Ad
related to: ronald dworkin legal theory
Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
A theory of law is for Dworkin a theory of how cases ought to be decided and it begins, not with an account of the political organization of a legal system, but with an abstract ideal regulating the conditions under which governments may use coercive force over their subjects. [14] Dworkin in 2008
In philosophy of law, law as integrity is a theory of law put forward by Ronald Dworkin. In general, it can be described as interpreting the law according to a community . [ 1 ]
The Hart–Dworkin debate is a debate in legal philosophy between H. L. A. Hart and Ronald Dworkin. At the heart of the debate lies a Dworkinian critique of Hartian legal positivism, specifically, the theory presented in Hart's book The Concept of Law. While Hart insists that judges are within bounds to legislate on the basis of rules of law ...
Law's Empire is a 1986 text in legal philosophy by Ronald Dworkin, in which the author continues his criticism of the philosophy of legal positivism as promoted by H.L.A. Hart during the middle to late 20th century.
Taking Rights Seriously is a 1977 book about the philosophy of law by the philosopher Ronald Dworkin.In the book, Dworkin argues against the dominant philosophy of Anglo-American legal positivism as presented by H. L. A. Hart in The Concept of Law (1961) and utilitarianism by proposing that rights of the individual against the state exist outside of the written law and function as "trumps ...
This is the opposite of the main claim of natural law theory. In the English-speaking world, interpretivism is usually identified with Ronald Dworkin's thesis on the nature of law as discussed in his text titled Law's Empire, which is sometimes seen as a third way between natural law and legal positivism.
American legal philosopher Ronald Dworkin's legal theory attacks legal positivists that separate law's content from morality. [64] In his book Law's Empire, [65] Dworkin argued that law is an "interpretive" concept that requires barristers to find the best-fitting and most just solution to a legal dispute, given their constitutional traditions ...
Mark Tushnet, Critical Legal Theory (without Modifiers) in the United States, 13 (1) Journal of Political Philosophy 99 (2005). A.D. Woozley, No Right Answer, Ronald Dworkin and Contemporary Jurisprudence (M. Cohen, ed., London: Duckworth, 1984). Quentin du Plessis, Sources of Legal Indeterminacy, 138 South African Law Journal 115 (2021).