Pragmatism

From here, which justifies the importance to capture the essence of the law is in its definition, which it considers the conceptual pragmatism, which consists in seeking the utility in the definitions, being your accessory give propositions and no actual definitions. Kantorowicz, stresses that there must be a distinction between real and nominal, real definition when explains the thing, when it is described; nominal when given a name to an object; Therefore, the problem of the latter, is not knowing whether it is false or true; of the real, if it is not, according to will face with the definite reality. Manifest that the fact of giving a name to a thing is question almost of mere terminology. Drew attention to the case, that if international law, as they have done so much, it is considered as a right and giving rise to great controversies, by investigating if it is whether or not; even though you will be called otherwise, said Kantorowicz, the legal consequences of that right would the same, so that the question of giving a name is useful. Regarding its definition on the right, shown leaning by the amplitude of the definitions of law, offering a provisional, which, faithful to the conception history of legal science, encompasses the right of judicial creation, ecclesiastical establishment, customary law, international, natural law, historical encodings, etc… Indicates that the right is a standards body that has as purpose the prevention or the orderly resolution of conflicts. So this definition does not warrant critical, historical or linguistic stands out.

He makes the observation that the right is a set of rules and that obligatory or binding, is not exclusive of the legal norms, but belongs to all kinds of rules; because if you believe that legal norms are binding only they would be you were the rules of Roman law. I.e. that there needs to be present, that legal norms can be binding, but its essence is not finished with that, they require the imposition. Ultimately, proposes the following definition: the law is a body of rules which ordered the external behavior and which are considered as justiciable. Just says Kantorowicz, obtaining a law which is universally valid concept, you can know whether or not a rule has the character of legal. There is no doubt, that the thought of Kantorowicz, as Perez Carrillo, points out is original, per his final law that aims to cover, in addition to the rules of State origin, the works of the law, ecclesiastical law, the consuetudiario, the rules as the called borderline cases; i.e., because its definition is based on the utility that can be drawn from them: However, the fundamental criticism as Perez, indicates it is in the terms used, which involve a connotation other than that to which you are accustomed to using.