Cómo citar
Carcano, A. (2024). Gustav Radbruch’s «Diritto E No. Tre Scritti» edited by M. Lalatta Costerbosa, Mimesis, Milano, 2021. Soft Power, 8(16), 5. Recuperado a partir de https://editorial.ucatolica.edu.co/index.php/SoftP/article/view/6169
Creative Commons License

Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial 4.0.

Al enviar los artículos para su evaluación, los autores aceptan que transfieren los derechos de publicación a Soft Power. Revista Soft Power para su publicación en cualquier medio. Con el fin de aumentar su visibilidad, los documentos se envían a bases de datos y sistemas de indización, así mismo pueden ser consultados en la página web de la Revista.


Lately the attention of philosophers of law has focused on the figure of Gustav Radbruch, and, particularly, on his most famous theory: the Formula. Diritto e no, edited by Marina Lalatta Costerbosa, proposes an overview of Radbruch’s philosophy of law through the analysis of three of his papers: Der Mensch im RechtFünf Minuten Rechtsphilosophie and Gesetzliches Unrecht und übergesetzliches Recht. This work, together with the translation of the Philosophy of Law by Gaetano Carlizzi (Radbruch, 2021a), represents a perfect instrument for studying of one of the most important philosophers of the Nineteenth century.
In the introduction to Diritto e no Radbruch is rightly presented as the protagonist of the normative disruption determined by the Nazi regime (Radbruch, 2021b, p. 15-16), and, even if seems that Lalatta Costerbosa doesn’t want to express a clear position about the continuity or discontinuity in the radbruchian philosophy—because the purpose is openly to give a complete view of his philosophy of Law—, she clearly emphasizes the role that Radbruch played in the reconsideration of the positivist doctrine. In Lalatta Costerbosa’s opinion, the German philosopher could even be considered as the ancestor of the current theory of the inclusive legal positivism because of his reference to the necessity of substantial criteria of validity of law.


Alexy, R. (1996, Sept.). Discourse Theory and Human Rights. Ratio Juris, 9(3), 209-235.

Alexy, R. (2018, Sept.). The Special Case Thesis and the Dual Nature of Law. Ratio Juris

, 31(3), 254-259.

Carlizzi, G. (2018). I fondamenti giusfilosofici della “Duplice formula di Radbruch”. Annali

dell’Università degli Studi Suor Orsola Benincasa, 51-70.

Chroust, A.-H. (1944, Jan.). The Philosophy of Law of Gustav Radbruch. The Philosophical

Review, 53(1), 23-45.

Dworkin, R. (1978). Taking rights seriously. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Kelsen, H. (2013). The Essence and Value of Democracy. (N. Urbinati, C. I. Accetti, Eds.,

& B. Graf, Trans.) Plymouth, UK: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Nino, C. S. (2014). Derecho, Moral y Política . Buenos Aires, Argentina: Siglo XXI Editora


Paulson, S. L. (2006, Spring). On the Background and Significance of Gustav Radbruch’s

Post-War Papers. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 26(1), 17-40.

Radbruch, G. (1950). Legal Philosophy. In K. Wilk, & E. W. Patterson, The legal philosophy

of Lask, Radbruch, and Dabin (pp. 43-224). Cambridge : Harvard Univesity


Radbruch, G. (2021a). Filosofia del diritto. (G. Carlizzi, & V. Omaggio, Eds.) Milano:


Radbruch, G. (2021b). Diritto e no. Tre scritti. (M. L. Costerbosa, Ed.) Milano-Udine:


Ross, A. (2019). On Law and Justice (I ed.). (J. v. Holtermann, Ed., & U. Bindreiter,

Trans.) Oxford, UK: Oxford Univesity Press.

Spaak, T. (2009, May). Meta-Ethics and Legal Theory: The Case of Gustav Radbruch.

Law and Philosophy, 28(3), 261-290.

Vassalli, G. (2001). Formula di Radbruch e diritto penale. Note sulla punizione dei «delitti

di Stato» nella Germania postnazista e nella Germania postcomunista. Varese :


Citado por

Sistema OJS 3 - Metabiblioteca |