Lecture on H.L.A. Hart's Theory of Law and Ronald Dworkin's Criticisms

Introduction

Discussion of H.L.A. Hart, a legal positivist.
Hart's theory involves a "rule of recognition" which dictates the validity of laws.
Focus on Hart's theory of adjudication and criticisms by Ronald Dworkin.

Formalism vs. Extreme Realism
- Formalism: Judges apply rules without discretion, akin to DMV employees.
- Extreme Realism: Judges decide based on personal biases and whims.
Hart’s Middle Road:
- Introduction of the concept of "open texture" of law.
- Words and rules have vague meanings leading to "hard cases."
- Hard cases: Judges have discretion, akin to realism.
- Easy cases: Judges apply rules automatically, akin to formalism.
- Judges make law in hard cases, which implies they legislate.

Dworkin’s attack targets not just adjudication but Hart’s entire theory of law.
Rules vs. Principles
- Rules: Apply in an all-or-nothing fashion.
- Principles: Can be outweighed but still apply in cases, guiding values.
Dworkin's example: Baseball rule of three strikes.

Example: Principle of no profit from one’s own wrong.
- Principles guide the legal system but do not meet rule of recognition.
Discretion in Hard Cases
- Hart’s strong discretion: Judges have freedom in hard cases.
- Dworkin argues against strong discretion, claiming judges apply underlying principles.

Dworkin argues principles are part of U.S. legal system contrary to Hart's theory.
Dworkin suggests judges apply principles in hard cases, challenging Hart's rule of recognition.

Dworkin’s criticisms challenge the integrity of Hart's theory.
Hart later acknowledges principles but questions remain about their place in his theory.
Mention of Neil McCormick’s work suggesting a Hartian theory can accommodate principles.

The distinction between rules and principles remains a key point in understanding both Hart and Dworkin’s perspectives.
The ongoing debate between positivist and interpretivist views in legal theory.