is the philosophy of law, commonly covering both normative and analytic questions.

Context: Core concept: Jurisprudence

asks what law should be.

Context: Core concept: Normative jurisprudence vs analytic

asks what law is.

Context: Core concept: Analytic jurisprudence vs normative

The problem claims there is no universally acceptable definition of law because the meaning of 'law' varies by context and theoretical stance.

Context: Core concept: Analytical problem of defining law

holds that real law is separate from morality.

Context: Core concept: Legal positivism

Natural law claims law reflects essentially moral and unchangeable laws of nature; this view is called .

Context: Core concept: Natural law

In Kelsen’s theory, a hypothesized foundational norm that instructs obedience is the (Grundnorm).

Context: Core concept: Basic norm (Grundnorm)

Hart’s is a secondary rule that identifies which rules count as valid law.

Context: Core concept: Rule of recognition

Hart divides law into (rules of conduct) and secondary rules (rules for officials).

Context: Core concept: Primary rules

Hart’s are addressed to officials to administer primary rules.

Context: Core concept: Secondary rules

Hart’s rule system adds secondary rules for officials, which causes a legal system to manage adjudication, legal change, and identification of valid laws; this effect is explained by .

Context: Cause→effect relationship: secondary rules as mechanisms

Kelsen separates law from morality but grounds obedience in a basic norm; this causes legal normativity to be explained without moral content through the .

Context: Cause→effect relationship: basic norm as non-moral grounding

Debate over whether law incorporates morality (positivism vs natural law) causes competing theories of legal validity and interpretation to emerge; this includes positivist approaches like Austin and Hart versus natural-law approaches like .

Context: Cause→effect relationship: morality debate drives competing theories

Judges make binding case law through precedent in common law jurisdictions, which causes legal outcomes to be shaped by judicial decisions that can be overturned by higher courts or legislatures; this mechanism is .

Context: Cause→effect relationship: precedent as binding mechanism

Dworkin argues that law is an requiring judges to find the best fitting and most just solution to disputes within constitutional traditions.

Context: Core concept: Dworkin’s interpretive concept of law