Abstract
Ronald Dworkin famously argued that legal positivism is a defective account of law because it has no account of Theoretical Disagreement. In this article I argue that legal positivism—as advanced by H.L.A. Hart—does not need an account of Theoretical Disagreement. Legal positivism does, however, need a plausible account of interpretation in law. I provide such an account in this article.
Original language | English (US) |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 260-275 |
Number of pages | 16 |
Journal | Ratio Juris |
Volume | 31 |
Issue number | 3 |
DOIs | |
State | Published - Sep 2018 |
All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes
- Law