High Stakes and Persistent Challenges –: A Rejoinder to Klabbers and Augsberg

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift › Tidsskriftartikel › Forskning › fagfællebedømt

Standard

High Stakes and Persistent Challenges – : A Rejoinder to Klabbers and Augsberg. / Holtermann, Jakob v. H.; Madsen, Mikael Rask.

I: Leiden Journal of International Law, Bind 28, Nr. 3, 15.09.2015, s. 487-493.

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift › Tidsskriftartikel › Forskning › fagfællebedømt

Harvard

Holtermann, JVH & Madsen, MR 2015, 'High Stakes and Persistent Challenges –: A Rejoinder to Klabbers and Augsberg', Leiden Journal of International Law, bind 28, nr. 3, s. 487-493. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0922156515000254

APA

Holtermann, J. V. H., & Madsen, M. R. (2015). High Stakes and Persistent Challenges –: A Rejoinder to Klabbers and Augsberg. Leiden Journal of International Law, 28(3), 487-493. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0922156515000254

Vancouver

Holtermann JVH, Madsen MR. High Stakes and Persistent Challenges –: A Rejoinder to Klabbers and Augsberg. Leiden Journal of International Law. 2015 sep. 15;28(3):487-493. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0922156515000254

Author

Holtermann, Jakob v. H. ; Madsen, Mikael Rask. / High Stakes and Persistent Challenges – : A Rejoinder to Klabbers and Augsberg. I: Leiden Journal of International Law. 2015 ; Bind 28, Nr. 3. s. 487-493.

Bibtex

@article{ffef97fa58c84aee872012ea9ecca23d,
title = "High Stakes and Persistent Challenges –: A Rejoinder to Klabbers and Augsberg",
abstract = "In this separate rejoinder to Jan Klabbers' and Ino Augsberg's comments to the articles in the symposium on New Legal Realism in International Law (Leiden Journal of International Law, Volume 28:2, 2015), we respond from the point of view of the European New Legal Realism (ENLR) as propounded in our initial contribution to the symposium. Agreeing with Ingo Venzke who wrote in his introduction to the symposium that {\textquoteleft}stakes are high{\textquoteright} in the debate over international law and methodology, we argue that both Klabbers and Augsberg, each in their own way, fail to take sufficiently seriously the ENLR challenge to doctrinal scholarship. We argue that Klabbers underestimates the evergreen and persistent character of this challenge when he portrays the current push for New Legal Realism as merely a whimsy fashion wave. And we argue that Augsberg's essentially Kelsenian defence of doctrinal scholarship is insufficiently robust because it inherits the excess epistemological liberalism of its underlying Neo-Kantianism.",
keywords = "Faculty of Law, legal realism, Alf Ross, Pierre Bourdieu, Max Weber, European New Legal Realism",
author = "Holtermann, {Jakob v. H.} and Madsen, {Mikael Rask}",
year = "2015",
month = sep,
day = "15",
doi = "10.1017/S0922156515000254",
language = "English",
volume = "28",
pages = "487--493",
journal = "Leiden Journal of International Law",
issn = "0922-1565",
publisher = "Cambridge University Press",
number = "3",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - High Stakes and Persistent Challenges –

T2 - A Rejoinder to Klabbers and Augsberg

AU - Holtermann, Jakob v. H.

AU - Madsen, Mikael Rask

PY - 2015/9/15

Y1 - 2015/9/15

N2 - In this separate rejoinder to Jan Klabbers' and Ino Augsberg's comments to the articles in the symposium on New Legal Realism in International Law (Leiden Journal of International Law, Volume 28:2, 2015), we respond from the point of view of the European New Legal Realism (ENLR) as propounded in our initial contribution to the symposium. Agreeing with Ingo Venzke who wrote in his introduction to the symposium that ‘stakes are high’ in the debate over international law and methodology, we argue that both Klabbers and Augsberg, each in their own way, fail to take sufficiently seriously the ENLR challenge to doctrinal scholarship. We argue that Klabbers underestimates the evergreen and persistent character of this challenge when he portrays the current push for New Legal Realism as merely a whimsy fashion wave. And we argue that Augsberg's essentially Kelsenian defence of doctrinal scholarship is insufficiently robust because it inherits the excess epistemological liberalism of its underlying Neo-Kantianism.

AB - In this separate rejoinder to Jan Klabbers' and Ino Augsberg's comments to the articles in the symposium on New Legal Realism in International Law (Leiden Journal of International Law, Volume 28:2, 2015), we respond from the point of view of the European New Legal Realism (ENLR) as propounded in our initial contribution to the symposium. Agreeing with Ingo Venzke who wrote in his introduction to the symposium that ‘stakes are high’ in the debate over international law and methodology, we argue that both Klabbers and Augsberg, each in their own way, fail to take sufficiently seriously the ENLR challenge to doctrinal scholarship. We argue that Klabbers underestimates the evergreen and persistent character of this challenge when he portrays the current push for New Legal Realism as merely a whimsy fashion wave. And we argue that Augsberg's essentially Kelsenian defence of doctrinal scholarship is insufficiently robust because it inherits the excess epistemological liberalism of its underlying Neo-Kantianism.

KW - Faculty of Law

KW - legal realism

KW - Alf Ross

KW - Pierre Bourdieu

KW - Max Weber

KW - European New Legal Realism

UR - http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=9882248&fulltextType=RA&fileId=S0922156515000254

U2 - 10.1017/S0922156515000254

DO - 10.1017/S0922156515000254

M3 - Journal article

VL - 28

SP - 487

EP - 493

JO - Leiden Journal of International Law

JF - Leiden Journal of International Law

SN - 0922-1565

IS - 3

ER -

ID: 134704788