Several years ago I prepared a point-by-point response to this postscript as a working paper for the NYU Colloquium in Legal, Moral and Political Philosophy. I have not yet published that paper, but I understand that copies of it are in circulation. I do not intend to recapitulate the arguments of that working paper, but instead to concentrate on one aspect of Hart's Postscript, which is his defence of Archimedean jurisprudence. I shall have something to say about his own (...) legal philosophy, which was a form of legal positivism. But I shall mainly be concerned about the method that he said generated his legal positivism. (shrink)

In 1993, Professor of Jurisprudence, Ronald Dworkin of Oxford University and Professor of Law at New York University, delivered the Georgetown Law Center’s thirteenth Annual Philip A. Hart Memorial Lecture: "Life’s Dominion: An Argument About Abortion and Euthanasia." Dworkin is Professor of Philosophy and Frank Henry Sommer Professor of Law at New York University. He received B.A. degrees from both Harvard College and Oxford University, and an LL.B. from Harvard Law School and clerked for Judge Learned Hand. (...) He was associated with a law firm in New York (Sullivan and Cromwell) and was a professor of law at Yale University Law School from 1962-1969. He has been Professor of Jurisprudence at Oxford and Fellow of University College since 1969. He has a joint appointment at Oxford and at NYU where he is a professor both in the Law School and the Philosophy Department. He is a Fellow of the British Academy and a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Professor Dworkin is the author of many articles in philosophical and legal journals as well as articles on legal and political topics in the New York Review of Books. He has written Taking Rights Seriously (1977), A Matter of Principle (1985), Law’s Empire (1986), Philosophical Issues in Senile Dementia (1987), A Bill of Rights for Britain (1990), Life’s Dominion (1993), and Freedom’s Law (1996). (shrink)

English translation of a lecture delivered by HLA Hart on 29 October 1979 at the Autonomous University of Madrid. For commentary on the provenance of the lecture and on the methodology of its translation, see Andrzej Grabowski, ‘The Missing Link in the Hart–Dworkin Debate’ 36 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 476.

This is a collection of essays on themes of legal philosophy which have all been generated or affected by Hart's work. The topics covered include legal theory, responsibility, and enforcement of morals, with contributions from Ronald Dworkin, Rolf Sartorius, Neil MacCormach, David Lyons, Kent Greenawalt, Michael Moore, Joseph Raz, and C.L. Ten, among others.

Echoing the debate about the nature of law that has dominated legal philosophy for several decades, this volume includes essays on the nature of law and on law not as it is but as it should be. Wherever possible, essays have been chosen that have provoked direct responses from other legal philosophers, and in two cases these responses are included. Contributors include H.L.A. Hart, R.M. Dworkin, Lord Patrick Devlin, John Rawls, J.J. Thomson, J. Finnis, and T.M. Scanlon.

For the past four decades, Anglo-American legal philosophy has been preoccupied – some might say obsessed – with something called the “Hart-Dworkin” debate. Since the appearance in 1967 of “The Model of Rules I,” Ronald Dworkin’s seminal critique of H.L.A. Hart’s theory of legal positivism, countless books and articles have been written either defending Hart against Dworkin’s objections or defending Dworkin against Hart’s defenders. My purpose in this essay is not to declare (...) an ultimate victor; rather it is to identify precisely the core issue around which the debate is organized. Is the Hart-Dworkin debate, for example, about whether the law contains principles, as well as rules? Or does it concern whether judges have discretion in hard cases? Is it about the proper way to interpret legal texts in the American legal system? Or is it about the very possibility of conceptual jurisprudence? Although trying to capture the essence of a philosophical debate can be tricky, I think that there is an important unity to the Hart-Dworkin debate that can be described in a relatively straightforward manner. I suggest that the debate is organized around one of the most profound issues in the philosophy of law, namely, the relation between legality and morality. Dworkin’s basic strategy throughout the course of the debate has been to argue that, in one form or another, legality is ultimately determined not by social facts alone, but by moral facts as well. This contention directly challenges, and threatens to undermine, the positivist picture about the nature of law, in which legality is never determined by morality, but solely by social practice. As one might expect, the response by Hart and his followers has been to argue that this dependence of legality on morality is either merely apparent or does not, in fact, undermine the social foundations of law. The Hart-Dworkin debate, I also try to show, is not a monolithic entity. In the second half of the paper, I describe how Dworkin modified his critique to circumvent the responses of Hart’s followers, thereby inaugurating a new phase in the debate. Virtually no attention, however, has been paid to this latter challenge, which is especially surprising given that none of the previous positivistic defenses are helpful against it. I then sketch out a possible response positivists might offer to this extremely powerful objection. (shrink)

