Keywords
Communicative Action, Ethical Discourse, Law, Modern State.
Document Type
Article
Abstract
In modern states, law is often reduced to merely a tool of power. Many contemporary practices treat law as nothing more than a procedural requirement, disregarding its substantive values and the social conditions of society. This article discusses the validity of law within a political community from Habermas's perspective. According to him, the law must be discursive and stem from rational subjects capable of effective communication. The fundamental questions addressed are: how can law ideally be derived from norms within a political society? And how can law subsequently foster a democratic society? This article employs historical-factual methods, with primary sources drawn from the works of Jürgen Habermas. Habermas used discourse ethics and the theory of communicative action. Data collection is conducted through textual analysis. The article concludes that the validity of law must originate from discursive norms present in society, even though there may be tensions between theory and practice in society.
First Page
20
Last Page
31
Page Range
20-31
Issue
1
Volume
22
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)
10.21831/jc.v22i1.1289
Recommended Citation
Febriani, R., Supartiningsih, S., & Tjahyadi, S. (2025). Jurgen Habermas's views on legal validity and discourse ethics: A literature review. Jurnal Civics: Media Kajian Kewarganegaraan, 22(1), 20-31. https://doi.org/10.21831/jc.v22i1.1289
References
Arpannudin, I. (2023). The sociology of citizenship. Jurnal Civics: Media Kajian Kewarganegaraan, 20(2), i–ii. https://scholarhub.uny.ac.id/civics/vol20/iss2/21
Bakker, A., & Zubair, A. C. (1994). Metodologi penelitian filsafat. Penerbit Kanisius.
Baxter, H. (2002). Habermas: The discourse theory of law and democracy. Buffalo Law Review, 50. https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/faculty_scholarship/384
Bellamy, R. (2017). Constitutionalism and democracy. Routledge.
Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. SAGE Publications, Inc.
Froomkin, A. M. M. (2003). Toward a critical theory of cyberspace published by: the Harvard Law Review Association. The Harvard Law Review Association.
Froomkin, A. M. M. (2005). Habermas@discourse.net: Toward a critical theory of cyberspace. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.363840
Gerstenberg, O. (2019). Radical democracy and the rule of law: Reflections on J. Habermas’ legal philosophy. International Journal of Constitutional Law, 17(4), 1054–1058. https://doi.org/10.1093/icon/moz090
Gluckman, Max. (2017). Politics, law and ritual in tribal society. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. https://www.routledge.com/Politics-Law-and-Ritual-in-Tribal-Society/Gluckman/p/book/9781412846158
Habermas, J. (1986). Law as medium and law as institution. In Dilemmas of Law in the Welfare State (pp. 203–220). DE GRUYTER. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110921526.203
Habermas, J. (1988). Morality and ethical life: Does Hegel’s critique of Kant apply to discourse ethics. Northwestern University Law Review, 83. https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/illlr83&id=54&div=&collection=
Habermas., J. (1990). Jürgen Habermas: Morality, society and ethics. Acta Sociologica, 33(2), 93–114. https://doi.org/10.1177/000169939003300201
Habermas, Jürgen. (2015). Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy. Polity Press. https://www.wiley.com/en-us/Between+Facts+and+Norms%3A+Contributions+to+a+Discourse+Theory+of+Law+and+Democracy-p-9780745694269
Johnson, J. (1991). Habermas on strategic and communicative action. Political Theory, 19(2), 181–201. https://doi.org/10.1177/0090591791019002003/ASSET/0090591791019002003.FP.PNG_V03
Lafont, C. (2003). Procedural justice? Implications of the Rawls-Habermas debate for discourse ethics. Philosophy & Social Criticism, 29(2), 163–181. https://doi.org/10.1177/0191453703029002143
McNiff, J. (2013). Action research: Principles and practice (3rd ed.). Routledge. http://www.tandf.net/books/details/9780415535250/
Mouffe, C. (2017). Democracy as agonistic pluralism. In E. D. Ermarth (Ed.), Rewriting democracy: Cultural politics in postmodernity (pp. 36–47). Taylor and Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315244167-3/DEMOCRACY-AGONISTIC-PLURALISM-CHANTAL-MOUFFE
Mulyono, B., Affandi, I., Suryadi, K., & Darmawan, C. (2022). Online civic engagement: Fostering citizen engagement through social media. Jurnal Civics: Media Kajian Kewarganegaraan, 19(1), 75–85. https://doi.org/10.21831/jc.v19i1.49723
Murphy, T. F. (1994). Discourse ethics: Moral theory or political ethic? New German Critique, 62, 111–135. https://doi.org/10.2307/488511
Nurjanah, N., Abdulkarim, A., Komalasari, K., Bestari, P., & Suwandi, M. A. (2024). Critical literacy of young citizens in the digital era. Jurnal Civics: Media Kajian Kewarganegaraan, 21(2), 352–358. https://doi.org/10.21831/jc.v21i2.70232
Rasmussen, D. (1996). Critical theory and philosophy. In The handbook of critical theory. Blackwell Publishers.
Rehg, W. (2023). Insight and solidarity: The discourse ethics of Jürgen Habermas. University of California Press. https://books.google.co.id/books?id=3et8dQvq3RAC
Sarat, A. (2017). “…the law is all over": Power, " resistance and the legal consciousness of the welfare poor. In P. Ewick (Ed.), Consciousness and ideology (pp. 347–383). Taylor and Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315259604-12/LAW-POWER-RESISTANCE-LEGAL-CONSCIOUSNESS-WELFARE-POOR-AUSTIN-SARAT
Suyato, S. (2023). Engineering the development of democratic citizenship education curriculum in the global era: A few perspectives from theoretical frameworks. Jurnal Civics: Media Kajian Kewarganegaraan, 20(1), 26–35. https://doi.org/10.21831/jc.v20i1.59915
Tjahyadi, S. (2003). Teori kritis Jurgen Habermas: Asumsi-asumsi dasar menuju metodologi kritik sosial. Jurnal Filsafat, 13(2), 180–197. https://jurnal.ugm.ac.id/wisdom/article/view/31322
Included in
Ethics and Political Philosophy Commons, Law and Philosophy Commons, Law and Politics Commons
