Ronald Dworkin famously argued that legal positivism is a defective account of law because it has no account of Theoretical Disagreement. In this article I argue that legal positivism—as advanced by H.L.A. Hart—does not need an account of Theoretical Disagreement. Legal positivism does, however, need a plausible account of interpretation in law. I provide such an account in this article.

Ratio Juris, Volume 35, Issue 3, Page 310-326, September 2022.

(1991). The importance of asking the right questions. Social Epistemology: Vol. 5, Social epistemology of the law, pp. 75-77. doi: 10.1080/02691729108578600.