Ronald Dworkin, beginning in about 1967, has written a series of articles attacking the dominant contemporary theory of law, the legal positivism of H. L. A. Hart. Dworkin’s articles, while largely critical, go far towards establishing his own theory of the law, a theory that while never explicitly and succinctly formulated can nonetheless be reconstructed from his critical remarks. The theory is a combination of positivism and natural law theory, and indeed has been named by one of (...) its critics, “The Third Theory of Law.”. (shrink)

Abstrak: Tulisan berikut membahas pemikiran hukum Anglo-Amerika yang dikenal sebagai filsafat hukum. Dua pokok yang dibahas adalah masalah metodologi dan debat Hart/Dworkin. Inti pertanyaan yang dikaji di sini berkenaan dengan hakikat filsafat hukum. Untuk itu lang- kah yang diambil adalah dengan menelusuri situasi debat Hart/ Dworkin dan sesudahnya sebagai suatu debat metodologis dan kemudian menggunakannya untuk mengurai pertanyaan tadi. Debat tersebut telah memicu suatu palingan metodologis dalam filsafat hukum analitik yang lantas mengubah fokus dan makna dari (...) kegiatan melakukan filsafat hukum, yakni dari refleksi atas hakikat hukum (dan hubungannya dengan moralitas) menjadi refleksi atas hakikat kegiatan itu sendiri. Ber- dasarkan telaah kritis terhadap konstelasi dan tren populer dari sejumlah yang ide yang dikembangkan seputar eksistensi debat Hart/Dworkin, termasuk publikasi terbaru teks kuliah Dworkin di Harvard Law Review yang menanggapi Postscript Hart, tulisan ini mengemukakan argumen bahwa wacana filsafat hukum kontemporer menyentuh ranah kritik ter- hadap dua tesis metafisis, epistemologis, dan etis yang tampak sejajar, yakni dikotomi fakta dengan nilai dan pemisahan hukum dengan moralitas. Kata-kata Kunci: Metodologi filsafat hukum, debat Hart/Dworkin, hukum dan moralitas, filsafat hukum analitik, palingan metodologis, metodologi normatif, metodologi deskriptif. Abstract: This paper presents an exploration of the Anglo-American legal thought, better known as jurisprudence. A subject matter of it is two interrelated themes, i.e. the problem of methodology and the “Hart/Dworkin debate”. The main question addressed here concerning the nature of jurisprudence. It takes an inquiry to the Hart/Dworkin debate situation and its aftermath as a methodological debate and whilst use it to scrutinize that question. The debate has been stirred up the so called methodological turn in analytical jurisprudence, thus vary the focus and meaning of the activity of doing jurisprudence, from a reflection of the nature of law (and its relationship to morality) to a reflection of the nature of that activity itself. Based on the critical examination of constellation and popular trend of some ideas which developed around the existence Hart/Dworkin debate, including the recent publication of Dworkin’s lost text in Harvard Law Review replying to Hart’s Postscript, this paper argues that the contemporary discourse of jurisprudence attains the significance of a criticism of two kinds of metaphysical, epistemological, and ethical theses which are apparently parallel, i.e. the fact/value dichotomy and the separation of law and morality. Keywords: methodology of jurisprudence, Hart/Dworkin debate, law and morality, analytic jurisprudence, methodological turn, normative methodology, descriptive methodology. (shrink)

