Social Constructivism and Positivism in Research

The adoption of social constructivism and positivism has created discussions and arguments concerning their use in research. Studies have shown that since the 1980s, social constructivism has been consistently in use, however it is important to note that research is not solely based on ideologies of a single philosophy. Positivism postulates that society is marked as an external agent. Therefore, its characteristics and properties must be objectively measured instead of using subjective means such as sensation and intuition. Auguste Comte, a French theorist, was the first to propose this view on positivism. Based on Comte’s perspective, it can be deduced that reality is objective and external, while knowledge is established by observing this reality and that Truth is universal. The views of positivism changed in the mid-20th century and acquired a new perspective called post-positivism which add that although reality is real, and Truth is universal, one cannot directly access either. In contrast, social constructivism was founded based on the works of Luckman & Berger (1966), Shotter (1993) and Watzlawick (1984). Social constructivism is based on the idea that multiple realities and truths exist and that people use language as a channel of sharing experience in which, through it, the sense of the world is made. Constructivists propose that people create and form their society through verbal skills. Social constructivism is concerned more with people’s processes and the way they interact with each other. Social constructivism and interpretivism share common ideas creating a relationship between the two. There is no theoretical framework or paradigm that is considered to be best however research provides the differences and similarities between social constructivism and positivism. It further addresses how these paradigms inform research practices.

Get Help With Your Essay
If you need assistance with writing your essay, our professional essay writing service is here to help!
Essay Writing Service

 Based on the nature of reality, positivism suggests that there is a tangible and single reality that does not vary in a setting across time (Michell, 2003). Therefore, it is essential for the researcher to make discoveries about this reality. According to theorists of positivism, the nature of reality is objective, and it is independent of the interest of the researcher. Additionally, positivists believe that truth can be measured and can be converted into variables (Glăveanu, 2010). Contrastingly, in social constructionism, it is believed that reality is intangible since many people are constructing it. Constructivists theorize that existence is mind-dependent and a social or personal construct. For example, does one believe that witchcraft is real?  If affirmative, then, that is the true reality of the believer, and a reality in which creates a sense of what surrounds us. Therefore, in social constructionism, the reality is limited to space, time, context, group, or individuals and cannot be placed into everyday reality by the fallacy of generalization (Burr, 2018).

 In positivism, knowledge is inherent, and it is believed that expertise is found in statements of facts or beliefs that can be empirically tested, confirmed (or disconfirmed), and verified. Furthermore, positivists believe that knowledge can be generalized and is stable. This suggests that in positivism, education is considered to be objective, constitutes data, and is independent of the researchers’ feelings, interests, and values. Therefore, researchers are required to have the right instruments for gathering data for the provision of truth (Ponterotto, 2005).  For constructivists, it is studied that knowledge is mind-independent and socially constructed; hence, it is subjective (Raskin, 2002). Truth can only be found from human experience. It means that what is false or true are statements that are bound on culture and depend on history and context. For instance, belief that God exists on human perception, depends on their historical events, and life meaning.

Within positivism, all inquiries are considered value free. Therefore, scientific methods of collecting data should be acquired by researchers to attain neutrality and objectivity during the process of investigation (Molenaar & Campbell, 2009). In contrast, constructivists suggest that social inquiry is value-laden, and value bound. This is because they consider; reality as mind-dependent and constructed, and knowledge as subjective. Further, it influences the research topic, methods of collecting and analyzing data together with data interpretation, and how the findings are reported (Morrow, 2007). Constructivists assume that, during research, the study should be admitted as being value-laden, and the biases and values that may interfere with the neutrality should be reported. However, in positivism, research is conducted to test a theory, predict results, or to establish the strength between the relationships of variables. Researchers in positivism start with concepts, approaches or ideas which then establish the variables of interest within the study. The problem statements are then formulated which specify the variables under investigation and their relationship. Additionally, variables are defined so that other researchers can replicate, confirm, and verify research outcomes. On the other hand, the aim of researching social constructionism is to understand the experiences of people. The context of the research is within the participants’ natural setting, one in which is their original place of residence. Constructivists believe that multiplicity of realities inform the process of research (Madill & Gough, 2008). For instance, research questions may evolve as the study continues, and it is not essential that they formulate them before the beginning of the study.

