Hart vs. Dworkin Debate
$39.95 Buy and instantly download this paper now
This paper examines how HLA Hart, a legal positivist, developed his theory on the notion that for a legal system to exist it should comprise entirely of rules and how within this legal system, Hart states that rules are divided into either primary or secondary rules. It looks at how Ronald Dworkin's theory, on the other hand, is founded on criticisms of Hart?s theory. It seeks to analyze Hart's Postscript to "The Concept of Law" and determine to what extent has Hart successfully defended his theory against his critics.
From the Paper:"The basis of Dworkin's theory is founded on criticisms of Hart's theory. Dworkin pictures law as a "gapless" legal universe in which there is always a right answer. He suggests that there is much more to the law than just rules, contending that the Positivist view of a system of rules ignores the important roles of other standards which are not identified as "rules." Dworkin maintains that principles and policies play a crucial role in judicial reasoning, particularly when the existing rules of law prove controversial in a case, as evidence in Riggs v Palmer (1889). This case example provides an intuitive sense of Dworkin's idea of principles."
Cite this Argumentative Essay:
Hart vs. Dworkin Debate (2004, September 26) Retrieved October 21, 2016, from http://www.academon.com/argumentative-essay/hart-vs-dworkin-debate-52858/
"Hart vs. Dworkin Debate" 26 September 2004. Web. 21 October. 2016. <http://www.academon.com/argumentative-essay/hart-vs-dworkin-debate-52858/>