The paper discusses the Anglo-American philosophy of law of the 20th century, more specifically the philosophy of law of Ronald Myles Dworkin and his criticism of the legal positivism of Herbert Lionel Adolphus Hart. The author presents the history of the criticism of legal positivism in Ronald Dworkin’s philosophy of law and distinguishes historical stages. The subject of the study is the critique of legal positivism but not the Hart-Dworkin debate itself, well known in Western (...) philosophy of law. The reason is that the discussion was conducted between Dworkin and Hart’s supporters but not between Dworkin and Hart by himself. The latter responded to the criticism only after twenty seven years. The article explains why Dworkin chose for his criticism Herbert Hart’s version of legal positivism. This is due to the fact that Dworkin highly appreciated Hart’s positivist theory of law and characterized it as the “most clear.” The article presents the methodological foundations of criticism of Hart’s legal positivism in Dworkin’s philosophy of law. It reveals a methodological divergence between the two legal theories, which directly affects the understanding of the concept of law and its content. Therefore, we can assume that the legal theories of Hart and Dworkin are two competing models of law: Dworkin’s model considers law as a set of rules and principles and Hart’s model acknowledges only rules and court decisions as a source of law. The article also presents the key principles of positivism criticized by Dworkin. These principles, firstly, interpret law as a set of legal rules determined through a special legal criterion, secondly, provide the judge with an opportunity to make a decision “at his own discretion” in a situation not regulated by law, and, thirdly, recognize only legal rights and obligations enshrined in legal regulations. It is important to note that in this article the author describes criticism as an independent phenomenon of legal philosophy with a particular focus on the history and foundations of this phenomenon. (shrink)

H. L. A. Hart’s The Concept of Law (Hart 1994) contains many passages that have become iconic for legal theory. This essay focuses on Chapter 7, sections 1 and 2, and Hart’s comments about judicial discretion in the context of Ronald Dworkin’s well-known attack on the idea of judicial discretion in his essay “The Model of Rules”. Specifically, the paper undertakes three projects. The first project is to defend the importance of the fundamental picture that (...) class='Hi'>Hart presents in Concept, Chapter 7 of Common-Law judicial rule-making. Hart represents such rule-making as a balance of certainty and flexibility, and he is correct to do that. The second project is to argue that Dworkin’s attack on the positivist model of common-law judicial rule-making as an exercise of “strong discretion” fails. The idea, central to the meaning of “strong discretion” that courts are not “not bound by standards set by the authority in question” cannot be established. The third is to argue that Hart is his own worst enemy. The language, metaphors and images he uses to present his account of common-law judicial rule-making open the way to Dworkin’s critique. They also reveal Hart, if the language, metaphors and images are taken seriously, to be precisely the kind of formalist or deductivist about adjudication that he is ostensibly in Concept Chapter 7 criticising.Resumen:El concepto de derecho (1994) de H. L. A. Hart, contiene muchos pasajes que se han convertido en íconos de la teoría jurídica. Este artículo se concentra en el capítulo 7, sección 1 y 2, y en los comentarios que realizara Hart sobre la discreción judicial en el contexto de la bien conocida crítica de Dworkin a esta misma idea en su ensayo “El modelo de las normas”. Específicamente, el artículo emprende tres proyectos. El primero de ellos consiste en defender la importancia del esquema fundamental que ofrece Hart en el capítulo 7 de su obra, esto es, la creación judicial de normas en el Common Law. Hart representa tal creación de normas como un balance de certeza y flexibilidad; y él está en lo correcto al presentarlo de tal modo. El segundo proyecto consiste en argumentar que la crítica de Dworkin al modelo positivista de la creación judicial de normas en el Common Law, como un ejercicio de “discreción fuerte”, no está sustentada. La idea —central para el significado de “discreción fuerte”— de que los tribunales no están “sujetos a criterios establecidos por la autoridad en cuestión” no puede ser establecida. El tercer proyecto consiste en argumentar que Hart es su peor enemigo. El lenguaje, las metáforas e imágenes que emplea para exponer su teoría de la creación judicial de normas en el Common Law abre la puerta a la crítica dworkiniana. Si tomamos en serio el lenguaje, las metáforas y las imágenes, encontraremos a un Hart del tipo formalista o deductivista sobre la adjudicación, justo como el que él mismo está abiertamente cuestionando en el capítulo 7 de El concepto. (shrink)

