Eminent Legal Philosophers
Andrew Stumpff Morrison
University of Michigan Law School; University of Alabama Law School
December 22, 2013
U of Michigan Public Law Research Paper No. 382
The article presents a critical reassessment of the legal philosophical writings of Ronald Dworkin and Joseph Raz. Relying in part upon the author’s previous argument (“Law is the Command of the Sovereign: H.L.A. Hart Reconsidered,” forthcoming 2016, Ratio Juris) that law is – contra the recent near-consensus – best understood as “the command of the sovereign, backed by force,” the author identifies fundamental difficulties, and ultimately incoherency, in these two authors’ work. The author concludes by identifying structural problems with the legal academy which permit and even encourage the unchallenged maintenance of doctrinal fallacies.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 39
Keywords: H.L.A. Hart, Ronald Dworkin, Joseph Raz, jurisprudence, coercion, positivism, coercive model, John Austin, Jeremy Bentham, Oliver Wendell Holmes, gunman, command theory, definition of state, definition of sovereign, game theory, Interpretivism, service conception, internal perspective
JEL Classification: K10, K33, K42, C7, H1
Date posted: December 23, 2013 ; Last revised: March 29, 2016
© 2016 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollobot1 in 0.250 seconds