Philosophy of Law, Problems of [addendum]
One of the dominant issues in philosophy of law since Hart's main entry was published has been the dispute between Hart and Ronald Dworkin about the best way to characterize a legal system and the modes of legal reasoning (especially by judges) most appropriate to it.
Rules and Social Practices
The Rule of Recognition
Hart identified two main kinds of rules in a complex and mature legal system. There are rules that tell people what to do or not do (tax laws, criminal laws, traffic laws), and there are rules that tell people how to do certain kinds of things (in order to accomplish such legal transactions as making valid wills or binding contracts and conveying property). Among the latter kind of rules he identified a small set that he regarded as fundamental to all but the most primitive legal systems: These rules tell how to identify a particular legal system and, within it, how to make laws and adjudicate claims arising under law. Hart's main entry does not address these fundamental rules.
The first kind of fundamental rule Hart famously styled the "rule of recognition." It identifies the primary sources of law (e.g., the Queen-in-Parliament) and it prioritizes these sources (e.g., statute law > common law > "customary law").
This is a free page. This page contains 201 words. This
article contains 5,807 words (approx. 19 pages at 300
words per page).
Read the rest of this Article with our Philosophy of Law, Problems of [addendum] Access Pass.
