RADBRUCH'S FORMULA AND ITS DEVELOPMENT IN THE DUAL NATURE THEORY OF LAW
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17721/1728-2195/2026/1.131-15Keywords:
Radbruch’s Formula, intolerable injustice, human rights, dual nature theory of law, Robert Alexy, extreme injustice, justice, lawAbstract
Background. The article explores Radbruch's Formula, its modern interpretation, and development within Robert Alexy's dual nature theory of law. The object of study is post-war German legal philosophy, characterized by efforts to overcome the confrontation between positivism and natural law, preventing "unjust law" and resolving hard cases.
Methods. The study employs the axiological method to define philosophical foundations; the hypothesizing method to propose a doctrinal interpretation of the Formula in Alexy's theory; the method of analysis to isolate elements of the Formula developed by Alexy; and the method of synthesis to formulate final conclusions.
Results. The evolution of Radbruch's Formula in contemporary legal philosophy is outlined. As a doctrinal concept, the Formula provides a method for resolving conflicts between the idea of law (justice) and positive law (legal certainty) when positive law reaches an intolerable level of injustice. It has evolved from a historical fact of post-war Germany into a modern doctrinal framework. It is shown that the Formula flows logically from Radbruch's broader philosophy. Therefore, it is incorrect and impractical to interpret Radbruch's Formula without understanding and accounting for Radbruch's concept and idea of law.. The article analyzes Alexy's interpretation, demonstrating how he builds his concept of law upon the Formula while addressing its previously criticized shortcomings.
Conclusions. Radbruch's Formula has been further developed in Alexy's theory. Interpreting it, Alexy "establishes" a threshold of permissible injustice: once it becomes extreme (intolerable), the law loses its legal validity. On this basis, Alexy provides his own version of the Formula: "Extreme injustice is no law." He addresses the risk of subjective interpretation by grounding human rights in objective reality, enabling an objective understanding of justice. Radbruch's Formula holds significant scientific and practical potential for the Ukrainian legal reality and warrants further scholarly research.
References
Koziubra, M. (2024). Practical philosophy of law. Dukh i Litera. [in Ukrainian].
Maksymov, S. I. (2016). Robert Alexy's philosophy of law. Bulletin of Yaroslav Mudryi National Law University. Series: Philosophy, Philosophy of Law, Political Science, Sociology, 1(28), 89–97. https://doi.org/10.21564/2075-7190.28.63897 [in Ukrainian].
Radbruch, G. (2006). Elementary course of the philosophy of law. In G. Radbruch, Philosophy of law (Ye. Prychepii & V. Prykhodko, Trans. from German, pp. 141–247). Tandem. [in Ukrainian].
Serediuk, V. V., & Bohdan, O. V. (2024). Worldview and methodological foundations of Gustav Radbruch's "idea of law". Scientific Bulletin of Uzhhorod National University. Series: Law, (83, pt. 3), 421–428. [in Ukrainian].
Serediuk, V. V., & Dudar, S. K. (2024). Gustav Radbruch's formula: Conceptual analysis and practical significance. Scientific Bulletin of Uzhhorod National University. Series: Law, (84, pt. 4), 389–396. [in Ukrainian].
Adachi, T. (2019, July 9). An interpretation of Radbruch's betraying formula [Conference paper]. 29th World Congress of the International Association for Philosophy of Law and Social Philosophy. https://law-kanazawa.info/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Adachi_9July2019.pdf
Alexy, R. (2010). The dual nature of law. Ratio Juris, 23(2), 167–182. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9337.2010.00449.x
Alexy, R. (2012). Law, morality, and the existence of human rights. Ratio Juris, 25(1), 2–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9337.2011.00499.x
Alexy, R. (2021). Law's ideal dimension. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198796831.001.0001
Bix, B. H. (2011). Radbruch's Formula and Conceptual Analysis. The American Journal of Jurisprudence, 56(1), 45–57. doi:10.1093/ajj/56.1.45
Bundesverfassungsgericht. (1996, 24. Oktober). Beschluß des Zweiten Senats (2 BvR 1851/94; 2 BvR 1853/94; 2 BvR 1875/94; 2 BvR 1852/94). https://www.servat.unibe.ch/dfr/bv095096.html
Hart, H. L. A. (1958). Positivism and the Separation of Law and Morals. Harvard Law Review, 71(4), 593–629. https://doi.org/10.2307/1338225
Radbruch G. (1946). Gesetzliches Unrecht und übergesetzliches Recht. Süddeutsche Juristen-Zeitung, 1(5), 105–108. URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20800812
Richard Lange, (1948). Die Rechtsprechung des Obersten Gerichtshofes für die Britische Zone zum Verbrechen gegen die Menschlichkeit. Süddeutsche Juristen-Zeitung, 3(11), 655/656–659/660. doi:10.2307/23321642
Tan, S. H. (2021). Radbruch's formula revisited: The lex injusta non est lex maxim in constitutional democracies. Canadian Journal of Law & Jurisprudence, 34(2), 461–491. https://doi.org/10.1017/cjlj.2021.12
Additional Files
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Вікторія СЕРЕДЮК
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