Concepts such as law, religion or morality may refer both to a practice (or process) and to a doctrine (or product). My thesis is that we should not regard these as separate phenomena, but as two partly incompatible models of the same phenomenon. Law, religion and morality are therefore essentially ambiguous concepts (EAC). An EAC is a concept which refers to a dynamic phenomenon that may only be described and modeled in at least two different ways that are each essentially (...) incomplete and which are partly incompatible with each other. This means that we have to choose between either an incomplete description or an incoherent one. An EAC resembles an essentially contested concept (ECC) as both allow of conflicting conceptions. However, for an ECC the explanation of pluralism lies in the evaluative character of the concept, for an EAC it lies in the dynamic character of the phenomenon. The insight that many of our social concepts are essentially ambiguous may provide a better understanding of social and customary rules and of the debate between legal positivism and its opponents. I reconstruct the positions of three contributors to this debate, Fuller, Hart and Dworkin. An EAC framework offers a better insight into their theories, highlights the deficiencies, and explains why their debates were characterized by serious misunderstandings. (shrink)

Commentary by the translator on the publication of HLA Hart, ‘The New Challenge to Legal Positivism ’ 36 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 459.

This paper criticises Kevin Toh’s expressivist reconstruction of H. L. A. Hart’s semantics of legal statements on the grounds that two implications of Toh’s reading are arguably too disruptive to Hart’s theory of law. The first of these implications is that legal statements are rendered indistinguishable from statements of value. The second is that the concept of a rule of recognition is rendered dispensable. I argue for the unacceptability of these consequences from a Hartian standpoint in the first (...) two sections of this paper. The last two sections present an alternative view of Hart’s semantics of legal statements, according to which legal normativity is explained in terms of conformity to patterns of validity that by themselves neither provide objective reasons for action nor entail subjective acceptance of such reasons. (shrink)

The Postscript to The Concept of Law contains Herbert Hart's only sustained and considered response to the objections pressed against his views by his distinguished critic, Ronald Dworkin. In this extraordinary collection, many of the leading legal philosophers in the world evaluate the success of Hart's responses to Dworkin on several of these counts. Notable contributors include Joseph Raz of Oxford University and Jules L. Coleman of the Yale Law School.

Conhecido como Debate Hart-Dworkin, o entrechoque de opiniões entre esses dois autores gerou intensa discussão acerca do positivismo jurídico e das teorias que buscam refutar suas teses fundamentais. Neste contexto, Ronald Dworkin se empenha em repreender a doutrina positivista demonstrando que as noções elementares dessa teoria não são capazes de produzir uma doutrina eficaz sobre a natureza do direito. No presente artigo, pretendo analisar as críticas lançadas por Dworkin ao positivismo jurídico e às conceituações de Herbert (...) Hart, com específica atenção para o conceito de discricionariedade que Dworkin imputa ao positivismo. A partir de uma discussão teórica envolvendo as principais obras desses autores, procuro confirmar a hipótese de que a teoria positivista moderna não está comprometida com o sentido atribuído por Dworkin à noção de discricionariedade, prejudicando assim o fundamento da crítica de Dworkin acerca da interpretação no positivismo jurídico. Ao final, irei considerar também a gravidade desta vicissitude para a teoria dworkiniana como um todo, avaliando se as críticas de Dworkin restam comprometidas ou resistem a este empecilho. (shrink)

Este artículo atiende la manera en que Ronald Dworkin –como H. L. A. Hart y John Rawls, a quienes él sigue– enuncia el fundamento de los derechos humanos. Cierta presencia de iusnaturalismo en ese fundamento es señalado por Dworkin, Hart y Rawls y ellos buscan cuáles serían los derechos naturales del hombre, i.e., ellos son derechos que no pueden depender de un contrato social porque ellos son primeros para estos y son presupuestos; debido a esto, ellos (...) no pueden depender de la sola positivación. Hay, entonces, un iusnaturalismo escondido o latente en el fundamento de los derechos humanos como derechos morales. (shrink)

