1.
Harold Berman, ‘Toward an Integrative Jurisprudence: politics, morality, history’ (1988) 76 Calif. Law Rev. 779-802. Available from: http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1891&context=californialawreview
2.
L. Green ‘General Jurisprudence: A 25th Anniversary Essay’. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies [Internet]. 2005; Available from: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=19525091&site=ehost-live
3.
Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., The Path of the Law [Internet]. Available from: http://www.constitution.org/lrev/owh/path_law.htm
4.
Hart HLA. Law as the Union of Primary and Secondary Rules. In: The concept of law. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2012. p. 79–99.
5.
Hart, Positivism and the Separation of Law and Morals [Internet]. Available from: http://www.umiacs.umd.edu/~horty/courses/readings/hart-1958-positivism-separation.pdf
6.
Dyzenhaus, D. Austin, Hobbes, and Dicey. Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence [Internet]. 2011;24(2):411–30. Available from: https://heinonline-org.bris.idm.oclc.org/HOL/Page?public=false&handle=hein.journals/caljp24&id=409
7.
Vinx, L. Austin, Kelsen, and the Model of Sovereignty. Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence [Internet]. 2011;24(2):473–92. Available from: https://heinonline-org.bris.idm.oclc.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/caljp24&i=471
8.
Perry, ‘Hart’s Methodological Positivism’ [Internet]. Available from: http://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2133&context=faculty_scholarship
9.
Waluchow, ‘Authority and the Practical Difference Thesis: A Defence of Inclusive Legal Positivism’. Available from: https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/034F507ECC20FF415AF6AAF2D461CF56/S1352325200061024a.pdf/authority_and_the_practical_difference_thesis.pdf
10.
Paulson S. Continental Normativism and its British Counterpart: How different are they? In: Lloyd’s introduction to jurisprudence. 7th ed. London: Sweet and Maxwell; 2001. p. 314–28.
11.
Gardner, J. Legal Positivism: 5 1/2 Myths. American Journal of Jurisprudence [Internet]. 2001;(46):199–228. Available from: https://heinonline-org.bris.idm.oclc.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/ajj46&i=203
12.
Finnis J. Evaluation and the description of law. In: Natural law and natural rights. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2011. p. 3–22.
13.
Borowski M. Discourse, Principles, and the Problem of Law and Morality: Robert Alexy’s Three Main Works. Jurisprudence. 2011 Dec;2(2):575–95.
14.
Simmonds, Gur, Crowe, Rosler and Rundle. Review Symposium: Freedom, Responsible Agency and Law. Jurisprudence [Internet]. Available from: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.5235/20403313.5.1.75
15.
Crowe J. Natural Law Beyond Finnis. Jurisprudence. 2011 Dec;2(2):293–308.
16.
R. Kent Greenawalt. ‘How Persuasive is Natural Law Theory?’ Available from: http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1614&context=ndlr
17.
Gustav Radbruch. Statutory Lawlessness and Supra-Statutory Law (1946). Oxford Journal of Legal Studies [Internet]. 2006; Available from: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=20780215&site=ehost-live
18.
Simpson AWB. Common Law and Legal Theory, The. In: Oxford essays in jurisprudence: second series. Oxford: Clarendon Press; 1973. p. 77–99.
19.
Dworkin R. Conventionalism. In: Law’s empire. Oxford: Hart; 1998. p. 114–50.
20.
Scott J. Shapiro. ‘The Hart-Dworkin Debate: A Short Guide for the Perplexed’ [Internet]. Available from: https://law.yale.edu/system/files/documents/pdf/Faculty/Shapiro_Hart_Dworkin_Debate.pdf
21.
Lon L. Fuller. ‘The Case of the Speluncean Explorers’. Available from: https://turtletalk.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/the-speluncean-explorers.pdf
22.
MacCormick N. Children’s rights: a test case for theories of right. In: Legal right and social democracy: essays in legal and political philosophy [Internet]. Oxford: Clarendon Press; 1982. p. 154–66. Available from: https://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198255024.001.0001/acprof-9780198255024
23.
Hart HLA. Are There Any Natural Rights? The Philosophical Review. 1955 Apr;64(2).
24.
Gewirth A. Why Rights are Indispensable. Mind. 1986;XCV(379):329–44.
25.
Feinberg, ‘The Nature and Value of Rights’. Available from: https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/BF00137935.pdf
26.
