The book provides a novel account of the ontological foundations of institutional facts, and argues that there are some important epistemic and methodological implications that follow from this ontology. The first part of the book offers a detailed reductive account of institutional facts by way of metaphysical grounding. It shows that an ontology of institutional facts requires an ontology of social rules, and the latter depends on a reductive account of collective attitudes. The book offers a grounding-reductive account of collective (...) attitudes that comports with methodological individualism. It argues for a functional explanation of the constitutive relations between rules and practices, challenging John Searle’s influential distinction between constitutive and regulative rules. The second part of the book aims to show that there are a number of important epistemic and methodological conclusions that follow from the ontology of institutional facts. First, that there are certain types of widespread errors about the socially constructed aspects of reality that are not metaphysically possible. The second methodological argument is that a metaphysical account of institutional reality does not have to provide an explanation of the relevant social practices in terms that would rationalize the practice for the participants themselves. Finally, the last chapter explains the idea of hierarchical practices, arguing that basic social power-structuring rules function to transform brute power into an elaborate normative framework, constituting authoritative institutions that are central to our institutional reality. (shrink)

In this paper I argue that textualism is far less attractive as a theory of written law than some of its modern proponents think. For it is not usually sensible to expect the grammatical meaning of a provision to determine its appropriate legal meaning. Factors that are unrelated to grammar in the identification of law (e.g., legal theory, context) do too much of the work. **Draft -- acknowledgments welcome, but please do not cite.**.

A frequently discussed question in recent jurisprudential debates concerns the extent to which conversational implicatures can be conveyed reliably in legal language. Roughly, an implicature is a piece of information that a speaker communicates indirectly, that is without making the conveyed information explicit. According to the classical analysis of implicatures, their successful communication depends on a shared expectation of interlocutors to be cooperative in conversation. However, recently some legal theorists have claimed that in legal language implicatures tend to be unreliable (...) because – according to them – communicative cooperation cannot be presumed in legal discourse to the same extent as in ordinary conversations. In this article, I will focus on implicatures in a particular kind of legal discourse, namely judicial opinions, and I will discuss to what extent we should also be sceptical about implicatures in this type of legal discourse. My aim is to suggest that scepticism about the reliability of implicatures in judicial opinions appears implausible once we take evidence into account, i.e. examples of implicatures from judicial opinions. I will argue that the evidence that sceptics provide is not only scarce but inconclusive and present a wealth of implicatures from judicial opinions that are not unreliable. I will conclude that an evidence-based approach casts the sceptical view into doubt and suggest that communicative cooperation is presumed in judicial opinions, as well. (shrink)