard (2003). Vitenskapelig rasjonalitet og studiet av tekster. I Asheim, Olav & Wiestad, Else I (Red.), Filosofi og Vitenskapshistorie. Universitetet i Oslo. ISSN 9788291670430. s. 287–325. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Eng, Svein (2002). Legislative Inflation and the Quality of Law. I Wintgens, L (Red.), Legisprudence: A New Theoretical Approach to Legislation. Hart Publishing. s. 65–80. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Eng, Svein (2000). The Doctrine of Precedent in English and Norwegian Law - Some Common and Specific Features. Scandinavian Studies in Law. ISSN 0085-5944. 39, s. 275–324. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Eng, Svein (2000). Fusion of Descriptive and Normative Propositions. The concepts of 'Descriptive Proposition' and 'Normative Proposition' as Concepts of Degree. Ratio Juris. ISSN 0952-1917. 13(3), s. 236–260. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv Vis sammendrag

  ABSTRACT. I introduce the concept of 'fused descriptive and normative proposition'. I demonstrate that and how this concept has a basis in reality in lawyers' propositions de lege lata, and I point out that and why we do not find fused modality in language qua language, morals and the relationship between parents and children. The concept of 'fused descriptive and normative proposition' is of interest in a number of contexts, inter alia in relation to law, cf. the debate about the status of lawyers' propositions de lege lata ("exactly what kind of propositions are lawyers' propositions about what is the law?"), and in relation to philosophy, cf. the debate about the relationship between "the is" and "the ought". As a consequence of the reality basis and interest of this concept, I see the concepts of 'descriptive proposition' and 'normative proposition' as the extreme points on a graduated dimension, from the purely descriptive to the purely normative.

• Eng, Svein (2000). Does the Doctrine of Precedent Apply to Judicial Arguments Concerning the Doctrine of Sources of Law? I Krawietz, Werner; Summers, Robert S.; Weinberger, Ota & Wright, Georg Henrik von (Red.), The Reasonable as Rational? On Legal Argumentation and Justification. Duncker & Humblot. ISSN 9783428092659. s. 483–502. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Eng, Svein (1999). Criteria That Are Used In The Setting Up Of And Choice Between Descriptive Characterisations. Law and Philosophy. ISSN 0167-5249. 18, s. 475–495. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Eng, Svein (1997). Får prejudikatlæren anvendelse på domsargumenter vedrørende rettskildelæren? Tidsskrift for Rettsvitenskap. ISSN 0040-7143. s. 21–44. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Eng, Svein (1997). Hidden Value-Choices in Legal Practice. I Aarnio, Aulis; Alexy, Robert & Bergholz, Gunnar (Red.), Justice, Morality and Society. Juristförlaget. ISSN 9789154424016. s. 123–145. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Eng, Svein & Summers, Robert S. (1997). Departures from Precedent. I MacCormick, Neil & Summers, Robert S. (Red.), Interpreting Precedents - A Comparative Study. Ashgate. ISSN 9781855216860. s. 519–530. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Eng, Svein (1997). Precedent in Norway. I MacCormick, Neil & Summers, Robert S. (Red.), Interpreting Precedents - A Comparative Study. Ashgate. ISSN 9781855216860. s. 189–217. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Eng, Svein (1993). "Hva er en viljeserklæring?" - Er det logisk umulig at disposisjonsvilje er begrepsmessig kjennetegn ved privatrettslig disposisjon? Svensk Juristtidning. ISSN 0039-6591. s. 1–42. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Eng, Svein (1992). Plassering av offentlig kompetanse hos private - noen hensyn for og imot. Lov og Rett. ISSN 0024-6980. s. 544–551. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Eng, Svein (1992). Teoristruktur og teorivalg. Tidsskrift for Rettsvitenskap. ISSN 0040-7143. s. 496–504. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Eng, Svein (1991). Noen synspunkter på en teori om etikk, rett og erkjennelse. Tidsskrift for Rettsvitenskap. ISSN 0040-7143. s. 279–305. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Eng, Svein (1990). Begrepene 'kompetanse' og 'gyldighet' i juridisk argumentasjon. Tidsskrift for Rettsvitenskap. ISSN 0040-7143. s. 625–671. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Eng, Svein (1990). Sondringen mellom regler og retningslinjer. I Christie, Nils (Red.), den urett som ikke rammer deg selv : festskrift til Anders Bratholm 70 år. Universitetsforlaget. ISSN 9788200210115. s. 473–483. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv

