Stefan Sciaraffa

Part I. Furthering debate between leading theories of Law -- The Explantory Role of the Weak Natural Law Thesis -- In Defense of Hart -- Law's Authority is not a Claim to Preemption -- The Normative Fallacy Regarding Law's Authority -- The Problem about the Nature of Law vis-à-vis Legal Rationality Revisited : Towards an Integrative Jurisprudence -- Part II. The Power of Legal Systems -- Law as Power : Two Rule of Law Requirements -- A Comprehensive Hartian Theory of Legal Obligation : Social Pressure, Coercive Enforcement, and the Legal Obligations of Citizens -- Law and the Entitlement to Coerce -- Part III. Conceptual Analysis -- Farewell to Conceptual Analysis (in Jurisprudence) -- What Do We Want Law to Be? Philosophical Analysis and the Concept of Law -- Part IV. New Directions -- Legal as a Thick Concept -- Making Old Questions New : Legality, Legal System, and State -- Legal Disagreements and the Dual Nature of Law -- Is There One Right Answer to the Question of the Nature of Law?

This book assembles leading legal, political, and moral philosophers to examine the legacy of the work of Ronald Dworkin. They provide the most comprehensive critical treatment of Dworkin's accomplishments focusing on his work in all branches of philosophy, including his theory of value, political philosophy, philosophy of international law, and legal philosophy. The book's organizing principle and theme reflect Dworkin's self-conception as a builder of a unified theory of value, and the broad outlines of his system can be found throughout the book. The first section addresses the most abstract and general aspect of Dworkin's work--the unity of value thesis. The second section explores Dworkin's contributions to political philosophy, and discusses a number of political concepts including authority, civil disobedience, the legitimacy of states and the international legal system, distributive justice, collective responsibility, and Dworkin's master value of dignity and the associated values of equal concern and respect. The third section addresses various aspects of Dworkin's general theory of law. The fourth and final section comprises accounts of the structure and defining values of discrete areas of law.

In this paper, I outline and defend an alternative to Hartian legal theory that accepts the Hartian theory of a legal system yet rejects the Hartian theory of legal content in favor of a non-positivist alternative. I call this the- ory the justificatory view. A key argument advanced here in support of the justificatory view relies on the problem of theoretical disagreement that Ronald Dworkin poses for Hartian positivism. Moreover, I argue that a vir- tue of the justificatory view is that its hybrid nature shields it from the forceful criticism that Brian Leiter marshals against Dworkin’s legal theory. As Leiter observes, though Dworkin’s legal theory may do better than posi- tivism with respect to explaining the marginal phenomenon of theoretical disagreement among legal officials, Dworkinian legal theory suffers the much greater failing of being unable to explain the background of massive decisional agreement characteristic of legal systems. I argue that because the justificatory view accepts and rests upon the Hartian theory of a legal system, it is no less able than Hartian legal theory to explain this back- ground of massive decisional agreement.Resumen:En este artículo esbozo y defiendo una alternativa a la teoría jurídica hartiana, que si bien acepta la teoría hartiana del sistema jurídico, re- chaza sin embargo la teoría hartiana del contenido jurídico y aboga por una alternativa no-positivista. Llamo a esta teoría la postura de justificación. Un argumento clave para defender la postura de justificación se erige sobre el problema del desacuerdo teórico que Ronald Dworkin formuló al positivismo hartiano. Además, sostengo que una de las virtudes de esta postura de justificación es que su naturaleza híbrida la protege de las enérgicas críticas que plantea Brian Leiter contra la teoría jurídica de Dworkin. Como observa Leiter, aunque la teoría jurídica de Dworkin sea más consistente que la teoría positivista para explicar el fenómeno marginal de los desacuerdos teóricos entre los oficiales del derecho, la teoría dworkiniana padece mucho más el problema de no poder explicar el contexto de acuerdos masivos en las decisiones que caracterizan a un sistema jurídico. Y esto lo sostengo porque la postura de justificación acepta y se basa en la teoría hartiana del sistema jurídico; por ello es igual de capaz que la teoría jurídica de Hart de explicar este contexto de decisiones que gozan de un acuerdo masivo.