The article suggests a reading of the 1st edition of H. L. A. Hart, The Concept of Law (1961) which involves bringing to the fore the elements of moral prescription which accompany the descriptive/explanatory intent which Hart himself explicitly espouses. Thus, the functionalist account of the emergence of secondary rules in complex societies draws on the importance of social benefits, relating to justice and efficiency, benefits which Hart endorses. Consideration is then given to how the posthumous Postscript (...) in the 2nd edition of The Concept of Law (1994) might be rewritten to take into account responses to Dworkin other than those adopted by Hart in the Postscript. The alternative of a tentative form of prescriptive ‘hard’ legal positivism would better preserve the prescriptive ingredients evident in the 1st edition and assist in the regeneration of contemporary analytic legal philosophy within the Hartian traditionResumen:Este artículo propone una lectura de la primera edición de El concepto de derecho (1961), de H. L. A. Hart, en la cual se recuperan los elementos de prescripción moral que acompañan a la tesis descriptiva/explicativa que Hart explícitamente defendió. De tal modo, la tesis funcionalista del surgimiento de normas secundarias en sociedades complejas depende de la importancia de los beneficios sociales, relacionados con la justicia y la eficiencia, los cuales Hart suscribe. Después se llama la atención sobre la forma en que el Post Scriptum a la segunda edición de El concepto de derecho (1994), publicado póstumamente, podría ser reescrito para tomar en cuenta respuestas a Dworkin distintas a las que ofreció el propio Hart en su Post Scriptum. La alternativa de una forma tentativa de un positivismo jurídico prescriptivo “duro” conservaría de mucho mejor manera los ingredientes prescriptivos que son tan evidentes en la 1a edición, y contribuiría a la regeneración de una filosofía del derecho analítica contemporánea dentro de la tradición hartiana. (shrink)

This article attempts to demonstrate, via the famous Hart‐Dworkin debate on the nature and functions of judicial discretion, that substantial jurisprudential disputes as well as theories can, and do, arise from misconceived critiques, whether intended or otherwise. It also seeks to show that, whilst Dworkin's initial critique of Hart was misconceived, his theory of adjudication that arose as a result of responses to his initial views is a positive contribution to learning, although 1 argue that (...) class='Hi'>Dworkin's views are not, in the final analysis, sufficiently persuasive to constitute a radical departure from Hart's own views. (shrink)

In a recent comment on H.L.A. Hart’s ‘Postscript’ to The Concept of Law, Ronald Dworkin claims that the meaning of legal and political concepts may be understood by analogy to the meaning of natural kind concepts like ‘tiger’, ‘gold’ and ‘water’. This article questions the efficacy of Dworkin’s claims by challenging the use of natural kinds as the basis for a semantic theory of legal and political concepts. Additionally, in matters of value there is no methodological equivalent (...) to the scientific method. Thus, there is little hope of finding hidden essences to explain the meaning of legal and political concepts. Finally, even if there are natural kinds, Dworkin’s arguments for their efficacy in jurisprudence are problematic and unpersuasive. The problem for Dworkin is that his embrace of natural kinds undermines the ‘fit’ side of the fit/justification model of adjudication that lies at the heart of his theory of law. (shrink)

After the publication of Hart's Concept of Law, Dworkin published his article “The Model of Rules,” dividing positivism into two varieties: inclusive and exclusive. Many theorists involved in this debate have characterized Hart's position as inclusivist, which we reject in this article. We argue that Hart, in the postscript to The Concept of Law, conceded a point to Dworkin in accepting that inclusive positivism would imply the existence of objective moral standing, adopting a more “neutral” (...) position—compatible with inclusive and exclusive positivism—and consequently distancing himself from the incorporation thesis, which is paramount to inclusive positivism. (shrink)

The existence of unjust laws and unjust legal orders poses a large problem for natural law theories that assert a necessary relationship between law and morality and thus seems to support the positivist tradition, which argues that the relationship is contingent. Ronald Dworkin’s theory of law as a matter of moral principle was plagued by the problem. But here, I argue that the same problem vexes the legal positivism of H.L.A. Hart, for Hart thought that legal philosophy (...) had to explain law as an authoritative system. Dworkin’s theory can, however, respond to the problem, if combined with Lon Fuller’s theory of the internal morality of law and if he follows through on the idea sketched in Justice for Hedgehogs that we work out our moral values in a process of pragmatic inquiry that is shaped by the law. (shrink)

Even to disagree, we need to understand each other. If I reject what you say without understanding you, we will only have the illusion of a disagreement. You will be asserting one thing and I will be denying another. Even to disagree, we need some agreement.

