Contemporary Legal Theories in the Analysis of Law: A Reflection Applied to the Boumediene vs. Bush Case

PAULA GAIDO

New York University, New York City

Seminario; Fellows Forum New York University School of Law; 2010

New York University School of Law

In the first part of this article, I begin by highlighting how sharing the idea that there is a necessary connection between law and morality stimulates discussion about the better way to understand law, rather than to put an end to it. Robert Alexy and Joseph Raz are the authors I have chosen to show how this is possible. Although they concur that to understand what law is is necessary to understand a moral value, they explain this moral value differently. That impacts their view of which normative dispositions integrate legal systems, as well as their practical force. In the second part, I examine if these accounts offer any insight in understanding how legal justification in decisions is articulated or should be articulated. In particular, I analyze the justifications of the U.S. Justices? opinions in the Boumediene v. Bush Case (one of the Guantanamo?s Cases that reached the U.S. Supreme Court).