Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T20:07:21.286Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Empire-Building*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 April 2010

Brenda M. Baker
Affiliation:
University of Calgary

Extract

Law's Empire is a bold and ambitious attempt to provide a philosophical framework which will serve to install the judicial perspective as the preferred perspective from which to think about theories of law. The heart of its argument is that judicial determination of what constitutes law is an exercise in constructive interpretation. Judges have the responsibility to seek that story of the law that both fits reasonably with its past political history and constitutes the best justification that can be given of the legal practices of the society as a whole. They are engaged in finding an account consistent with the history of the practice that displays the point, purpose(s) and values that the law serves to express and uphold, and so brings out most fully the law's claim to authority as a legitimate expression of governmental power in that society. Dworkin believes that the interpretation of law that best satisfies these conditions is law as integrity, which conceives of law as expressing a coherent set of principles embodying those substantive ideas of justice, fairness and procedural fairness that are respected in the community. Integrity tells judges to identify legal rights and duties as though they were all created by a single author, the community personified, as an embodiment of a coherent conception of justice and fairness to which the community subscribes. In this way, integrity requires judges to interpret the rules of law as having a principled justification in a network of values and moral principles that the society adopts.

Type
Critical Notices/Études critiques
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Philosophical Association 1993

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

Cohen, M., ed. 1984 Ronald Dworkin and Contemporary Jurisprudence. Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Allanheld.Google Scholar
Coleman, Jules 1972Negative and Positive Positivism.” Journal of Legal Studies, 11, 1 (January): 139–42. Rpt. 1984 in M. Cohen, ed., Ronald Dworkin and Contemporary Jurisprudence. Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Allanheld.Google Scholar
Dworkin, Ronald 1977 “Hard Cases.” In Taking Rights Seriously. Cambridge, MA: Duckworth.Google Scholar
Hare, R. M. 1952 The Language of Morals. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
MacCormick, Neil 1978 Legal Reasoning and Legal Theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Postema, Gerald 1987Protestant Interpretation and Social Practices.” Law and Philosophy, 6, 3 (December): 283319.Google Scholar
Raz, Joseph 1970 The Concept of a Legal System. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Raz, Joseph 1972Legal Principles and the Limits of Law.” Yale Law Journal, 81, 5: 823–54. Rpt. 1984 in M. Cohen, ed., Ronald Dworkin and Contemporary Jurisprudence. Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Allanheld.Google Scholar
Réaume, Denise 1989Is Integrity a Virtue? Dworkin's Theory of Legal Obligation.” University of Toronto Law Journal, 39: 380409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silver, C. 1987Elmer's Case: A Legal Positivist Replies to Dworkin.” Law and Philosophy, 6, 3 (December): 381400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waluchow, W. J. 1985Herculean Positivism.” Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 5, 2: 187210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waluchow, W. J. 1989The Weak Social Thesis.” Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 9, 1: 2355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar