Classical common law theory, natural law theory, legal formalism, legal realism, and legal positivism.
Tamanaha argues in his essay “What is Law?” that the Minos answer “accepted by custom” is too broad, that
is, it describes things that shouldn’t count as law. He thinks that the other two Minos answers, “decrees of the
state” (which we associate with legal positivism) and “what is just” (which we associate with natural law theory),
are too narrow, in that they leave out things that should count as law, like unjust laws (excluded by natural law
theory) and non-European law (excluded by legal positivism). Tamanaha thinks his legal pluralism, according to
which law is what people have recognized as law, in fact, in different societies, fixes both of these defects: it is
neither too broad nor too narrow. Is he right? Why or why not? In your answer be sure to address the views of
law offered by classical common law theory, natural law theory, legal formalism, legal realism, and legal
positivism.