considering its histor\', vet is hard to swallow in a critical read as it does not make good sense to speak of law in such terms. 1 lowexer one may wish to understand 'law', it is only good in so far as it serves as a means towards gi\ ing people touched by it a better life. We do nor settle disputes in order to help the law realise itself. .\ good life ma\' he spoken of as ha\ ing intrinsic \ alue. No one would ask win' we want a good life, \’et the question "win' 'law'.^" is as sensical as it is rele\ ant."' The tendenc\ to turn naturalist within the conte.xt of the Nazi era naturalK' comes as no surprise. C'oncerning the last remark on the intrinsic x alue of law, it is instructixe to know that I litler e.xplicitK' negated such an idea in a speech, partially cited hv Laufs as follows: IdK’iiso erwarre icli, dal,> die deutselie jiistiz \ersrehr, dah niclit die Nation iliretwegen, sontlern dal.x sie der Nation wegen da ist, das heil.k, dal,x nielit die Welt ziigninde gehen dart, in der auch Deutschland eingesehlossen ist, dainit ein tonnales Recht leht, sondern dal.x Deutschland lehen imil,\ ganz gleich, u ie iniiner auch tormale .\uftassungen der Justiz widersprechen inögen. (Lauts, I'his is sound reasoning understood from a conset|uentialisr as well as a realist point of \ iew, \ et spoken to effectuate a Soiidcrcollmacht for 1 litler in 1942, an aspect which places the statement in a different light. If 1 litler's argument as stated, and the context in which it was delixered, are contributing causes of Laufs' choice of such naturalistic a construction of law as had it intrinsic value, then 1 can onl\' conclude that Laufs has allowed Hitler's perxerse deeds to cloud his historical iudgement. vSimilar naturalistic sentiments are echoed (somexx hat surprisingIx', perhaps) in (hienegem's A)i historicid introductiou to private In touching upon the issue of the role of laxvx ers in his "f inal considerations," he mentions the Nuremhurg laxvs. lie thereby emphasises 29
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=