ABSTRACT
Over the last ten years one of my main preoccupations in legal theory has been the peculiar character of the structure implied in asking and answering the problematic question ‘what is law?’ I did not find satisfactory answers to this question in either conventional jurisprudence, in the gigantomachy between positivists and natural law theorists, which in late modern and so-called postmodern theories of law, pose a radical transcendent politics or ethics in the place of the foundation or origin of law, offer little other than the repetition of the same pseudo-referential form. I call it pseudo-referential as I perceive the answer to the question ‘what is law?’ – ‘The law is grounded in a transcendent Law of law’ – as an attempt to evade the question of the dogmatic foundations of law and of legal theory.
