Le Droit selon le modèle de la loi de la loi : Les limites de la théorie de la reconnaissance de Honneth et de l'interprétation anthropologique du droit de Supiot

Lenoble, Jacques
(2014) Revue de droit de l’Université de Sherbrooke — Vol. 2-3, n° 44, p. 235-258 (2014)

Files

JLenoble-Droit-Honneth-Supiot.pdf
  • Open Access
  • Adobe PDF
  • 198.95 KB
Download

Details

Authors
  • Lenoble, JacquesUCLouvain
    Author
Abstract
(en) This article sets out the limits of the epistemological approach favored by the theory of recognition of Axel Honneth. In examining this approach, the writer looks at the anthropological conception of law by Alain Supiot, which points out, like the theory of recognition, the possibility of law being dependent upon an external condition, a meta-rule, a law of the law. By relying on an external principle which would ensure its operability and effectiveness, the law so conceived presupposes the capacity of social actors to transform themselves, based on the requirements of reason. For Honneth, the existence of the learning operation of individual and collective subjects is still supposed, while for Supiot, the law of the law is guaranteed by the "Other" put in a transcendental position of any legal order. While emphasizing the problematic nature of the model of the law of the law, this paper proposes an epistemological shift based on the pragmatic dimension of indeterminacy. Finitude of reason means that it is not possible, neither in the context of the norm itself nor in the perspective of the judge at the time of interpretation, to formalize the conditions of application. Rather, the possibility of the law becoming effective depends on both the use made of it by those responsible for its implementation as well as its cooperative construction by all stakeholders.
Affiliations

Citations

  • APA
  • Chicago
  • FWB

Lenoble, J. (2014). Le Droit selon le modèle de la loi de la loi : Les limites de la théorie de la reconnaissance de Honneth et de l’interprétation anthropologique du droit de Supiot. Revue de droit de l’Université de Sherbrooke, 2-3(44), 235-258. https://hdl.handle.net/2078.5/184154 (Original work published 2014)