In this article I analyse different strategies of defence –derived from Hart´s PostScript– used by the legal positivists against the numerous objections made by Ronald Dworkin. Against the abandonment of the dispute proposed by Liam Murphy, I show that the methodological and conceptual discussion between Dworkin and legal positivism is vital for the dworkinian theoretical purposes.

Two methodological claims in Hart's TheConceptofLaw have produced perplexity: that it is a book on 1 and that it may also be regarded as an essay in 2 Are these two ideas reconcilable? We know that mere analysis of our legal concepts cannot tell us much about their properties, that is, about the empirical aspect of law. We have learned this from philosophical criticisms of conceptual analysis; yet Hart informs us that analytic jurisprudence can be reconciled with descriptive (...) sociology. The answer to this puzzle lies in the notion of nonambitious conceptual analysis. The theorist analyzes concepts but accepts the limitations of conceptual analysis and therefore uses empirical knowledge and substantive arguments to explain, refine, or perhaps refute initial insights provided by intuitions. This is the conclusion that this paper arrives at as an argumentative strategy to defend Hart's legal theory from the criticisms of Stavropoulos and Dworkin. The latter argues that Hart's legal theory cannot explain theoretical disagreements in law because he relies on a shared criterial semantics. Stavropoulos aims to show that Hart's semantics is committed to ambitious conceptual analysis and relies on the usage of our words as a standard of correctness. Both attacks aim to show that the semantic sting stings Hart's legal theory. This essay refines both challenges and concludes that not even in the light of the most charitable interpretation of these criticisms is Hart's legal theory stung by the semantic sting. This study defends the view that Hart's methodological claims were modest and that he was aware of the limits of conceptual analysis as a philosophical method. He was, this study claims, far ahead of his time. (shrink)

The ‘Hart-miracle’, then the ‘Hart-phenomenon’ are analysed through surveying (1) the state of legal philosophising in England preceding Hart, (2) his professional career and (3) the early British reception of his work, including (4) the kinds of criticism as to its methodology and presuppositions as well as (5) its becoming a master type of jurisprudence with Oxford as a centre. Taking it as a mainstream, the continental tradition of encouragement to productive thinking characteristic even of Kelsenism is (...) contrasted with its worldwide reception, by the effect of channelling thinking. Its reception in Hungary with an overview of which trends of legal philosophising of the 20 th century has exerted or failed to exert an impact upon - as echoed by - theorising on law in Hungary is also considered. As concluded, the places in the imaginary Pantheon of 20 th -century legal philosophising occupied by Max Weber and Hans Kelsen (as accompanied by Eugen Ehrlich and Gustav Radbruch who are deemed to have been decisively significant minor masters), representing the first half of the century, are complemented indeed by the places occupied by H. L. A. Hart and Ronald M. Dworkin in representation of the second half of 20 th century. (shrink)

In this article, I argue that - despite the absence of any clear influence of one theory on the other - the legal theories of Dworkin and Hegel share several similar and, at times, unique positions that join them together within a distinctive school of legal theory, sharing a middle position between natural law and legal positivism. In addition, each theory can help the other in addressing certain internal difficulties. By recognizing both Hegel and Dworkin as proponents of (...) a position lying in between natural law and legal positivist jurisprudence, we can gain clarity in why their general legal theories seem to fit uncomfortably, if indeed they can be said to fit at all, within so many different camps - while fitting comfortably in no particular camp - as well as highlight what has been overlooked. (shrink)

Chapter I of The Concept of Law raises a fourth, capital, issue, besides the three well-known ones: i.e., the meta-philosophical issue concerning the point, the matter, and the method of legal theory. The paper purports to present Hart’s philosophy of jurisprudence in its best light, also by referring to some of its theoretical pay-offs, and to defend it, so far as possible, against a few criticisms by supporters of different outlooks (Raz, Leiter, and Dworkin)Resumen:El capítulo 1 de El (...) concepto de derecho plantea una cuarta cuestión fundamental, además de las otras tres bien conocidas: a saber, la cuestión meta-filosófica relacionada con el objeto, materia y método de la teoría jurídica. El propósito de este artículo es exponer la filosofía del derecho hartiana en su mejor versión, mediante la referencia a algunas de sus ventajas teóricas, con el fin de defenderla, en la medida de lo posible, de algunas de las críticas formuladas por los defensores de otros enfoques (Raz, Leiter y Dworkin). (shrink)

