Luka Burazin

The paper claims that the rule of recognition, given the way it is presented by Hart, cannot be a constitutive rule of any legal system as a whole, but rather a constitutive rule of legal rules as elements of a legal system. Since I take the legal system to be an institutional artifact kind, I claim that, in order to account for a legal system as a whole, at least two further constitutive rules, in addition to the rule of recognition as a token-element constitutive rule, are needed – one constitutive of legal officials and the other constitutive of a legal system as a token. However, given the central role the legal officials' practice occupies in establishing a particular instantiation or token of a legal system, I also claim that the rule of recognition cannot be understood as 'merely' a token-element constitutive rule but also as a legal system's implementation or concretisation rule

The paper first outlines the thesis on (the means of) execution as a kind of legal sanction (esp. in the case of causing damage). It then sets out the basic theoretical arguments for rejecting the viewpoint according to which the duty of repair represents a sanction in the case of causing damage. The paper goes on to present the viewpoints of several legal philosophers (Bucher, MacCormick, Padjen, Pokrovac) who raised objections to the thesis on (the means of) execution. Finally, it critically analyses these objections and sets out six additional arguments with a view to strenghtening the said thesis.

The paper claims that the rule of recognition, given the way it is presented by Hart, cannot be a constitutive rule of any legal system as a whole, but rather a constitutive rule of legal rules as elements of a legal system. Since I take the legal system to be an institutional artifact kind, I claim that, in order to account for a legal system as a whole, at least two further constitutive rules, in addition to the rule of recognition as a token-element constitutive rule, are needed – one constitutive of legal officials and the other constitutive of a legal system as a token. However, given the central role the legal officials' practice occupies in establishing a particular instantiation or token of a legal system, I also claim that the rule of recognition cannot be understood as 'merely' a token-element constitutive rule but also as a legal system's implementation or concretisation rule

The paper first outlines the thesis on (the means of) execution as a kind of legal sanction (esp. in the case of causing damage). It then sets out the basic theoretical arguments for rejecting the viewpoint according to which the duty of repair represents a sanction in the case of causing damage. The paper goes on to present the viewpoints of several legal philosophers (Bucher, MacCormick, Padjen, Pokrovac) who raised objections to the thesis on (the means of) execution. Finally, it critically analyses these objections and sets out six additional arguments with a view to strenghtening the said thesis

The idea that particular legal institutions are artifacts is not new. However, the idea that the “law” or “legal system” is itself an artifact has seldom been directly put forward, due perhaps to the ambiguities surrounding philosophical inquiries into law. Nevertheless, such an idea has recently been invoked more often, though not always developed in detail in terms of what the characterization of the “law” or “legal system” as an artifact entails ontologically, and what consequences, if any, this has for philosophical accounts of law. As a result, the primary aim of this paper is to attempt an inquiry into what the claim that “law” by its nature or character is an artifact entails, and what an artifact theory of law might look like.