Ronald Dworkin and Duncan Kennedy represent arguably two opposing poles in legal theory. This paper offers a novel frame for reading their respective legal theories which reconceptualizes the traditional way in which they were opposed, and new ways to compare them, to understand their commonalities and their differences.

While Dworkin is taken to be a champion of a theory of rights, he is also associated with a certain theory of interpretation which holds that even in hard cases judges have limited discretion and a right answer to every legal question we might reasonably encounter. Kennedy, in contrast, seems to disagree with Dworkin in every conceivable respect such as the nature of law and legal reasoning, the role of right, the relation of law to its outsides (politics/ideology), thus questioning the objectivity and neutrality of legal reasoning, and he seems to be advocating what could be termed as a “radical indeterminacy” thesis.

The paper attempts reading Dworkin and Kennedy alongside each other, rather than in opposition, and so it deploys two interrelated strategies to establish such frame. One is concerned softening what appear to be rigid opposition through scrutinizing their writings, whereas the other takes stock of the common themes, presuppositions, images of law, and sensibilities that both share either explicitly or implicitly. This double strategy reveals the arguments that are attributed to them and which they themselves deny they are making. To that end, the paper unveils an unacknowledged shift toward phenomenology in legal theory that took place in the last few decades.

Over the last two decades, legal scholarship has been catching up with the more than century old calls by black Americans for reparations.1 Tax scholar Boris Bittker (in)famously launched the viability of black reparations into legal scholarship with his now classic monograph, The Case for Black Reparations.2 However, it would take more than twenty years for mainstream legal scholarship to take up the robust and wide-ranging set of questions raised by the possibility of reparations for American slavery.3 In the late 1990s private law scholars leapt into the debate, discussing unjust enrichment and torts-based models of black reparations.4 While these scholars made a variety of distinct arguments, collectively, their model rested on the contention that America had wrongfully expropriated the labor of generations of enslaved African Americans and the result had been systemic unjust enrichment, or a species of mass torts. Grounded in various conceptions of corrective justice, these models conceive black reparations as a set of claims that would be litigated through the courts. Over the ensuing two decades, the private law model has become somewhat of an outlier in reparations discussions, largely set aside in favor of broader, more explicitly political approaches.

Individuals sometimes do things that they know will violate the terms of a statute. Most scholars deny that such actions are always morally wrong, but a coherent theoretical account of the relationships between 1) moral obligation, 2) legal obligation, and 3) criminal wrongdoing that can robustly classify hard cases has been elusive. This article starts with a Kantian account of the relationship between law and morality, and it proposes two closely related standards: one for legal obligation, and another for criminal wrongdoing. It then tests the plausibility and resilience of these standards by using them to generate illuminating new analyses of classic hypothetical cases involving alleged crimes committed under circumstances of necessity. These analyses offer reason to believe that the standards proposed in this article can anchor a Kantian theory of criminal responsibility that is simultaneously rigorous and humane.

This article explores how political authority is conceived and how we attempt to make sense of its legitimacy in a world that we imagine made of relatively equal and autonomous individuals who are members of multiple collective agencies. One such way is the Razian “Service Conception” of authority. This conception suffers from a variety of internal weaknesses and shortcomings. More importantly, while the Service Conception may be promoted as a normatively appealing theory of authority, it does not appear to fit the description of the central case of practical authority or, at least, it does not exhaust the list of central cases. Indeed, political authorities are often justified by self-assertive reasons that bind the subject to the authority claimant. Such cases are what we call “existential authorities”, as opposed to "functional authorities" associated with the Service Conception. The interplay between those types of authorities and their respective background assumptions forces us to take seriously the perceptions that subjects have of the nature of authority claimants as such perceptions will determine the attitudes of the subjects towards the directives issued by the authority claimants. We must therefore be able to distinguish between institutions meant to embody collective identities – “existential communities” – from institutions perceived as mere “functional regimes”. Indeed, the nature of the standards used to evaluate the actions and powers of each will differ accordingly.

Although grand, explanatory theories of tort law come apart from one another in many ways, they also have a fair amount in common. One core claim found in the work of various Kantian theorists, as well as a number of leading rights theorists, is that tort law develops, incrementally, in such a way as to achieve ever greater coherence (where such coherence is measured according to key tenets of the particular theories). This article takes issue with that claim. It shows, by reference to a host of legal landmarks, that tort law neither does, nor must, develop in this way. A great many important innovations in tort cannot be reconciled with central aspects of the theories in view, but they are easily explained by reference to major changes in material conditions of life, shifts in the ideological Zeitgeist, judicial partiality and juristic influence. As long as such factors are free to exert their influence – and there is nothing to suggest that they are not so free – it is implausible to suggest that tort law will inexorably move towards a state of ever greater coherence.

