Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T17:37:24.144Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Law is not (best considered) an essentially contested concept

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 April 2011

Kenneth M. Ehrenberg
Kenneth M. Ehrenberg*
Affiliation:
University at Buffalo, SUNY
*
[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Absrtact

I argue that law is not best considered an essentially contested concept. After first explaining the notion of essential contestability and disaggregating law into several related concepts, I show that the most basic and general concept of law does not fit within the criteria offered for essential contestation. I buttress this claim with the explanation that essential contestation is itself a framework for understanding complex concepts and therefore should only be applied when it would yield a greater understanding of uses of the concept to which it is applied. I then show that, even if law meets some basic criteria of essential contestation, applying the appellation does not helpfully illuminate the most general concept of law and therefore it should not be used, while allowing that it might be more useful for the related concept of the rule of law.

Type
Articles
Information
International Journal of Law in Context , Volume 7 , Issue 2 , June 2011 , pp. 209 - 232
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

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

Bloomfield, Paul (2009) ‘Archimedeanianism and Why Metaethics Matters’ in Shafer-Landau, Russ (ed.), Oxford Studies in Metaethics, Vol. 4. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 283–302.Google Scholar
Clarke, Barry (1979) ‘Eccentrically Contested Concepts’, British Journal of Political Science 9(1): 122–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, Felix S. (1935) ‘Transcendental Nonsense and the Functional Approach’, Columbia Law Review 35: 809–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coleman, Jules L. (2001) The Practice of Principle: In Defence of a Pragmatist Approach to Legal Theory. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Collier, David, Hidalgo, Daniel, Maciuceanu, Fernando and Olivia, Andra (2006) ‘Essentially Contested Concepts: Debates and Applications’, Journal of Political Ideologies 11(3): 211–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Connolly, William E. (1974) The Terms of Political Discourse. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath and Company.Google Scholar
Dickson, Julie (2001) Evaluation and Legal Theory. Oxford and Portland: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
Dworkin, Ronald (1978a) ‘No Right Answer?’, New York University Law Review 53(1): 1–32.Google Scholar
Dworkin, Ronald (1978b) Taking Rights Seriously. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Dworkin, Ronald (1986) Law's Empire. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.Google Scholar
Dworkin, Ronald (1987) ‘Legal Theory and the Problem of Sense’ in Gavison, Ruth (ed.), Issues in Contemporary Legal Philosophy. New York: Clarendon, 9–20.Google Scholar
Dworkin, Ronald (1996) ‘Objectivity and Truth: You'd Better Believe It’, Philosophy and Public Affairs 25: 87–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dworkin, Ronald (2002) ‘Thirty Years On’, Harvard Law Review 115: 1655–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dworkin, Ronald (2004) ‘Hart's Postscript and the Character of Political Philosophy’, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 24(1): 1–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dworkin, Ronald (2006) Justice in Robes. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.Google Scholar
Ehrenberg, Kenneth M. (2008) ‘Archimedian Metaethics Defended’, Metaphilosophy 39 (4–5): 508–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ehrenberg, Kenneth M. (2009) ‘Defending the Possibility of a Neutral Functional Theory of Law’, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 29(1): 91–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finnis, John (1980) Natural Law and Natural Rights. Oxford and New York: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Freeden, Michael (1996) Ideologies and Political Theory: A Conceptual Approach. Oxford and New York: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Fuller, Lon L. (1964/1969) The Morality of Law, revised edn. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Gallie, W. B. (1955–56) ‘Essentially Contested Concepts’, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 56: 167–98.Google Scholar
Gallie, W. B. (1956) ‘Art as an Essentially Contested Concept’, The Philosophical Quarterly 6(23): 97–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gallie, W. B. (1964/1968) Philosophy and the Historical Understanding, 2nd edn.New York: Schocken Books.Google Scholar
Gardner, John (2004) ‘The Legality of Law’, Ratio Juris 17(2): 168–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardner, John (2007) ‘Nearly Natural Law’, American Journal of Jurisprudence 52: 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gray, John (1978) ‘On Liberty, Liberalism and Essential Contestability’, British Journal of Political Science 8(4): 385–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, Leslie (1987) ‘The Political Content of Legal Theory’, Philosophy of the Social Sciences 17: 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, Leslie (1996) ‘The Concept of Law Revisited’, Michigan Law Review 94: 1687–717.Google Scholar
Hart, H. L. A. (1987) ‘Comment: Legal Theory and the Problem of Sense’ in Gavison, Ruth (ed.), Issues in Contemporary Legal Philosophy. New York: Clarendon, 35–42.Google Scholar
Hart, H. L. A. (1961/1994) The Concept of Law, 2nd edn.Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Koller, Pete (2006) ‘The Concept of Law and Its Conceptions’, Ratio Juris 19(2): 180–96.Google Scholar
Lukes, Steven (1974a) Power: A Radical View. London and New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Lukes, Steven (1974b) ‘Relativism: Cognitive and Moral–I’, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volumes 48: 165–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marmor, Andrei (2006) ‘Legal Positivism: Still Descriptive and Morally Neutral’, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 26(4): 683–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perry, Stephen R. (1995) ‘Interpretation and Methodology in Legal Theory’ in Marmor, Andrei (ed.), Law and Interpretation. Oxford and New York: Clarendon Press, 97–135.Google Scholar
Rawls, John (1971/1999) A Theory of Justice, revised edn. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.Google Scholar
Raz, Joseph (1979) The Authority of Law: Essays on Law and Morality. Oxford and New York: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Raz, Joseph (1975/1990) Practical Reason and Norms, 2nd edn.Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Raz, Joseph (1994) Ethics in the Public Domain: Essays in the Morality of Law and Politics. Oxford and New York: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Raz, Joseph (2005) ‘Can There Be a Theory of Law?’ in Golding, Martin P. and Edmundson, William A. (eds), The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Law and Legal Theory. Malden, MA and Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 324–42.Google Scholar
Swanton, Christine (1985) ‘On the “Essential Contestedness” of Political Concepts’, Ethics 95(4): 811–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waldron, Jeremy (1994) ‘Vagueness in Law and Language: Some Philosophical Issues’, California Law Review 82: 509–40.Google Scholar
Waldron, Jeremy (2002) ‘Is the Rule of Law an Essentially Contested Concept (in Florida)?’, Law and Philosophy 21(2): 137–64.Google Scholar
Wells, H. G. (1895) The Time Machine. London: W. Heinemann.Google Scholar