posted on 2019-10-15, 09:11authored byPeter Jaffey
The view that the common law is a body of rules laid down by the courts is, for some
of its proponents, implicit in the nature of the law as a system of authoritative
guidance, but it has implications that are unattractive in principle and contrary to the
conventional understanding of legal reasoning in the common law. Dworkin’s theory
of interpretation as applied to the common law is not open to these objections, but its
critics object that it lacks a sound basis in a theory of authority. In this article, I
suggest an understanding of authority in the common law that explains the distinctive
features of common law legal reasoning and does not equate the common law with a
body of rules.
History
Citation
Australian Journal of Legal Philosophy, 2011, 36, pp. 1-33 (33)
Author affiliation
/Organisation/COLLEGE OF SOCIAL SCIENCES, ARTS AND HUMANITIES/Leicester Law School
Version
AM (Accepted Manuscript)
Published in
Australian Journal of Legal Philosophy
Publisher
Australasian Society of Legal Philosophy
issn
0726-5239
Acceptance date
2011-01-01
Copyright date
2011
Available date
2019-10-15
Publisher version
https://www.aslp.org.au/journal
Notes
An early version of this article was presented at the “Experts, Authority and Law” Conference
at the Experts and Institutions Centre of the University of Hull, Sept 2009.