We love our children. We really do. Yet we also find ourselves happy when they finally fall asleep, or when they go back to school at the end of their summer vacation. We wish we could spend more time with our children, we really do. Yet we also wish to pursue our own projects, both professionally and personally. This ambivalence hints at a basic characteristic of caring for one’s own child, which is known to every person who ever had a child: it involves both a burden and a benefit.1

In a recent article2 I examined the nature of private law offices, and here I extend that analysis to consider the trustee-beneficiary relationship where the trust is of a kind that Lionel Smith has called a “massively discretionary trust.”3 After considering some of the problematic legal features of such trusts, I shall probe the morally problematic features that these trusts present.

This paper reviews the accountability regimes of contractarian and communitarian theory. The contractarian theory is further elaborated with the developments of shareholder primacy, the stakeholder theory and team production model (TPM), and the communitarian themes of single constituency, Catholic social thought (CST) and corporate citizenship. Contractarian theory is rooted in liberalism, where as communitarian theory is a humanist discipline. While contractarians stress the value of competition, liberty and freedom, the communitarians emphasize cooperation, justice and civic responsibility. The purpose of this analysis is to frame corporate ‘personhood’ in the perspective of the existing theories. This article suggests that corporate citizenship has been revived under Canadian law which contemplates a communitarian corporation.

This paper argues that the wrong of slavery lies in the denial of the good of law to the slave. Defending this proposition will require the positing of three related claims: (i) that law is good, (ii) that the good of law is denied to the slave, and (iii) that the denial is wrong. This paper will defend the main proposition by defending its three constituent claims. On claim (i), the paper will relate the form of law to the formation of freedom. On claim (ii), the paper will relate law’s objectivity to legal subjectivity. On claim (iii), the paper will relate the state of nature to the state of civil society.

Demonstrating that a developing norm is not yet well established in international law is frequently thought to show that states are not bound by the norm as law. More precisely, showing that a purported international legal norm has only limited support from well-established international legal sources is normally seen as sufficient to rebut an obligation on the part of subjects to comply with the norm in virtue of its legal status. I contend that this view is mistaken. Nascent norms of international law (e.g., crystallizing norms of customary law) can be binding in much the same way as better-established doctrine. This point becomes perspicuous, I argue, once we get a clear sense of the plausible options for grounding the moral authority of international law generally.

This result is interesting in its own right, but it also reveals two other features of the character of state responsibility under international law. First, the distinction between legislation and compliance is less pronounced compared to domestic law. Consequently, the virtues of good governance will frequently be pertinent to determining the content of states’ obligations under international law. Second, normally more powerful and influential agents will be more strongly bound by international law than other subjects. This is an attractive result, addressing a concern that motivates many international lawyers to view international law as absolutely binding. An absolutist view international legal authority is unnecessary for showing that the most powerful and dangerous states are strongly bound by the terms of much existing law.

Wittgenstein seeks to inoculate us against the lure of metaphors. The conundrums of philosophy are, he implies, often the misbegotten offspring of abused metaphors. How many rooms are needed to house the “furniture of our mind”? With what key do others gain access to my “private” thoughts and feelings?

Jurisprudence has its own syllabus of philosophical puzzles. One of the hardiest is the issue of judicial license and judicial standards. This issue has special fascination for American legal theorists because of the pivotal role played by the Supreme Court in exercising the power of judicial review by interpreting the Constitution. American theorists have taken for granted, and other theorists have seemed to acquiesce in this assumption, that to understand the nature of law is to understand how appellate judges find and/or make law.

The interest of political theory in the acceptance of law is obvious. If one believes that a regime is legitimate only if it governs with the consent of the governed, then the notion of acceptance is deeply linked with the notion of legitimacy, a fundamental concern of political theory. The interest of legal theory in the notion of acceptance is less obvious. I construe it to arise in the following way. One central tradition in legal theory is that of positivistic or content-independent theories of law. Positivism, crudely speaking, is characterized by some form of the Separation Thesis—that the existence of law is one thing and its merit or demerit another. But if it is important for positivistic legal theory to mark the separation of law and the merits of law, then it must also be important to mark the separation between law and the acceptance of law. The existence of law must be one thing and its acceptance as meritorious another. In deference to the separation of existence and merit, positivism tries to find a content-independent account of the validity of law. Equally, in deference to the separation of law and acceptance, positivism tries to find a content-independent account of the acceptance of law. The topic of this paper is whether the separation of law and the acceptance of law is possible. I shall try to suggest, in service of a non-positivistic or content-dependent approach to law, that this separation is not possible. I will attempt to argue on the basis of points which legal positivism itself has acknowledged to form valid constraints on any theory of acceptance. My ambitious thesis is that positivism has presented us with the reasons for rejecting it. Even if that thesis is not made out, I have a less ambitious thesis which I am confident of securing, that the demand for an account of law which permits law to be accepted ‘for any reason whatever’ is not a theoryneutral demand which might decide between positivism and natural law theory. Rather, it is an expression of a prior commitment to positivism. It is the familiar demand of natural law theory that the convergence of attitudes towards law which makes for acceptance of law must be a convergence for the right kind of reasons; ones that have to do with the value of law.

