In the law, it is generally acknowledged that there are intuitive differences between reasoning with rules and reasoning with principles. For instance, a rule seems to lead directly to its conclusion if its condition is satisfied, while a principle seems to lead merely to a reason for its conclusion. However, the implications of these intuitive differences for the logical status of rules and principles remain controversial.A radical opinion has been put forward by Dworkin (1978). The intuitive differences led him to (...) argue for a strict logical distinction between rules and principles. Ever since, there has been a controversy whether the intuitive differences between rules and principles require a strict logical distinction between the two. For instance, Soeteman (1991) disagrees with Dworkin's opinion, and argues that rules and principles cannot be strictly distinguished, and do not have a different logical structure. (shrink)

Widespread, deep controversy as to the content of the law of a community is compatible with the view that the law is a system of rules. I defend that view through a critique of Ronald Dworkin's discussion of Riggs v. Palmer 22 N.E. 188. Dworkin raised an important challenge for jurisprudence: to account for the fact that legal rights and duties are frequently controversial. I offer an explanation of the possibility of deep disagreement about the application of social rules, which (...) reconciles controversy as to the content of the law, with the model of a legal system as a system of rules. And I discuss the implications for understanding the role of judicial discretion in law. (shrink)

This article offers a critical reassessment of the jurisprudence of Rudolf von Jhering. During the 20th century, Anglo-American legal philosophers who drew inspiration from Jhering's work usually lauded him either as a German forerunner to American legal realism or as an early proponent of a jurisprudence of interests. These representations of his work do not do justice to Jhering's jurisprudential project. This study demonstrates that he sought to explain how legal systems originate and how they maintain authority. It is shown (...) that his explanation of legal authority depends not only upon familiar jurisprudential notions such as reciprocity and positional duty, but also upon the concept of Rechtsgefühl—namely, the idea that authority is conditioned by citizens’ feelings of what is right or just. Jhering, it is demonstrated, believed that the authority of a legal system depends very much on its ability to negotiate and accommodate struggles based upon feelings of right—struggles between citizens, between citizens and State, and between States. It is also argued that the manner in which Jhering relies on the idea of Rechtsgefühl undermines the received wisdom that he was an interest theorist. (shrink)

The first part of this article contains an analysis of the concept of a right, which implies a rational structure of reasoning about rights, elaborated in the second part. In the third part both the concept of a right and reasoning about rights are connected with the theory of rational discourse. The author's thesis is that there exists an internal relation between the theory of rights and the theory of legal reasoning.

The author offers a sketch of his thesis that legal principles are optimization commands. He presents this thesis as an effort to capture the structure of weighing or balancing and to provide a basis for the principle of proportionality as it is applied in constitutional law. With this much in place, he then takes up some of the problems that have come to be associated with the optimization thesis. First, he examines the objection that there are no such things as (...) principles, but only different modes of the application of norms. Second, he discusses problems concerning the concept of an optimization command and the character of the "ought" contained in principles. He concludes that the distinction between commands to optimize and commands to be optimized is the best method for capturing the nature of principles. (shrink)

In this reprint of Law's Empire,Ronald Dworkin reflects on the nature of the law, its given authority, its application in democracy, the prominent role of interpretation in judgement, and the relations of lawmakers and lawgivers to the community on whose behalf they pronounce. For that community, Law's Empire provides a judicious and coherent introduction to the place of law in our lives.Previously Published by Harper Collins. Reprinted (1998) by Hart Publishing.

This unique study offers a comprehensive analysis of American jurisprudence from its emergence in the later stages of the nineteenth century through to the present day. The author argues that it is a mistake to view American jurisprudence as a collection of movements and schools which have emerged in opposition to each other. By offering a highly original analysis of legal formalism, legal realism, policy science, process jurisprudence, law and economics, and critical legal studies, he demonstrates that American jurisprudence has (...) evolved as a collection of themes which reflects broader American intellectual and cultural concerns. (shrink)

This book analyses the general structure of constitutional rights reasoning under the German Basic Law. It deals with a wide range of problems common to all systems of constitutional rights review. In an extended introduction the translator argues for its applicability to the British Constitution, with particular reference to the Human Rights Act 1998.