By applying these theories to a recent judicial decision, it is possible to assess contemporary judicial interpretive theory in australia. The role of ordinary courts in the enforcement of fundamental rights. Dworkin, the most famous critic of harts theory of judicial interpretation, was harts successor to the chair of jurisprudence at oxford university. For the past four decades, angloamerican legal philosophy has been preoccupied some might say obsessed with something called the hartdworkin debate. Una visita al debate hartdworkin revisiting hartdworkin debatein spanish. A short guide for the perplexed working paper 2007 e. Dworkin debate concerns such disparate issues as the existence of judicial 5 in the postscript, hart accepts some responsibility for the confusion.
Teoria del derecho y decision judicial en torno al debate entre h. Pdf una visita al debate hartdworkin revisiting hart. Since the appearance in 1967 of the model of rules i, ronald dworkins seminal critique of h. Dworkin s theory thus offers an explanation of how judges should, and do decide hard cases before them that is in conformity with public perception of judicial activity and with the practice of legal scholar. Harts theory was contained in the book, the concept of law that provided a general and normative description that explained the notion of law. In particular, it must provide a detailed account of the powers and responsibilities of judges and judicial reasoning. Much credit is due to dworkin for having shown and illustrated the importance of legal principles and their role in legal. In solving the problems of the penumbra, hart talks about the necessary intersection between law and morals. Harts response to dworkin is contained within the postscript of the second edition concept of. Ronald dworkin philosophers and legal scholars have long debated the means by which decisions of an independent judiciary can be reconciled with democratic ideals.
Because the courts and judges play such an important role in the american legal system, any theory of law which hopes to be relevant must carefully consider the judicial branch. I shall try, in the closing sections of my argument, to point to some of the investigations that must be undertaken prior to renewed attention to the significance of the hartdworkin debate. A short guide for the perplexed, public law and legal theory working paper series. Perhaps dworkin can show at least that legal decisions should require significant input from a judges own understanding of principles. Thus, an illumination of how the legal process operates in settling such disputes can hopefully be sharpened by a critique of both hart and dworkin. According to hart, dworkin later realized that even in evil legal systems individuals may have rights which are grounded in some moral force as they are not affected by the general wickedness of the system. Even though professors hart and dworkin mix traditional. At the time of his death, he was frank henry sommer professor of law and philosophy at new york university and professor of jurisprudence at university college london.
The criterion which at times, makes a decision sound in such cases is when a moral judgment is made about what the law ought to be. The choice between literal and purposive approach is a political decision. To some extent, professor dworkin s criticism of professor hart s positivistic jurisprudence sharpens the focus of the issues. Dworkins main criticisms of harts theory essay 1605 words. Synopsis the debate waged between ronald dworkin and h. Scott shapiro, the future of the hartdworkin debate traditionally, the hartdworkin debate has been understood as a dispute about the metaphysical grounds of law. Harts theory of legal positivism, countless books and articles have been written either. An assessment of the dworkinhart debate committee chair. Theories of hart and dworkin qualifies as a legal rule. Dworkins theory thus offers an explanation of how judges should, and do decide hard cases before them that is in conformity with public perception of judicial activity and with the practice of legal scholar. However, since dworkins criticisms emerged, the degree to which harts theory, in fact, fails to acknowledge certain legal principles as law is unclear. Introduction it has been twentyfive years now since ronald dworkin began his efforts to redraw the map of jurisprudential debate by offering a third theory of law.
Thomas huff this essay seeks to describe the conclusions reached in a seminal debate within anglo american legal philosophy, specifically the debate between ronald dworkin and h. The problem of justifying judicial decisions is particularly acute in hard cases, those cases in which the result is not clearly dictated by statute or precedent. Hart and ronald dworkin began to define the nowubiquitous debate over the relationship between morality and law. Penelope a bulloch indice josephraz teoria del derecho y decision judicial en tomo al debate entre h. This essay focuses on chapter 7, sections 1 and 2, and harts comments about judicial discretion in the context of ronald dworkins wellknown attack on the idea of judicial discretion in his. He made a reasonable case that something like this has to happen in any system of rules. Historically this debate has been framed as a dispute over the necessity of. Dworkin rejects the positivist conceptions of law and. No rule is going to list all the possible vehicles, for instance. Against hart, dworkin maintains that even in unclear cases there is always one correct decision, although what this decision might be is unknown. The hartdworkin debate is a debate in legal philosophy between h. In my remarks at the conference, i will advance two theses. Hart over the concept of law looms large over the literature on legal theory. Harts response to dworkin is contained within the postscript of the second edition concept of law, which was published in 1994.
Those concepts, advocated by cls are very insightful and they certainly push the theoretical debate forward. In substance, dworkin aims to undermine the positivist insight that a. Con sider, for example, the problem of the recent spartan steel case. Sep 23, 2016 in his criticism of harts account, dworkin stipulates that hart fails to incorporate principles into his description of what law is.
Reflections on dworkin and the two faces of law richard h. For three decades now, much of the angloamerican legal philosophy curriculum has been organized around something called the hart dworkin debate, a debate whose starting point is ronald dworkin s. Hart states that there are certainly unregulated cases in which no decision can be dictated by law. Dworkins theory of interpretation and the nature of jurisprudence dworkins theory of law as interpretation is a very complex challenge to analytical jurisprudence in general and legal positivism in particular. Thus, the hart dworkin debate concerns such disparate issues as the existence of judicial 5 in the postscript, hart accepts some responsibility for the confusion. The challenge is both substantive and methodological. Harts theory was contained in the book, the concept of law that provided a general and. Lucy, in reference to the critique of adjudication27, said that the book is rich in ideas and. It is the fact of acceptance by officials rather than the moral or political correctness of the rule that determines its. Learn vocabulary, terms, and more with flashcards, games, and other study tools.
Thus dworkin seems to be right when he maintains that there is a radical logical difference between the principles he has in mind. Yet having briefly discussed a clash between hart and dworkin from a descriptive perspective, it seems reasonable to see whether dworkins account provides a desirable conception of law. At the heart of the debate lies a dworkinian critique of hartian legal positivism, specifically, the theory presented in harts book the concept of law while hart insists that judges are within bounds to legislate on the basis of rules of law, dworkin strives to show that. The sequence of the debate has been harts concept of law, published in 1961, then it was dworkins criticism of harts thesis laws empire, published in 1986. Dworkins main criticisms of harts theory essay 1605. Friedlander in the late 1960s, the opposing ideologies of legal philosophers h. The concept of law is an important philosophical subject in legal jurisprudence that has provoked debate in previous years, especially between hart and dworkins. At the center of ronald dworkins theory of law, law as integ rity, 1 is the. December 11, 1931 february 14, 20 was an american philosopher, jurist, and scholar of united states constitutional law. While rejecting harts ruling theory of law, dworkin also rejects the reasoning of natural law theorists that there are predetermined, absolute and metaphysical moral principles which determine the moral standards upon which the validity of all human laws are based. Disagreement and debate about the law can be carried on despite widely differing conceptual frameworks because, dworkin claims, the debates are all aimed at interpreting the same concrete set of social practices, namely the behavior of actual judges, and the existence and observable effects of statutes and judicial opinions. Hart had said that judges must legislate when the rules do not determine their decision in a particular case.
1374 1029 1583 1175 711 677 1638 1090 550 974 240 557 758 793 1528 1318 1053 1379 216 328 857 1634 1045 78 492 17 359 649 265 1137