Hart–Dworkin debate

An argument in legal theory that takes place between Hart and Dworkin is known as the Hart–Dworkin debate. The discussion began with Hart's Concept of Law in 1961, and then moved on to Dworkin's critique of Hart's thesis, Law's Empire, in 1986. This was the order in which the arguments were presented. The answer that Hart provided to Dworkin was published in the Postscript of the second edition of Concept of Law, which was published in 1994. While Hart insisted that judges are within their rights to legislate on the basis of rules of law, Dworkin worked hard to demonstrate that in these cases, judges work from a set of principles which they use to formulate judgements, and that these principles either form the basis of or can be extrapolated from the rules that are currently in place. Hart continued to maintain that judges are within their rights to legislate on the basis of rules of law.

Dworkin’s Critique

Because there is no pre-existing rule controlling the pertinent issue, Dworkin used hard cases that come up in court to illustrate his theory. These cases have a high degree of ambiguity as to their conclusion. A case that demonstrates this is Riggs v. Palmer 115 N.Y. 506 (1889), in which a grandson killed his grandfather in order to benefit from the will, but due to the equity principle – he who comes to equity must come with clean hands – the grandson was disqualified from the inheritance even though the will was valid.

Dworkin challenged the rule of recognition because, in his view, it is impossible to assert that there are standards that decide what is 'law' and what is not, as is evident when there is conflict among judges within case law. A judge in a difficult case must therefore appeal to principles, including his own opinion of what is the best interpretation of the network of political structures and judgements within his community. He claimed there is no rule of recognition that distinguishes between legal and moral principles. According to Dworkin, Hart's theory obligated him to accept the idea that the norm of recognition may be ambiguous in certain specific areas of the law itself. He claimed that no rule could guide any judgement if judges disagreed as to what they should do or if succeeding legislatures tried to abrogate an established norm.

Dworkin further said that the law is concerned with principles as well as what has been established and the regulations pertaining to the laws themselves. Unlike rules, principles have a dimension of weight or significance, according to Dworkin, and when two principles lead to conflicting conclusions, the judge must consider the relative weight of each. Rules do not have weight or value, according to Dworkin, who argued that when two rules clash, the one established by a higher court is the one that is legitimate. Dworkin defined principles as a norm that must be upheld because it is necessary for justice or another aspect of morality, not because it would make a situation economically, politically, or socially acceptable. Although principles are sometimes firmly established through judicial precedent, they are also occasionally not established until a difficult case has been decided. Dworkin felt that claims of the existence of legal rights and obligations, which must be viewed as a type of moral rights, must be supported by some sort of prima-facie moral grounds. Dworkin challenged positivist theories for belonging to the strange realm of legal essentialism, where they only provide pre-analytical legal rights and obligations without any kind of moral foundation or force. Dworkin argued that Hart falls short of giving a complete response to the issue of whether the obligation of constructive interpretation is applicable regardless of the immorality of a system in which a judge may find oneself.

Law’s Empire 1986

According to Dworkin, there are three distinct approaches to the legal system, which he categorised as conventionalism, pragmatism (semantic), and law as integrity. In order to illustrate his ideas, he differentiated between internal and external scepticism by introducing his own principle of the semanticsting of the semantic philosophy of law. In this principle, he constructed and discriminated between two sorts of scepticism: internal scepticism and external scepticism.

Dworkin made the observation that the idea of law proposed by Hart is inadequate for addressing the jurisprudential challenges that arose all during the 20th century. Dworkin distinguished between two distinct types of conventionalism, both of which are inadequate to meet the requirements of modern jurisprudence at the tail end of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st century. Because Dworkin believed that the adjudication standards and legislative principles that were prevalent at the close of the 20th century were beyond the capabilities of pragmatism, he argued against its use. Dworkin emphasised that modern jurisprudence should place a high weight on the principles that define justice, such as honesty, impartiality, and respect for the rules of procedure. Dworkin made the observation that justice is a question of outcomes when it comes to situations in which individuals are denied some resource, liberty, or opportunity that the finest conceptions of justice allow them to have: a political choice produces injustice, regardless of how fair the methods that generated it were. According to Dworkin, political principles emerge from a foundation of moral concerns, which in turn impact what ends up being codified as legislation.