In social constructivism, research questions are non-directional, descriptive, and open-ended (Wahyuni, 2012). Hence, the research questions take the form of a general problem that generalizes the issue of study followed with small sub-questions (Mölder, 2010). The use of sub-questions is meant to act as guidelines for the research methods and methodology in an attempt of answering the general question. The positivistic paradigm assumes the use of quantitative methodologies, which are designed to discover principles and laws that govern the world. They are also expected to predict situations and behaviors. These methodologies include quasi-experimental, correlational, surveys, and experimental data. They determine the methods of data collection, which includes tests, experiments, questionnaires, and observation (Sheehan and Perry, 2015). According to social constructionism, a researcher, is responsible for the gathering of data and remembering the subjective nature of the research. The research is co-constructed between the researcher and participants and as such, the researcher is required to describe themselves, and their closeness to the study topic, relationship to those participating, and ideological biases. Based on social constructivism, it is essential to create rapport, precise communication methods, and trust with research participants to entirely capture the intended meaning in their words (Denzin and Lincoln, 2008). Furthermore, ethics is essential and needs to be addressed throughout the research. Therefore, based on those aspects, social constructionism applies research designs such as phenomenology, case study, grounded theory, ethnography, and biography. The techniques of gathering data are chosen depending on the characteristics of respondents, research problem, and on the design that has been selected (Yardley et al., 2003). From the methodological designs of social constructionism, the tools of data collection that are applied include; photographs, observations, interviews, document analysis, visual aids, artifacts, drawings, and informal conversations.

The paradigm of interpretivism was developed to critique the ideas of positivism (Glăveanu, 2010). It assumes that reality can only be acquired using social constructions like language since it is subjective. Correspondingly, it supports the use of qualitative methodologies rather than quantitative methods like phenomenology. Therefore, it employs the use of data collection instruments such as observation and interviews.

An example of a research methodology that portrays how qualitative data is achieved can be observed through unstructured interviews. Through this research methodology, there is the utilization of open-ended questions which produces qualitative data (Wahyuni, 2012). This is due to the respondent having the chance to speak openly and use the words they have personally chosen. Further methods that produce qualitative data include voice recordings, photographs, and videos. After qualitative data has been obtained, interpretations are made, which are usually qualitative. These interpretations may be through grounded theory, thematic, content, and discourse analysis. In contrast, quantitative data can be achieved through structured interviews. This method uses closed-ended questions that produce quantitative data either categorically such as “no,” “yes,” or numerically.  Structured interviews do not give the participant the chance to express and react to issues. The findings that are obtained confirm the already established assumptions. The collected quantitative data is analyzed through inferential or descriptive statistics.

Based on the assumptions of positivism and social constructivism, it can be considered that they are similar in that they both engage in research studies. These research studies are concerned with the study of reality (Mackenzie & Knipe, 2006). Therefore, they both follow well-planned research procedures from data collection up to the stage of reporting the findings. Both have research methodologies which help in conducting research (Ponterotto, 2005). They also have research instruments that are used in the collection of data. Additionally, in both paradigms, it is believed that the researcher’s hypothesis, background knowledge, and theories, influence the topic that is being observed, the way it is perceived and results of the study.

In conclusion, particular paradigms have different assumptions that make them different from each other, as seen in positivism and social constructivism. As such, specific methodologies are associated with particular standards, for example, the positivistic or post-positivistic paradigm assumes a quantitative method which differs from that of the interpretative or constructivist model that assumes a qualitative methodology. Universally, this is not the case as there comes a time when individuals use quantitative methods when pursuing interpretative research. There is no theoretical framework or paradigm that is considered to be best. This confirms that it depends on a researcher’s personal choice when determining their view on these paradigms, which will inform the research design that then provides an answer to the study question. A researcher’s selection on the most appropriate model to use, may be reinforced by their own world view on what is real, their ideas, morals and value systems, as well as their theoretical perspectives on the studied topic.

References

Burr, V. (2018). Social constructionism (pp. 1-16). Springer Singapore.

Camic, P. M., Rhodes, J. E., & Yardley, L. E. (2003). Qualitative research in psychology: Expanding perspectives in methodology and design. American Psychological Association.

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2008). The landscape of qualitative research (Vol. 1). Sage.

Glăveanu, V. P. (2010). Paradigms in the study of creativity: Introducing the perspective of cultural psychology. New ideas in psychology, 28(1), 79-93.

