An Answer to Joseph Raz

This chapter contains a reply to Joseph Raz’s critique of Alexy’s defence of non-positivism. The starting point is that the distinction between positivism and non-positivism is, contrary to Raz, still of fundamental significance. It will never become insignificant. Raz agrees with the author that law raises something like a claim to correctness, but he argues that this claim is not necessarily connected with morality. The response presented here is that it is. This implies a necessary connection between law and morality, which thereby yields non-positivism. The practical significance of this is illustrated by the Radbruch Formula and the role principles play in legal argumentation.