Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-17T16:31:58.936Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

References

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 November 2009

Matthew Kramer
Matthew Kramer
Affiliation:
Churchill College, Cambridge
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Objectivity and the Rule of Law , pp. 237 - 240
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bix, Brian. 2005. “Cautions and Caveats for the Application of Wittgenstein to Legal Theory.” In Campbell, Joseph Keim, O'Rourke, Michael, and Shier, David (eds.), Law and Social Justice (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press), 217–28.Google Scholar
Blackburn, Simon. 1993. Essays in Quasi-Realism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Coleman, Jules. 1995. “Truth and Objectivity in Law.” 1 Legal Theory33–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coleman, Jules, and Leiter, Brian. 1995. “Determinacy, Objectivity, and Authority.” In Marmor, Andrei (ed.), Law and Interpretation (Oxford: Clarendon Press), 203–78.Google Scholar
Craig, Paul. 1997. “Formal and Substantive Conceptions of the Rule of Law: An Analytical Framework.” Public Law467–87.Google Scholar
Duxbury, Neil. 1999. Random Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dworkin, Ronald. 1965. “Philosophy, Morality and Law – Observations Prompted by Professor Fuller's Novel Claim.” 113 University of Pennsylvania Law Review668–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dworkin, Ronald. 1977. “No Right Answer?” In Hacker, Peter and Raz, Joseph (eds.), Law, Morality, and Society (Oxford: Clarendon Press), 58–84.Google Scholar
Dworkin, Ronald. 1978. Taking Rights Seriously. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Dworkin, Ronald. 1985. A Matter of Principle. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Dworkin, Ronald. 1986. Law's Empire. London: Fontana Press.Google Scholar
Dworkin, Ronald. 1991. “On Gaps in the Law.” In Amselek, Paul and MacCormick, Neil (eds.), Controversies about Law's Ontology (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press).Google Scholar
Dworkin, Ronald. 1996. “Objectivity and Truth: You'd Better Believe It.” 25 Philosophy and Public Affairs87–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Endicott, Timothy. 2000. Vagueness in Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fine, Kit. 2001. “The Question of Realism.” 1 Philosophers' Imprint1–30.Google Scholar
Freeman, Michael. 2001. Lloyd's Introduction to Jurisprudence. London: Sweet & Maxwell.Google Scholar
Fuller, Lon. 1969. The Morality of Law. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Revised edition.Google Scholar
Green, Michael. 2003. “Dworkin's Fallacy, or What the Philosophy of Language Can't Teach Us about the Law.” 89 Virginia Law Review1897–1952.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenawalt, Kent. 1992. Law and Objectivity. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hare, R. M. 1963. Freedom and Reason. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hare, R. M. 1981. Moral Thinking. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hare, R. M. 1989. “Principles.” In Essays in Ethical Theory (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 49–65.Google Scholar
Harris, J. W. 1997. Legal Philosophies. London: Butterworths. Second edition.Google Scholar
Hart, H. L. A. 1961. The Concept of Law. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Hart, H. L. A. 1983. “Lon L. Fuller, The Morality of Law.” In Essays in Jurisprudence and Philosophy (Oxford: Clarendon Press), 343–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hills, Alison. 2004. “Is Ethics Rationally Required?” 47 Inquiry1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holton, Richard. 2000. “Minimalism and Truth-Value Gaps.” 97 Philosophical Studies137–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horwich, Paul. 1998. Truth. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Second edition.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kramer, Matthew. 1998. “Rights without Trimmings.” In Kramer, Matthew H., Simmonds, N. E., and Steiner, Hillel, A Debate over Rights (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 7–111.Google Scholar
Kramer, Matthew. 1999a. In Defense of Legal Positivism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kramer, Matthew. 1999b. In the Realm of Legal and Moral Philosophy. Basingstoke: Macmillan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kramer, Matthew. 2001. “Getting Rights Right.” In Kramer, Matthew H. (ed.), Rights, Wrongs, and Responsibilities (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan), 28–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kramer, Matthew. 2004a. Where Law and Morality Meet. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kramer, Matthew. 2004b. “The Big Bad Wolf: Legal Positivism and Its Detractors.” 49 American Journal of Jurisprudence1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kramer, Matthew. 2005. “Moral Rights and the Limits of the Ought-Implies-Can Principle: Why Impeccable Precautions Are No Excuse.” 48 Inquiry307–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landers, Scott. 1990. “Wittgenstein, Realism, and CLS: Undermining Rule Skepticism.” 9 Law and Philosophy177–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leiter, Brian. 2001. “Introduction.” In Leiter, Brian (ed.), Objectivity in Law and Morals (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 1–11.Google Scholar