Se alle arbeider i NVA

• Eng, Svein (2022). Rettskildelærens grunnlag. Fagbokforlaget. ISBN 9788245037203. 169 s. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Duy, Iris Nguyen; Bragdø-Ellenes, Sunniva Cristina; Backer, Inge Lorange; Eng, Svein & Rasch, Bjørn Erik (2020). Uten sammenligning. Festskrift til Eivind Smith 70 år. Fagbokforlaget. ISBN 9788245033007. 713 s. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Eng, Svein (2007). Rettsfilosofi. Universitetsforlaget. ISBN 9788215011769. 692 s. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Eng, Svein (2005). Rettsfilosofi -- Foreløpig utgave. Universitetsforlaget. ISBN 9788215009643. 569 s. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Eng, Svein (2004). Forskersamfunn uten fagfellesskap? Opposisjon ved en doktordisputas [scientific community without common disciplines?]. Institutt for Offentlig rett. ISBN 9788280630438. 108 s. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Eng, Svein (2003). Analysis of Dis/agreement - with particular reference to Law and Legal Theory. Kluwer Academic Publishers. ISBN 9781402014901. 610 s. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Eng, Svein (1998). U/enighetsanalyse - med særlig sikte på jus og allmenn rettsteori. Universitetsforlaget. ISBN 9788200229216. 670 s. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Eng, Svein (1990). Notater i almenn rettsteori. Institutt for Offentlig Rett. ISBN 9788280630438. 70 s. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv

Se alle arbeider i NVA

• Eng, Svein (2020). Context or Concept? The Exchanges Between Kelsen and Ross on Valid Law and Efficacy. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Bragdø-Ellenes, Sunniva Cristina; Duy, Iris Nguyen; Backer, Inge Lorange; Eng, Svein & Rasch, Bjørn Erik (2020). Eivind Smith 70 år, Uten sammenligning. Festskrift til Eivind Smith 70 år. Fagbokforlaget. ISSN 9788245033007. s. 7–9. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Eng, Svein (2019). Context or Concept? Kelsen and Ross on Valid Law and Efficacy. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv Vis sammendrag

  In the history of the philosophy of law in the twentieth century, Hans Kelsen and Alf Ross are two central interlocutors. At various points in time they had occasion to comment directly upon each other’s works. A common feature of these exchanges is that they both declared their own theory to stand in a marked contrast to the theory of the other as regards the nature and place of normativity in the concept of valid law. In my presentation I shall argue that Kelsen’s and Ross’s analyses of valid law are closer to each other than what is generally assumed to be the case. Kelsen may be seen as being in agreement with Ross as regards the basis of normativity in reality; that is to say, in the end, Kelsen, no less than Ross, bases his reasoning on a psychological concept of norm. To show this, I shall argue for two theses: First, the differences between the conceptualisations in Kelsen and Ross follow a distinct pattern; they represent what I term different “reconstructions and redefinitions” – of normativity in general as well as of legal normativity in particular. Secondly, their disagreement on valid law and efficacy may be seen as a disagreement on which conceptual framework to choose –efficacy qua criterion in the concept of valid law or efficacy qua contextual presupposition for speaking of valid law – where the choice of framework is to be made on pragmatic grounds, that is, on the basis of considerations of “operationalisability”, “purpose”, “fruitfulness”, etc. Summing up, my main claim is that Kelsen and Ross can agree that their disagreement is a matter of a pragmatic choice between conceptual frameworks, not a matter of philosophical principle.

• Eng, Svein (2009). Begreper og begrepsdannelse i jus og rettsvitenskap. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Eng, Svein (2009). Begreper og begrepsdannelse i jus og rettsvitenskap. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Eng, Svein (2009). Lost in the System or Lost in Translation? The Discussion Between Hart and Ross. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Eng, Svein (2009). Some Kantian Concepts of Relevance in an Analysis of Kelsen's Basic Norm. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Eng, Svein (2009). Can the Doctrine of Precedent Serve as a Basis for the Doctrine of the Sources of Law? Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Eng, Svein (2008). Begreper og begrepsdannelse i jus og rettsvitenskap. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Eng, Svein & Sibbern, Kai (2007). Verdibørsen: Om Rettsfilosofi. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Eng, Svein (2005). Law and Practice, Introduction. Archiv für Rechts- und Sozialphilosophie. ISSN 0001-2343. Beiheft 97, s. 7–7. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Eng, Svein (2001). Legal Theory - «Hyphen Philosophy» or Theory Sui Generis? Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Eng, Svein (2001). Tolking av traktater. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Eng, Svein (2001). Why Reflective Equilibrium? Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Eng, Svein (2001). Fusion of Descriptive and Normative Propositions. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Eng, Svein (2000). Konkurrerende culpakriterier. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Eng, Svein (2015). Rettspositivismedebatt. Akademika forlag. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv

Se alle arbeider i NVA