On Shapiro’s view, any viable legal theory must successfully respond to his Possibility Puzzle and Humean Challenge. Moreover, he argues that Hartian legal theory fails in this respect. Here, I take issue with his characterization of these challenges and the Hartian response to them. I argue that he equivocates with respect to a number of the key terms and relations that inform his Possibility Puzzle, and I argue that if we disambiguate its terms consistently and plausibly, we will see that its putative challenge to Hartian legal theory is illusory. I also argue that once we adequately characterize Hartian legal theory, it easily meets the Humean Challenge. If correct, these arguments undermine Shapiro’s larger project of defending his planning theory of law, for a key pillar supporting his theory is that it meets challenges that rival theories cannot. I also consider his planning theory directly, and I argue that it compares unfavourably to the Hartian approach in a crucial respect. It obscures the Hartian insight that customary practice is an ineliminable and fundamental feature of legal systems. Thus, I conclude that though Shapiro’s Legality brings to the fore many of the key issues in contemporary analytic jurisprudence and does so in an insightful and provocative way, it does not succeed in its ultimate ambition of improving upon and supplanting Hartian legal theory

Abstract: We are all familiar with the way in which social roles, such as mother, father, professor, club football coach, citizen, and so on, confront us with clusters of duties that purport to bind us. Though we generally experience these role-duties as normatively binding, we might question this. What reason do role-occupants have for conforming to the duties that define their roles? I argue that the agent who identifies with her role thereby has a weighty and important justificatory reason for conforming to the role's defining duties: namely, the identifying agent realizes the fundamental goods of meaning and self-determination by doing so. This is an important normative ground of role-duties because it, unlike the grounds of natural duty or voluntary assumption, ensures that the duties it grounds are not alien impositions but rather are elements of the identifying agent's wellbeing. I also argue that role-identification provides a reason that shares many of the characteristics of a moral reason, and I argue that role-identification in tandem with the principle of fair play grounds a moral duty to conform to one's role-duties

Per the standard reading of his view, Hart held that the legally valid norms of any legal system are those identified as such by the criteria of validity effectively accepted in common by the system's officials. Here, I focus on the presupposition underlying this Hartian account of legal facts – namely, that the officials of any legal system share a perspective that fixes the identity of their system's legally valid norms. Below, I hope to establish the appeal of this presupposition and the attendant Hartian project of providing an account of the identity of the legally valid norms of any legal system. Nonetheless, as I explain, the phenomenon of disagreement that Ronald Dworkin describes threatens Hart's crucial presupposition, thereby posing a mortal threat to his account of legal facts. Moreover, as I hope the following survey illustrates, the phenomenon of disagreement similarly threatens many other contemporary theories of law, for these theories join the project of providing a Hartian account of legal facts. A final objective of this survey is to highlight two mutually exclusive strategies for responding to the phenomenon of disagreement: rejecting the Hartian presupposition and commitment to legal facts or affirming this Hartian project by explaining how officials share a legal fact-fixing perspective despite disagreeing about their system's criteria of validity

In a quartet of books, Neil MacCormick develops in great detail his institutional theory of law. According to this theory, law is an institutional normative order. As we shall see, save for one key difference, MacCormick's institutional theory of a legal system closely parallels Hart's positivist theory. Though his theory of a legal system looks very much like Hart's positivist theory, he concludes that a central positivist tenet is false. He argues that, contra positivism, moral considerations are necessarily determinants of a legal system's laws; for, on his account, radically unjust norms necessarily are not law. Thus, MacCormick theory presents us with a surprising juxtaposition - in his words, a post-positivist synthesis of positivism and natural law theory. In this essay, I examine whether it is possible to reach a natural law conclusion on the basis of what is traditionally taken to be a positivist foundation. I argue that MacCormick's and Julie Dickson's attempts (on MacCormick's behalf) to do this are not promising. However, I also argue that MacCormick's theory of law has resources for a more promising approach to this argument, and I attempt to mine these resources