Locke, John. 1975 [1689]. An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Edited by Nidditch, Peter.Google Scholar
Lucy, William. 2005. “The Possibility of Impartiality.” 25 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies3–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Madison, James. 1961 [1788]. “Federalist Paper No. 10.” In Hamilton, Alexander, Madison, James, and Jay, John, The Federalist Papers (New York: New American Library), 77–84. Edited by Rossiter, Clinton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marmor, Andrei. 2001. Positive Law and Objective Values. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDowell, John. 1985. “Values and Secondary Qualities.” In Honderich, Ted (ed.), Objectivity and Morality (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul), 110–29.Google Scholar
Moore, Michael. 1982. “Moral Reality.” 1982 Wisconsin Law Review1061–1156.Google Scholar
Moore, Michael. 1992. “Moral Reality Revisited.” 90 Michigan Law Review2424–2533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nozick, Robert. 2001. Invariances: The Structure of the Objective World. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Paske, Gerald. 1989. “Rationality, Reasonableness, and Morality.” 10 Logos: Philosophic Issues in Christian Perspective73–88.Google Scholar
Patterson, Dennis. 2006. “Wittgenstein on Understanding and Interpretation.” 29 Philosophical Investigations129–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pettit, Philip. 2001. “Embracing Objectivity in Ethics.” In Leiter, Brian (ed.), Objectivity in Law and Morals (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 234–86.Google Scholar
Postema, Gerald. 2001. “Objectivity Fit for Law.” In Leiter, Brian (ed.), Objectivity in Law and Morals (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 99–143.Google Scholar
Raz, Joseph. 1996. “Intention in Interpretation.” In George, Robert (ed.), The Autonomy of Law (Oxford: Clarendon Press), 249–86.Google Scholar
Raz, Joseph. 2001. “Notes on Value and Objectivity.” In Leiter, Brian (ed.), Objectivity in Law and Morals (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 193–233.Google Scholar
Reiff, Mark. 2005. Punishment, Compensation, and Law: A Theory of Enforceability (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosati, Connie. 2004. “Some Puzzles about the Objectivity of Law.” 23 Law and Philosophy273–323.Google Scholar
Sainsbury, R. M. 1988. Paradoxes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schauer, Frederick. 1991. Playing by the Rules. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Simmonds, N. E. 2004. “Straightforwardly False: The Collapse of Kramer's Positivism.” 63 Cambridge Law Journal98–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sosa, David. 2001. “Pathetic Ethics.” In Leiter, Brian (ed.), Objectivity in Law and Morals (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 287–329.Google Scholar
Stavropoulos, Nicos. 2005. “Objectivity.” In Golding, Martin and Edmundson, William (eds.), The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Law and Legal Theory (Oxford: Blackwell), 315–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stroud, Barry. 1977. Hume. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Summers, Robert. 1993. “A Formal Theory of the Rule of Law.” 6 Ratio Juris127–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Svavarsdóttir, Sigrún. 2001. “Objective Values: Does Metaethics Rest on a Mistake?” In Leiter, Brian (ed.), Objectivity in Law and Morals (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 144–93.Google Scholar
Tamanaha, Brian. 2004. On the Rule of Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waldron, Jeremy. 1992. “The Irrelevance of Moral Objectivity.” In George, Robert (ed.), Natural Law Theory (Oxford: Clarendon Press), 158–87.Google Scholar
Wiggins, David. 1998. Values, Needs, Truth. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Third edition.Google Scholar
Williams, Bernard. 1985. “Ethics and the Fabric of the World.” In Honderich, Ted (ed.), Morality and Objectivity (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul), 203–14.Google Scholar
Williams, Bernard. 2001. “From Freedom to Liberty: The Construction of a Political Value.” 30 Philosophy and Public Affairs3–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, Glanville. 1956. “The Concept of Legal Liberty.” 56 Columbia Law Review1129–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • References
  • Matthew Kramer, Churchill College, Cambridge
  • Book: Objectivity and the Rule of Law
  • Online publication: 24 November 2009
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511619014.006
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • References
  • Matthew Kramer, Churchill College, Cambridge
  • Book: Objectivity and the Rule of Law
  • Online publication: 24 November 2009
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511619014.006
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • References
  • Matthew Kramer, Churchill College, Cambridge
  • Book: Objectivity and the Rule of Law
  • Online publication: 24 November 2009
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511619014.006
Available formats
×