A Hart And Ronald Dworkin 's Theory Of Law

Sanctions are only appealed to in the event that there is a breach. It therefore follows that the opinion of Hart is that various form of law cannot be explained in a single expression as orders backed with threats of sanction. Thus, in contradiction with Austin’s viewpoint, Hart formulated a dual system which contains two types of rules, primary rules (duty-imposing) and secondary rules (power-conferring). Primary rules are generally duty-imposing, which embodies non-optional rules of obligation. It often concerned with standard of behavior as requirement to do or to abstain from performing an act. On the other hand, secondary rules are ancillary to primary rules the former conferring right to introduce, to vary the primary rules and to determine the mode in which their violation could be determined (judicial process). Such secondary rules are rather regulatory or facilitative than coercive in nature. In short, Austin’s catch all theory of seeing law as command back with sanction leave no room for right, privileges given to subject of Sovereignty which does not constitute non optional

It is often believed that the relationship between certainty and flexibility in judicial precedent has struck a fine line between being necessary and being precarious. The problem is that these two concepts of judicial precedent are seen as working against each other and not in tandem. There is proof, however, that as contrasting as they are on the surface they are actually working together to achieve one common goal.

In August 2015, the case Miller V Davis brought to light the complicated relationship between law and morality. Indeed, Mrs Davis a county clerk in Rowan county (Kentucky), is being sued for not delivering marriage licences to same sex couples as she believes that homosexuality is morally wrong. Thus, despite the fact that same-sex marriage has been made legal by the U.S Supreme Court since June 2015. Ought individuals to apply the law though it is in inadequacy with their moral beliefs? Do the law should be totally free from any moral influence? Many legal scholars have argued on these questions, as well as trying to define the terms “law” and “morality”. While no one has agreed to a universal definition, law can be defined as a “body of rules, whether proceeding from formal enactment or from custom, which a particular state or community recognizes as binding on its members or subjects”. On the other hand, morality is referred to as an “ethical wisdom” , the set of common values unifying a society. This essay will discuss the role of morality in the law, while analysing different legal school of thoughts arguing on the topic. First of all, positivists such as Bentham, Austin and Hart, argued that morality should not interfere with the law as it is created by a legitimate authority. On the other hand, naturalist theorists, such as Aristotle, Fuller and Dworkin, believed in the existence of a “higher law”, highly influenced by morals, has to be integrated in a legal system

ANNECDOTE. The majority of the High Court in Clark v Marcourt, awarded damages of approximately A$1.2 million to the appellant, as the respondent was found guilty of breaching various warranties of the deed to purchase various property from a fertility centre, putting the appellant at a significantly better financial position than she would have been in had the breach not occurred. Prima facie, Clark seems to suggest undermining the compensatory principle in contract. ## This essay will analyse the decision in Clark through the doctrinal legal research method, using “normative” research. The aim of this research method is to answer the question of “what is the law” via logical reasoning and analysis of appropriate legal rules, and whether it applies to a particular factual situation.

In our world, today, it happens on occasion that we, like Hale, put too much justice on the fairness that our court system is said to have. It has happened that someone was convicted of a crime that the person did not commit or a person, who committed a crime receives too strict, or more commonly the case, a

There are many ideas about the correct basis for contractual obligation. They include promise, consideration, and cause. All jurisdictions follow at least one. In Thomas E. Davitt’s The Elements of Law, the author articulates a very credible argument for the basis for contractual obligation being one of those named above. Davitt simplifies the arguments for all of these and names one correct basis: the promise itself. Generally Thomas E. Davitt, S.J., The Elements of Law, 272 (1959). This paper will argue in favor of Davitt’s writings. The basis for contractual obligation is the promise itself. In order to effectively argue in favor of one basis over the possible others, it is necessary to discuss and rule out the others.

I believe that Boorstin’s view on law has the least amount of optimism to me because of everything that has happened in the last twenty years since this with rights not being protected, it can take a while to get anything passed, and the new age. I need to address that this was published twenty years ago and so many different things have happened. Some of the top things that have changed America in these last years are 9/11, the wars in the Middle East and on terrorism, the new technological age and Obama serving two terms as President. In these years, rights are still not being protected. There are still not many rights protecting women. There is still no law for equal pay between men and women. Police officers can abuse the law and

Hart goes on to write of the importance of being able to settle cases in the courts rather than legislating in advance. He refers to Von JHerring’s ‘heaven of legal concepts’, Hart explains this concept “this is reached when a general term is given the same meaning not only in every application of a single rule, but whenever it appears in the legal system.” This would appear to be the polar opposite of ‘open texture’ and would be prevalent in a legal system of mechanical jurisprudence. He explains that this would allow for a greater measure of certainty and predictability but at the expense of being unable to exclude cases which we may wish to exclude. “The rigidity of our classifications will thus war with our aims in having or maintaining the rule.” Thus the concept of mechanical jurisprudence would hinder the courts ability to take into account things such as equity and the pursuit of social aims, in the pursuit of a clear and rigid

This paper will demonstrate how Hart’s account of the relationship between law and morality shows an understanding of how they both work together yet can also work as separate entities. It will take a specific look into the internal point of view to aid the understanding of why

1) Secondary rules are ones that arrange agendas, through which primary rules can be imposed and/or altered. (Ferdinand, 2013) They are ones that can negotiate power. Hart splits secondary rules into three separate categories. They include, rules of adjudications, rules of change and rules of recognition. (Ferdinand, 2013) The rules of adjudication are created to permit a community to determine any disputes regarding legal offences. (Ferdinand, 2013) The second, rules of change, allow other rules to be formed through primary rules. (Ferdinand, 2013) In any society, there are unique situations that arise and not every issue is completely clear-cut. The last one, rules of recognitions reveal the confirmation of a law by the community. They justify

In this essay, I aim to critically evaluate the role of integrity that was introduced by Dworkin’s philosophy of law which will allow me to analyse how integrity might help judges when faced with a hard case. However, not everyone believes that the principle of integrity does in fact help judges when faced with hard cases therefore I also aim to analyse Hart’s rule of recognition against Dworkin’s principle of integrity.

Arguably one of the most influential legal theorists of the 20th century, Ronald Dworkin’s dealings with law’s interpretation and integrity has lead to inevitable contradictions with that of positivist ideology, with his work essentially revitalising a method of thinking that had long been considered dead and buried. Perhaps most notoriously, Dworkin combated the positivist theory of his former teacher and predecessor as Professor of Jurisprudence at Oxford University, H.L.A. Hart. When comparing the two, it is apparent that Dworkin and Hart disagree on a plethora of issues, however there exist several

I agree mostly with what Ronald Dworkin is quoted as stating in this article. His opinion of the “moral conception of law’s normativity”(479) is what

This paper aims to present Dicey’s formulation of Rule of law; its fallacies ; its applicability in modern times; and Rule of law & The Tinkerbell Effect as analysed by Cameron Stewart.

This essay is compiled to review and apply Ronald Dworkin (Dworkin) theory and how his theory was incorporated to assist in constructing laws. In light of Dworkin’s theory, significant areas such as moral principles, legal principles, rights and rules will be explore to understand the influence that these attributes had, in essence of creating laws.