Mackenzie, N., & Knipe, S. (2006). Research dilemmas: Paradigms, methods, and methodology. Issues in educational research, 16(2), 193-205.

Madill, A., & Gough, B. (2008). Qualitative research and its place in psychological science. Psychological Methods, 13(3), 254.

Michell, J. (2003). The quantitative imperative: Positivism, naïve realism, and the place ofqualitative methods in psychology. Theory & Psychology, 13(1), 5-31.

Mölder, B. (2010). Mind Ascribed: An elaboration and defense of interpretivism (Vol. 80). John Benjamins Publishing.

Molenaar, P. C., & Campbell, C. G. (2009). The new person-specific paradigm in psychology. Current directions in psychological science, 18(2), 112-117.

Morrow, S. L. (2007). Qualitative research in counseling psychology: Conceptual foundations. The counseling psychologist, 35(2), 209-235.

Ponterotto, J. G. (2005). Qualitative research in counseling psychology: A primer on research paradigms and philosophy of science. Journal of counseling psychology, 52(2), 126.

Raskin, J. D. (2002). Constructivism in psychology: Personal construct psychology, radical constructivism, and social constructionism. American communicationjournal, 5(3), 1-25.

Sheehan, P. W., & Perry, C. W. (2015). Methodologies of hypnosis (psychology revivals): A critical appraisal of contemporary paradigms of hypnosis. Routledge.

Wahyuni, D. (2012). The research design maze: Understanding paradigms, cases, methods, andmethodologies.

 

Legal Positivism and Human Rights

1.0 INTRODUCTION
The statement which I have to scrutinise “Is the absolute separation of law and morality proposed by legal positivism an obstacle to the acceptance of the notion of human rights?” for us to evaluate this statement first we have to understand legal positivism and the roots of human rights. Then I would discuss why law and morality cannot be seperated and if seperated its adverse affects and how human rights and positive law should be amalgamated.

Get Help With Your Essay
If you need assistance with writing your essay, our professional essay writing service is here to help!
Essay Writing Service

