Explaining legal agreement

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

Legal theorists tend to focus on disagreement over the law, and yet a theory of law should also explain why lawyers and judges agree on the law as often as they do. To that end, this article first pins down a precise sense in which there can be pervasive agreement on the law. It then argues that such agreement obtains in the United States and likely in many other jurisdictions as well. Finally, it contends that Hartian Positivism offers a straightforward explanation of this phenomenon and, indeed, a better explanation than rival theories, like Ronald Dworkin’s Law as Integrity or Scott Shapiro’s Planning Theory. Given the ubiquity of legal agreement, Hartian Positivism’s explanatory superiority in this regard is a strong, albeit still not dispositive, consideration in its favour. The broader lesson is that theories of law should give greater priority to explaining legal agreement than many theories now do.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)221-253
Number of pages33
JournalJurisprudence
Volume14
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - 2023
Externally publishedYes

Keywords

  • general jurisprudence
  • law as integrity
  • Legal agreement
  • legal positivism
  • planning theory of law

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Law

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Explaining legal agreement'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this