Legal positivism was especially popular in the 19th century in Western Europe and Russia. According to him, all law is a law-making function of the state, therefore, it justifies any attitudes, norms emanating from the power of the state.
Legal positivism is a branch in the philosophy of law. Its adherents narrow the range of tasks solved within the framework of legal science by studying the law that operates "here and now". Moreover, science considers it as a set of norms, rules of behavior, which are established by coercive force on the part of the dominant power.
The history of the development of legal positivism
The origins of legal positivism go back to 1798-1857, when O. Comte formed the provisions of positive philosophy. In his works, he focused on the social life of that time and explained the need to form a new order for the formation of society, taking into account the past, present, and possible future.
This trend became especially popular at the end of the 19th century. At this time, his supporters could be found mainly in Western Europe and in Russia. The emergence of legal positivism is associated with the words of John Austin, who said that government should be formed so that it remains governed.
In the twentieth century, legal positivism was inherent in bourgeois jurisprudence. One of its directions was normativeism.
The essence and significance of legal positivism
According to the direction, law is the result of the law-making function of the state, which does not depend on class, economic and other relations. According to J. Austin, there are several types of norms: divine and positive morality. The latter may at its core contain the opinions of other people or be organized by a political force. Legal science in this aspect is based on a system of already established legal concepts, legal obligations and various sanctions.
Positivism always justifies any decisions that come from the state. All such requirements must be strictly followed, regardless of what content they have. For this reason, positivist legal thinking is inherent in most countries dominated by authoritarian rule.
Modern positivist government denies law as a manifestation of the spirit. The famous political scientist M. Yu. Mizulin says that with the prevalence of the described approaches, modern law-making practice in Russia does not provide an opportunity to develop human rights, hinders the development of law as a whole. Currently, positivist jurisprudence turns the national legal order into an instrument for solving external and social problems, attaching exclusively applied significance to law.