Ronald Dworkin is one of the most frequently cited legal philosophers. His work, notably his attack on H. L. A. Hart's positivist theory of law, has received considerable attention, earning him praise as well as trenchant criticism. Instead of discussing the analytical validity of Dworkin's claims, though, we propose an alternative reading of his jurisprudential writings that emphasises their rhetorical nature. After delineating the rhetorical context of his work, we provide several illustrations of his use of rhetorical (...) strategies and, with the help of sentiment‐analysis techniques, emotional language. While resorting to classical rhetorical tactics, Dworkin's rhetoric, we argue, appealed to the emotional power of rights talk at a time when the notion of rights enjoyed greater resonance with his audience. (shrink)

Abstract.The legitimate impact of common morality on legal restrictions has been continuously discussed within the Western philosophy of law since Lord Patrick Devlin in the late 1950s presented his moralistic arguments against some liberal conclusions drawn by the English Committee on Homosexual Offences and Prostitution in their public report. Devlin's arguments were subsequently identified and refuted by Richard Wollheim, H. L. A. Hart and Ronald Dworkin, but in a way that later provoked further argument. In particular the attack (...) against anti‐moralistic principles set forth by Simon Lee (1986) owes much to the rather naive liberalism represented by the opponents of Devlin. The battle over liberalism and moralism from the Hart‐Devlin debate to the present day is reviewed. In addition to the discussion of the philosophers mentioned above, a potential flaw in the argumentation of Joel Feinberg (1986) is considered. (shrink)

Since its development in the middle of the 20th century, H.L.A. Hart’s oeuvre has become a beacon for the jurisprudential community. Hart turned out to be a giant on whose shoulders many have stood. Yet the significance in its own right of Hart’s work has been neglected in recent years because his work has too often been discussed in the context of the Hart-Dworkin-debate. Hopefully, Nicola Lacey’s recent biography of Hart,which is discussed in this (...) review-article, will contribute to redress this omission. Three aspects of the biography are discussed here: 1) Hart’s life; 2) the relation between his life and work; 3) his academic work. (shrink)

One of the most fundamental questions in general jurisprudence concerns what makes it the case that the law has the content that it does. It is the job of theories of legal content to provide answers. This article offers a novel positivist theory of legal content. According to the theory it calls “principled positivism,” legal practices ground legal principles, and legal principles determine legal rules. This two-level account of the determination of legal content differs from Hart’s celebrated theory in (...) two essential respects: in relaxing Hart’s requirement that fundamental legal notions depend on judicial consensus; and in assigning weighted contributory legal norms—“principles”—an essential role in the determination of legal rights, duties, powers, and permissions. Drawing on concrete examples from American statutory and constitutional law, the article shows how the version of positivism that it introduces and defends betters Hart’s in meeting the most formidable challenges to positivism that Dworkin marshaled. The article also explains why the revisions it advances matter, legally as well as philosophically. (shrink)

This chapter discusses the theory of international law. In analytic jurisprudence, at least since the latter half of the twentieth century, the primary debate in general jurisprudence has been between legal positivism and its most ardent critic, Ronald Dworkin. The positivist tradition is represented here by its two most important theorists, Hans Kelsen and H.L.A. Hart. During their careers, Kelsen and Hart clashed over the best understanding of legal positivism. For his part, Dworkin devoted the bulk (...) of his critical attention to Hart's work. The chapter also focuses on the way in which each theorist builds his view of international law against the background of a more general jurisprudence. Hart argues that the differences between international law and municipal law might eventually be overcome. International law might be in a stage of transition that will bring it nearer in structure to a municipal system. (shrink)

The thrust of this paper addresses how the notion of an author relates to the authority of a law. Drawing from the legal thought of Hobbes, Bentham, and John Austin, the Paper offers a sense of the author as a distinct institutional source of the state. The Paper then addresses the more difficult legal theories in this context: those of HLA Hart, Ronald Dworkin and Hans Kelsen. The clue to the latter as well as the earlier theorists is (...) a presupposed inaccessible author or ghost. The presupposed ghost of the law is crucial to the binding character of a law. (shrink)