Constructive Interpretation

The idea of law as integrity asserts that judges should, to the greatest extent possible, define legal rights and obligations based on the premise that they were all developed by the community as an entity, and that they embody the community's vision of what constitutes justice and fairness. This is one of the tenets of the rule of law as integrity. Therefore, it is a strategy for understanding social practises, works of art, and written material. The principles of justice, fairness, and procedural due process, which give the most constructive interpretation of the community's legal practise, determine whether propositions of law are correct and whether or not they flow from those principles. It is broken down into three distinct phases of interpretation, namely the pre-interpretive stage, the interpretive stage, and the post-interpretive stage. At the pre-interpretive step, which is the most important stage overall, a participant will identify the guidelines and parameters that make up the practise.

Following this, the interpreter will go on to the interpretive step, where they will decide on a broad rationale for the components that were identified in the pre-interpretive stage. The participant will modify his understanding of what the practise really demands during the post-interpretative stage so that it will more effectively support the rationale that he has previously accepted during the interpretive stage. The interpretation has to be consistent with the facts that were recognised as forming the practise during the pre-interpretive step, and the judge has to adopt a rationale that he believes in and display it in the best possible light. These are the two aspects that the interpretation has to meet.

Law as Integrity

It says that the law must speak with one voice, so judges must assume that the law is built on coherent principles of justice, fairness, and procedural due process. In every new case that comes before them, judges must uphold these principles in order to treat everyone equally and ensure that everyone's situation is fair and just by the same standard.

It provides a guide for decision-makers and instructs judges to reach decisions using the same approach that integrity was founded on, i.e., constructive interpretation. Integrity is a legislative and adjudicative concept that calls for legislators to make an effort to develop laws that are ethically consistent. The source of legal interpretation must be the historical legal record, and this interpretation must be compatible with the already-existing legal elements. It should not be assumed that a judge who upholds the rule of law with integrity must interpret statutes in the context of the goals that gave birth to them. Instead, judges who uphold the rule of law must impose order on doctrine rather than seek for the order in the forces that shaped it. Dworkin came to the conclusion that judges' beliefs about 'fit', rather than historically legal elements, are what limits interpretation.

Judges are constrained by their personal desires to balance their beliefs about "fit" with their beliefs about whether their interpretation accurately represents the practise being interpreted. In order to comprehend "fit," Dworkin used the concept of the "chain novel": when numerous authors contribute one chapter each to a book, the novelist writing the second chapter will be subject to more and more "fit" restrictions as the novel progresses. Because judges must analyse all of the law when considering an interpretation because law as integrity views the law as a cohesive whole.

Hart’s Defences

The solution that Hart gives to this must take into consideration the fact that he saw the legal system as an institution that existed inside a wider social system. He felt that this system is a kind of rule-making conduct, rule-applying activity, and rule-enforcing behaviour. It would seem that the rules have some kind of link to morality, both in terms of where they came from and, on occasion, how they should be interpreted; nevertheless, Hart justified this overlap by introducing the rule of recognition. Dworkin's key arguments, in his opinion, appear to be directed at any legal theory that must take into account the internal perspective of the law, but no appropriate explanation can be offered by a descriptive theory since their point of view is not that of a participant but rather that of an outside observer. He thought this to be the case.

Hart maintained that there is nothing in the project of descriptive jurisprudence that would prevent an observer from the outside who is not participating in the effort from explaining the ways in which the law might be regarded from such an internal point of view. It was claimed by Hart that there is not necessarily a conceptual relationship between the substance of law and morality, and that it is possible for there to be legal rights and obligations that have no moral validity. According to Hart, legal rights and obligations are the points at which the law, in the exercise of its coercive authority, either defends or limits the freedom of persons or confers on them the capacity to avail themselves of the coercive machinery of the law. According to Hart's view, the law should be considered outside of moral qualities, regardless of whether it should be considered right or unjust. According to Hart, the rule of recognition is a social rule, and as such, it is formed by the actions of those individuals who also accept the norm as a rationale for denigrating others who fail to respect it. Hart thought that Dworkin had a misunderstanding of his rule of recognition, and that Dworkin had neglected the fact that judges have a high degree of common knowledge about the criteria that decide whether a rule is genuinely a legal rule, regardless of the difficulty of the case.

LAW BOOKS

Our Core Series books will help you understand the complexities of legal topics. Candidates for the LLB, SQE, PGDL, GDL. Our Q&A Series books provide model answers and suggested answers for the types of questions universities ask in examinations and assessments. Perfect for students looking for study assistance.