2.0 LEGAL POSITIVISM
Legal positivism is a mentality in legalism that the existence and content of law should depend on social facts and not on merits.[1] It is the view that morality has no weight in the law that is made and established as the law of the state. It should be followed and it is supreme however immoral or unjust that piece of law or legislation is. There are several legal thinkers who developed the idea of legal positivism, amongst them the most prominent figures are Jeremy Bentham, John Austin and HLA Hart.
What we must keep in mind is that even positivists are divided into 2, inclusive and exclusive positivism. Inclusive positivists are people who believe that moral constraints can be incorporated into law according to a society’s belief. Even HLA Hart was an inclusive (soft) positivist who believe that “the rule of recognition may incorporate as criteria of legal validity conformity with moral principles or substantive values …”[2]
On the other hand are the exclusive positivists who believe that a legal system cannot integrate moral restraints on legal validity. They believe in the absolute supremacy of the positive law. One of prominent exclusive (hard) positivists was Joseph Raz who was actually a student of HLA Hart.
3.0 NATURAL LAW AND DERIVATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS FROM NATURAL LAW
Natural law is the direct opposite of positive law, and is what is defined as god’s law or ideal law, which has no loop holes as in manmade law. It is law which is based on morality rather than legality believing that any man made law which is not morally correct is not law at all. Naturalists argue that positive law is always evolving to attain the threshold of natural law.
Some prominent figures who argued for the supremacy of natural law and morality were St. Thomas Aquinas and Thomas Hobbes. The foundation of natural law is religious beliefs and moral rights and wrongs as shown throughout history.
The notion of human rights, I believe, is derived from natural rights, which in turn is derived from religious and moral beliefs. So the international bill of human rights we see today actually is a child of natural law itself. John locke, a follower of Thomas Hobbes, and a renowned philosopher, while writing about natural rights in Two Treatises Of Government, has said that “men are by nature free and equal against claims that God had made all people naturally subject to a monarch. He argued that people have rights, such as the right to life, liberty, and property that have a foundation independent of the laws of any particular society” [3]
This is exactly what is entrenched in the International Bill of Human rights today. So it is logically arguable, and it is my belief that Human rights is actually natural law/ natural rights itself, in another form, trying to impose supremacy over positive law just like in the eras passed. Thus if natural law is not accepted as being a part of positive law, human rights can never be truly accepted.
4.0 WHY LAW AND MORALITY CANNOT AND SHOULD NOT BE SEPERATED
The debate for the separation of moral and legal rights is a heated debate still ongoing. One of the most remarkable statements regarding this topic was made between HLA Hart and Lon L. Fuller, the latter stating that legal and moral rights can never be separated.
Hart argued that there should be a strict separation of law and morality, he denied that there are universally shared necessary moral standards of legal validity and he also denied that an individual recognizes law as good law based on morality and that individuals may do it based on purely non moral considerations.[4]
Fuller argued that law and morality cannot be separated because they are naturally connected. He found the connection between law and morality in the very heart of positivism, the law makers. He gave 8 ways to fail to make a law stating that these rules are necessary as they make an “inner morality of law”. [5]
In his Journal article Positivism and the Inseparability of Law and Morals, Leslie Green has argued that law and morals in fact cannot be separated and instead of the mistaken separability test he had brought into light the underlying fallibility test. [6]
Keeping the philosophers arguments aside we can take a scenario to consider what would happen if law and morality were strictly separated. If the law making body, the parliament, if they believed in this strict separation and if they had no sense of moral values in their society while making law, and if they passed a legislation which is incompatible with the society beliefs, it would cause havoc. The government that passes such a bill is destined to fall as proved by history with Margaret Thatcher’s demise after passing the poll tax. For example if they passed a bill allowing gay marriage in a strictly Wahhabi Muslim society, it is bound to be met with hatred and might be taken as an insult by the society.
5.0 AMALGAMATING HUMAN RIGHTS AND POSITIVE LAW
One can say that the notion of human rights have already been incorporated with positive law of UK after the enactment of Human Rights Act of 1998. Its entrenched nature and per s.3 of the Act all legislation passed, have to be compatible with Individual human rights.[7] And if any legislation is incompatible with human rights courts can declare it incompatible under s4 of the HRA 1998 and advise the parliament to make the necessary rectifications.[8]
This power of the HRA 1998 can be shown in the recent case of R (Royal College of Nursing) v SSHD (2010) [9] where Schedule 3 to the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act (SVGA) 2006 was incompatible with Art 6 as the listed person was denied the right to make representations in advance of being listed. The Section 67(2) and (6) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 came into being to amend this Schedule as a result.
6.0 POSITIVE LAW: SUPREME IN UK
As we know UK is a dualist country meaning it does not heed to international laws or EU laws. It needs its domestic laws to be enacted by the parliament for them to be legally enforceable. This results in a supreme parliament which can bend law at whim (as can be shown in the delay enacting HRA 1998). Even the power vested in courts by HRA 1998 in the form of declaration of incompatibility is a toothless remedy when dealing with an unjust legislature. Because these declarations are not authoritative, they are just persuasive, so the parliament is does have a choice to keep the legislation as it is in spite of declaration of incompatibility. Another thing which shows the supremacy of positive law in UK, is the Prime ministers hinting on the repealing of the HRA 1998 without a proper backup plan. [10]
7.0 ACCEPTING HUMAN RIGHTS AS MORAL CLAIMS OR POSITIVE LAW
While analyzing the given statement I came upon two ways in which it could be addressed and according to that I could give my opinion on the validity of the statement. Those two ways are, that human rights could be accepted as moral claims as the statement suggests and then we can evaluate how the separation of morality and law could affect the acceptance of human rights. The second way is that we could claim that human rights is no longer moral claims but positive law, and then see how the separation of law and morality affects it.
7.1 ACCEPTING HUMAN RIGHTS AS MORAL CLAIMS
If Human rights are moral claims as the statement suggests then it is vital not to have any separation between law and morality. If law and morality is strictly separated as the ideal positivist suggests[11] then human rights won’t have the supremacy and power it needs to universally protect the rights of individuals. They need to overcome any form of positive law which clashes with it.
Human rights are normally accepted as having their basis in morality because natural rights was derived from religious beliefs. I, believe that, both human rights and equity are children of natural law, and for in order for them to be successful, they need to incorporated with positive law but be powerful enough to overcome shackles of positive law. Though the supremacy of equity is not disputed, the supremacy of human rights is.
