Humpty Dumpty Rules or the Rule of Law: Legal Theory and the Adjudication of National Security

Australian Journal of Legal Philosophy, Forthcoming

42 Pages Posted: 26 Jul 2002

See all articles by David Dyzenhaus

David Dyzenhaus

University of Toronto - Faculty of Law/Department of Philosophy

Abstract

This paper deals with the recent trend among judges in common law jurisdictions to retreat from their advances in judicial review of the administration of the last forty or so years. This retreat occurs when the judges are confronted by cases in which they are asked to review executive decisions about national security. And it involves a revival of the majority judgments of the House of Lords in the infamous wartime case of Liversidge v Anderson by the very judges who had done most in recent years to move away form the formalistic doctrine of the separation of powers presupposed by the majority in Liversidge. The paper situates this trend in a discussion of the rule of law and legal theory. The thesis is that one of the factors that makes possible the retreat is the survival of the theory of law and the rule of law, democratic legal positivism, in which the formal doctrine of the separation of powers is nested.

Keywords: rule of law, terrorism, national security, judicial review, legal positivism

Suggested Citation

Dyzenhaus, David, Humpty Dumpty Rules or the Rule of Law: Legal Theory and the Adjudication of National Security. Australian Journal of Legal Philosophy, Forthcoming. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=319100 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.319100

David Dyzenhaus (Contact Author)

University of Toronto - Faculty of Law/Department of Philosophy ( email )

78 and 84 Queen's Park
Toronto, Ontario M5S 2C5
Canada
416-978-6935 (Phone)
416-978-2648 (Fax)

Register to save articles to
your library

Register

Paper statistics

Downloads
644
Abstract Views
2,890
rank
40,996
PlumX Metrics