Kymlicka W, Donaldson S. Animals and the Frontiers of Citizenship. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies. 2014 Jun 1;34(2):201–19.
27.
Raz, J. J. Legal Rights. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies [Internet]. 1984;4(1):1–21. Available from: http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?public=false&handle=hein.journals/oxfjls4&id=7
28.
Lyons D. New Indian Claims and Original Rights to Land. In: Reading Nozick: essays on Anarchy, state and Utopia. Oxford: Blackwell; 1982. p. 355–79.
29.
Nozick R. Distributive justice (section II). In: Anarchy, state, and utopia. Oxford: Blackwell; 1974. p. 228–31.
30.
Nozick R. Distributive justice (section I). In: Anarchy, state, and utopia. Oxford: Blackwell; 1974. p. 149–74.
31.
Simmonds S. Utilitarianism. In: Central issues in jurisprudence: justice, law and rights. 4th ed. London: Sweet & Maxwell; 2013. p. 17–46.
32.
Nussbaum, ‘Rawls’s Political Liberalism: A Reassessment’. Available from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9337.2010.00471.x/epdf
33.
Denise Meyerson. Three Versions of Liberal Tolerance: Dworkin, Rawls, Raz. Jurisprudence [Internet]. Available from: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/20403313.2012.11423535?src=recsys
34.
Cotterrell R. Why Jurisprudence Is Not Legal Philosophy. Jurisprudence. 2014 Jul 8;5(1):41–55.
35.
Tamanaha BZ. An Analytical Map of Social Scientific Approaches to the Concept of Law. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies. 1995;15(4):501–35.
36.
Cotterrell R. Why Must Legal Ideas Be Interpreted Sociologically? Journal of Law and Society. 1998 Jun;25(2):171–92.
37.
Donal Coffey. Custom and Living Law. Jurisprudence [Internet]. Available from: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/20403313.2012.11423536
38.
‘Law, State and Class Struggle’ by Alan Hunt, Marxism Today, June 1976 - UNZ.org [Internet]. Available from: http://www.unz.org/Pub/MarxismToday-1976jun-00178
39.
Carbado, D. W. Critical What What. Connecticut Law Review [Internet]. 2011;43(5):1593–644. Available from: http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?public=false&handle=hein.journals/conlr43&id=1611
40.
Manifesto of the Communist Party [Internet]. Available from: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Manifesto.pdf
41.
Ireland P. History, Critical Legal Studies and the Mysterious Disappearance of Capitalism. The Modern Law Review. 2002 Jan;65(1):120–40.
42.
G. A. Cohen. Freedom, Justice and Capitalism. New Left Review [Internet]. 1981;126. Available from: https://newleftreview.org/I/126/g-a-cohen-freedom-justice-and-capitalism
43.
Tushnet, M. Critical Legal Studies: A Political History. Yale Law Journal [Internet]. 1991;100(5):1515–44. Available from: http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?public=false&handle=hein.journals/ylr100&id=1529
44.
David Andrew Price. Taking Rights Cynically: A Review of Critical Legal Studies. The Cambridge Law Journal [Internet]. 1989;48(2):271–301. Available from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4507287?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
45.
Menkel-Meadow, C. Feminist Legal Theory, Critical Legal Studies, and Legal Education Or the Fem-Crits Go to Law School. Journal of Legal Education [Internet]. 1988;38(1):61–86. Available from: http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?public=false&handle=hein.journals/jled38&id=73
46.
Cornell, D. Loyalty and the Limits of Kantian Impartiality. Harvard Law Review [Internet]. 1994;107(8):2081–94. Available from: http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?public=false&handle=hein.journals/hlr107&id=2101
47.
Crenshaw, K. Twenty Years of Critical Race Theory: Looking back to Move Forward. Connecticut Law Review [Internet]. 2011;43(5):1253–354. Available from: http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?public=false&handle=hein.journals/conlr43&id=1611
48.
Crenshaw, ‘Demarginalising the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics’. Available from: http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1052&context=uclf
49.
Harris AP. Race and Essentialism in Feminist Legal Theory. Stanford Law Review. 1990 Feb;42(3).
50.
Kline, M. Race, Racism, and Feminist Legal Theory. Harvard Women’s Law Journal [Internet]. 1989;(12):115–50. Available from: http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?public=false&handle=hein.journals/hwlj12&id=125