If human rights are moral claims which has no legal validity, accepting them would be difficult in the light of the separability thesis brought forward by Hart[12]. If legal positivism is the right mindset and if the Human rights have no legal value, how are the rights of people going to be universally protected? How can one accept Human rights?
For example, if a country passes horrific laws which infringe the most inviolable rights and if there is no way it can be remedied, the world would fall into chaos. If UK passed a law which says all men shorter than 5 ‘5 should be killed, and if the UDHR has no legal power, no authority, how are the right to life of many people going to be protected? One might say, the parliament would not pass such a bill, but what is stopping them from doing so? There are no legal restrictions to a supreme parliament as in UK, the only thing restraining the legislators from passing such legislation is just one thing. Their moral values.
In this context, I would agree with the view of Leslie Green in his article positivism and the inseparability of law and morals[13], where he has argued at length that the separation thesis is actually a mistake and had upheld the fallibility thesis.
7.2 ACCEPTING HUMAN RIGHTS AS POSITIVE LAW
I find it more suitable to say, that Human rights is no longer moral claims, after the passing of the International Bill of Human rights (Universal Declaration of Human rights 1948, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 1966 and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966) the notion of Human rights is now actually positive law.
The heart of this international Bill of Human rights, the Universal Declaration of Human rights 1948, which prescribes inviolable rights for humans, regardless of where they are born, has been endorsed by most/all the countries in the world. But the problem is, dualist countries like UK, might not endorse the Declaration into their constitution (as can be inferred from their delay in enacting HRA 1998 and the unavailability of remedies for such issues until the enactment of the Act).
My belief, that the notion for human rights is no longer moral claims and is universal, can be proved by various incidents. Human rights is no longer based on religious or moral rights and wrongs. I say this, because immorality is a subjective query, it will change from person to person and society to society and from era to era.
For example, in a strict Muslim community it might be immoral to wear clothes which expose a lot of skin, but in a modern rainbow society, it might be taken as a norm. For example in USA, women would consider it immoral and against their belief to wear clothes showing their waist, but in India women consider it immoral to show their hair thus wear clothes that cover their hair but they don’t mind wearing Saris which expose their waist.
So if we were to consider that Human rights to be based on moral claims, it can never be universally accepted because what is moral, is subjective. But this is not the case; Saudi Arabia and Irans pressure to make the Cairo Declaration of Human rights in Islam of 1990, to be accepted as the “Islamic” alternative to international human rights, during the 1993 World Conference on Human rights in Vienna was strongly rejected by the UN Secretary General Kofi Anna, who maintained that the human rights are universal.
Thus, as moral claims change from time to time, society to society, individual to individual, human rights is no longer moral, as it is universal and invariable, wherever the individual is. So I believe that through the sands of time, human rights have actually evolved into positive law now.
Since it is positive law, the separation of law and morality proposed by positivism, no longer has any effect on the acceptance of the concept of Human rights.
8.0 CONUCLUSION
The notion of human rights cannot be accepted without accepting the role of morality in positive law. Because if the statement is correct and if Human rights is indeed moral claims then morality needs to be accepted for it to be incorporated into legal systems today.
But I find it more suitable to say, that Human rights is no longer moral claims, after the passing of the International Bill of Human rights) the notion of Human rights is now actually positive law. Since it is positive law now, the separation of law and morality proposed by positivism no longer has any effect on the concept of Human rights.
The other thing which must be brought into light is that even though human rights is entrenched into the legal system of UK it is not properly followed. If it was properly followed, how can Acts, with provisions which infringe rights of people such as section 44 of Terrorism Act 2000 get enacted? How do they pass the scrutiny of parliament without being noticed? The fact they make it through the parliament shows the weakness of positive law and its failure to protect people’s rights.
The present regime of UK has been hinting on repealing HRA 1998[14] and withdraw out of EU(though now being denied by David Cameron[15]), but this would only make human rights lose its positive law status in UK and result in more infringement of rights. Repealing the HRA 1998 might not be a bad idea with the proper preparations and a backup Act or Bill of Rights which is set in stone and has much superior power than HRA 1998 (as the declaration of incompatibility is a toothless remedy which does not enforce the parliament to amend an incompatible legislation).
So I believe if HRA 1998 is repealed it should be substituted by a stronger Bill of Rights which has a better remedy than declarations of incompatibility etc. And if such a bill is passed, the legal validity of human rights would no longer be in doubt. The bill which was withdrawn at the end of the debate on 1st March 2013, Human Rights Act 1998 (Repeal and Substitution) Bill 2012-13, certainly lacked this forceful authority. [16]
Word Count is 2524 (Excluding Contents and Bibliography)
9.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY
9.1 Table of Cases
R (Royal College of Nursing) v SSHD [2010] EWHC 2761
9.2 Table of Statutes
Human Rights Act
Section 3
Section 4
9.3 Text books
Hart, H. L. A.Concept of Law.Oxford: Clarendon, 1994. Print
Fuller, L. L.: The Morality of Law. New Haven and London 1961 ebook.
9.4 Articles
Green, Leslie, Positivism and the Inseparability of Law and Morals. New York University Law Review, Forthcoming; Oxford Legal Studies Research Paper No. 15/2008. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1136374 accessed 04th January 2014
Green, Leslie, “Legal Positivism”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2009 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.),accessed 04th January 2014 URL = http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2009/entries/legal-positivism/>.
Tuckness, Alex, “Locke’s Political Philosophy”,The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy(Winter 2012 Edition), Edward N. Zalta(ed.), accessed on 05th January 2014 URL = http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2012/entries/locke-political/>.
9.5 Websites
Mason, Rowena. “David Cameron Eyes Human Rights Act Repeal.”Theguardian.com. Guardian News and Media, 08 Aug. 2013. Web. 05 Jan. 2014. https://www.theguardian.com/law/2013/aug/08/david-cameron-human-rights-act>.
“David Cameron Rejects EU Withdrawal Calls and Attacks Tory ‘pessimists'”Theguardian.com. Guardian News and Media, 09 May 2013. Web. 05 Jan. 2014. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/may/09/david-cameron-rejects-eu-withdrawal>.
“Human Rights Act 1998 (Repeal and Substitution) Bill.”Human Rights Act 1998 (Repeal and Substitution) Bill. N.p., n.d. Web. 05 Jan. 2014. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2012-2013/0031/2013031.1-7.html>.