Employing moral values as justifications in judicial decisions has been controversial. At present, there is increasing controversy over the application of human dignity. Contemporary debates on the role of dignity in law and adjudication are heavily influenced by Christopher McCrudden’s account of dignity as a placeholder, and much thinking on the contested nature of values is influenced by WB Gallie’s idea of Essentially Contested Concepts. In this paper I argue that both these accounts have limited explanatory and normative potential. McCrudden’s account is illuminating in terms of the role of dignity in the UDHR, but weak in terms of explaining why employing dignity in adjudication yields diverging conclusions, and why dignity should be understood to be a placeholder. His reliance on Gallie’s idea of Essentially Contested Concepts is also misplaced. Gallie’s views often serve as a philosophical basis for understanding the contested nature of values generally. I argue that his account is an external-descriptive one, which cannot explain why persistent disagreement ensues because of the peculiar nature of some concepts. Neither does it point out any property of essential contestability that is unique to some concepts. Thinking on how values such as dignity can figure as justifications for decisions, therefore, must explore other alternatives.

When Legal Realism first appeared in American jurisprudential thought in the 1920’s and early 1930’s, it was frequently misunderstood as an attack on the integrity and truthfulness of the American judiciary. After all, wasn’t it a central tenet of Legal Realism that judges did not decide cases by applying preexisting and authoritative legal rules, but merely decided cases in whichever way they thought was best? Such considerations led to the derogatory restatement of the Realist position as holding that the law is determined by “whatever the judge ate for breakfast”.

Legal philosophers have taken what Ronald Dworkin called “theoretical disagreement” or disagreement about the “grounds of law,” to be of jurisprudential interest because of its putative incompatibility with legal positivism. The first aim of this article is to reframe theoretical disagreement as part of a broader challenge for all jurisprudential theories, positivist or not: how to refine and reconcile three theses that should appear plausible, important, and in tension. (1) Conventionality: the content of the law is determined, presumptively if not definitively, by meta-rules of law whose status as meta-rules arises from a consensus among relevant legal actors to treat them as having that status. (2) Disagreement: judges have theoretical disagreements about the law-i.e., disagreements about such meta-rules of law as legal interpretive methods, which they do not attempt to resolve merely by reference to explicit or implicit empirical consensus. (3) Fidelity: judges’ theoretical disagreements can be in good faith, reasonable, and legally resolvable. The article’s second ambition is to synthesize a broad range of jurisprudential writing pertinent to conventionality, theoretical disagreement, and judicial fidelity to law, in order to bring forward a potential reconciliation of all three that gives each one its due. Law and the requirements of judicial fidelity can be broadly conventional yet subject to reasonable, genuinely “theoretical disagreement” insofar as they are determined not only by contingent empirical truths about convergent practice but also by non-contingent conceptual truths about law’s nature and distinctive virtues. Unlike accounts of theoretical disagreement developed by theorists attacking or defending legal positivism, the view of theoretical disagreement I sketch here is ecumenical. It is compatible with accepting or rejecting legal positivism-though not on all positivists’ or all non-positivists’ terms.

The ideology of treatment, as well as confidence in the special preventive effects of punishment, was severely attacked in the late 1960’s. In Scandinavia, this criticism quickly led to a series of legislative reforms. The first target was the system of preventive detention. The lack of legal security was considered to be most obvious flaw here. After the reforms concerning the use of preventive measures—for example, for dangerous offenders—were implemented, attention shifted to the structure of the whole penal system. From the mid 70’s on, the Finnish criminal justice system was reformed in a “neo-classical” spirit. Instead of individualization and rehabilitation, the emphasis is now placed on legal security and the principles of proportionality, predictability, and equality. These ideas and principles received their most manifest expression in the 1976 reform of sentencing provisions (Chapter 6 in the Finnish penal code).

Legal theorists have become increasingly interested in whether or to what extent the later writings of Wittgenstein support scepticism about the possibility of rational objectivity or determinacy in legal reasoning and discourse. Some critical legal theorists have explicitly relied upon Wittgensteinian arguments to support arguments for radical scepticism. More recently, anti-sceptical theorists have argued that reliance by critical theorists upon Wittgensteinian arguments involves a serious misinterpretation. I shall in this essay add my voice to those already making this argument.

No one has ever adequately described, either in poetry or in private conversation, what the very presence of justice or injustice in his soul does to a man, even if it remains hidden from gods and man....

This paper explores how an adequate understanding of legal relations can be aided by, and sometimes requires, returning to the foundations of our conception of legal relations.

The process of conceptualization is a process of revealing the form in legal relations. The two most fundamental forms of legal relations, first enunciated by Aristotle, are corrective justice and distributive justice. The thesis of this paper is that an analysis of legal relations can be coherent only if it is faithful to the form of justice appropriate to the particular legal relation under study.