Theoretical Disagreement, Legal Positivism, and Interpretation
16 Pages Posted:
Date Written: September 10, 2018
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.
Keywords: Jurisprudence; Theoretical Disagreement; Interpretation; Legal Philosophy; Legal theory; Legal Positivism
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation