Abstract

During the second half of the Twentieth century, the traditional opposition between positivism and natural law, formerly based upon a largely ontological or even religious standpoint, changed. Evolution shows that traditional lines dividing philosophical thinking about the law tend to become blurred. This is commendable, since it is a sign of reciprocal tolerance being greater than it used to be and emphasizes the virtues of pluralistic debate. This paper attempts to analyse whether the positivist conception of legal obligation can be maintained, both logically and from a pragmatic, methodological viewpoint.