[1] Green, Leslie, “Legal Positivism”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2009 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.),accessed 04th January 2014 URL = http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2009/entries/legal-positivism/>.
[2] Hart, H. L. A.Concept of Law.Oxford: Clarendon, 1994. Print. P250
[3] Tuckness, Alex, “Locke’s Political Philosophy”,The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy(Winter 2012 Edition), Edward N. Zalta(ed.), accessed on 05th January 2014 URL = http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2012/entries/locke-political/>.
[4] Hart, H. L. A.Concept of Law.Oxford: Clarendon, 1994. Print. P198
[5] Fuller, L. L.: The Morality of Law. New Haven and London 1961 eBook. P39-42
[6] Green, Leslie, Positivism and the Inseparability of Law and Morals. New York University Law Review, Forthcoming; Oxford Legal Studies Research Paper No. 15/2008. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1136374
[7] Section 3 Human Rights Act 1998
[8] Section 4 Human Rights Act 1998
[9] R (Royal College of Nursing) v SSHD [2010] EWHC 2761
[10] Mason, Rowena. “David Cameron Eyes Human Rights Act Repeal.”Theguardian.com. Guardian News and Media, 08 Aug. 2013. Web. 05 Jan. 2014. https://www.theguardian.com/law/2013/aug/08/david-cameron-human-rights-act>.
[11] Hart, H. L. A.Concept of Law.Oxford: Clarendon, 1994. Print
[12] Green, Leslie, “Legal Positivism”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2009 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.),accessed 04th January 2014 URL = http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2009/entries/legal-positivism/>.
[13] Green, Leslie, Positivism and the Inseparability of Law and Morals. New York University Law Review, Forthcoming; Oxford Legal Studies Research Paper No. 15/2008. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1136374
[14] Mason, Rowena. “David Cameron Eyes Human Rights Act Repeal.”Theguardian.com. Guardian News and Media, 08 Aug. 2013. Web. 05 Jan. 2014. https://www.theguardian.com/law/2013/aug/08/david-cameron-human-rights-act>.
[15] “David Cameron Rejects EU Withdrawal Calls and Attacks Tory ‘pessimists'”Theguardian.com. Guardian News and Media, 09 May 2013. Web. 05 Jan. 2014. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/may/09/david-cameron-rejects-eu-withdrawal>.
[16] “Human Rights Act 1998 (Repeal and Substitution) Bill.”Human Rights Act 1998 (Repeal and Substitution) Bill. N.p., n.d. Web. 05 Jan. 2014. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2012-2013/0031/2013031.1-7.html>.