I am grateful to Desmond King. Harry Scheiber, Jack Tweedie, Jeremy Waldron, and the editors of this journal for comments on earlier drafts of this paper.

1. For recent reviews of changes in British politics, see Marx, Gary, “Review Essay” (1987), 81 (American Political Science Review 245 CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Rasmussen, Jorgen S. “ Two Roads Diverged in a Wood: A Review Essay on British Politics ” 1986) 101 Political Science Quarterly 127.Google Scholar

2. For studies that argue that the British courts are uninteresting because they stick to rules, see Jaffe, Louis, English and AmericanJudges as Lawmakers (New York: OxfordUniversity Press 1969) Google Scholar; Morrison, Fred Courts and the Political Process in England (Beverly Hills: 1973)Google Scholar

3. Dworkin, Ronald, Taking Rights Seriously (Cambridge: Harvard University Press 1977). Google Scholar

4. Stewart, Richard, “The Reformation of American Administrative Law” 1975, 88 Harvard Law Review 1667. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5. Baum, Lawrence, “Policy Goals in Judicial Gatekeeping: A Proximity Model Of Discretionary Jurisdiction” 1977 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Brenner, Saul and Spaeth, Harld “Issue Specialization in Majority Opinion Assignment on the Burger Court ” 1986, 39 Western Political Quarterly 520. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

6. See e.g. Muir, William K., Law and Attitude Change Berkeley: University of California Press 1969 Google Scholar, Melnick, R. Shep and Spaeth, Harld Regulation and the Courts (Washington, D.C.: Brookings 1983).Google Scholar

7. Bell, John, Policy Arguments in Judicial Decisions Oxford: Oxford University Press 1983 Google Scholar

8. In Britain this is more a doctrinal lawyer–s point of view. See e.g. Wade, H.W.R., Administrative Law 5th ed., New York: Oxford University Press 1982 Google Scholar

9. That is, in the Weberian sense of a system of order claiming binding authority over a defined territory. id="ref013" publication-type="book">Weber, Max, Economy and Society Roth, Guenther and Wittich, Claus eds. Berkeley: University of California Press 1978 at 65.Weber,+Max,+Economy+and+Society+Roth,+Guenther+and+Wittich,+Claus+eds.+Berkeley:+University+of+California+Press+1978+at+65.>Google ScholarFor a discussion of the western state, see id="ref014" publication-type="book">Poggi, Gianfranco, The Development of Modern Stale: A Sociological Introduction Roth, Guenther and Wittich, Claus eds. (London: Hutchinson 1978). Poggi,+Gianfranco,+The+Development+of+Modern+Stale:+A+Sociological+Introduction+Roth,+Guenther+and+Wittich,+Claus+eds.+(London:+Hutchinson+1978).>Google Scholar

10. Shapiro, Martin, “Stability and Change in Judicial Decision-Making: Incrementalism or Stare Decisis?” (1965) 2 Law in Transition Quarterly 134. Google ScholarFor a discussion of different approaches to a political understanding of law, see Green, Leslie, “The Political Content of Legal Theory” (1987),17 Philosophy of the Social Sciences 1. Google Scholar

11. Boyd White, James, Law as Rhetoric, Rhetoric as Law (1985) 52 Administrative Law New York: University of Chicago Law Review 684.Google Scholar

12. For a comprehensive review of studies of courts in Britain see Baum, Lawrence, Review Article: Research on the English Judicial Process (1977), 7 British Journal of Political Science 511.Google Scholar

13. See, e.g. Blom-Cooper, Louis and Drewry, Gavin, Final Appeal (New York: Oxford University Press 1976).Google Scholar

14. Smith, David G. “British Civil Liberties and the Law” 1986, 101 Political Science Quarterly 637.Google Scholar

15. Baldwin, Ridge v. [1964] A.C. 40;Padfield v. Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food [1968] A.C. 997; Google Scholar Secretary of State for Education and Science v. Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council[1977] A.C. 1014;Google Scholar Anisminic Ltd. v. Foreign Compensation Commission[1969] 2 A.C. 147.Google Scholar

16. Hutchinson, Alan “The Rise and Ruse of Administrative Law Scholarship” 1985,48Modern Law Review 293 Google ScholarSee also McAuslan, Patrick.Administrative Law, Collective Consumption and Judicial Policy(1983,46 Modern Law Review 1.Google Scholar

17. For alegal scholar’s outline of these developments, see Wade, Administrative Law, supran.8.Google Scholar

18. Stevens, Robert Law and Politics (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press 1983). at 77–78,323-406.Google Scholar

19. Paterson, Alan The Law Lords (London: The Macmillan Press 1983). at 146–51.Google Scholar

20. Although Bell does not so explicitly discuss periods of decisions, he too agrees that the courts have become more activist in hard cases over the last approximately twenty years. Bell, Policy ArgumentsBell, Policy Arguments, supra n. 7 at 3.Google Scholar

21. Idat 84-93.

22. Stevens, Law and Politics supran. 18 at320.Google Scholar

23. Paterson, The Law Lords supran. 18 at 146.Google Scholar For another study that ascribes changes in law to one particular judge, seeLord Denning: The Judge and the Law Jowell, J.C. and Mc Auslan, J.P.W.B. eds. (London: Sweet and Maxwell, 1984).Google Scholar

24. Loughlin, Martin “Procedural Fairness: A Study OfThe Crisis in Administrative Law Theory” 1978, 28 University of Toronto Law Journal 215.Google Scholar

25. While Paterson means to test Hart’s theory, Bell also adds to it other ‘interstitial legislators’ models of the courts

26. Hart, H.L.A. The Concept of Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961) at 124–27.Google Scholar

27. Hart, H.L.A. 1776-1976: Law in the Perspective of Philosophy at 156 Google Scholar “American Jurisprudence Through English Eyes” at 138–139;“Introduction” at 17, in Hart, H.L.A. Essays in Jurisprudence and Philosophy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983).Google Scholar

28. Hart, The Concept of Law supra n. 26at 124–132.Google ScholarI have outlined the theories Bell and Paterson test rather than only Hart’s theory. Many other legal theorists have a similar understanding of hard cases and rules of interpretation. I am for simplicity’s sake lumpingthem together, which does not do justice to fine distinctions but will do for the purposes of evaluating Bell and Paterson.

29. Dworkin, Taking Rights Seriously supra n. 3 at 84–88.Google Scholar

30. Id.at 101-123.

31. For an effort to describe a ‘middle-ground’ theory of judging see MacCormick, Neil Legal Reasoning and Legal Theory (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1982).Google Scholar

32. Devlin, Patrick The Judge (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979).Google Scholar

33. Bell, The Judge supra n. 27 at 22-23.Google Scholar

34. Id.at 68-82, 236-241.For a discussion of the division of law making authority between courts, legislators, and administrative agencies from a political science point of view, see Shapiro, Martin The Supreme Court and Administrative Agencies (New York: The Free Press, 1968).Shapiro’s conclusions are similar but without the “hard cases” gloss.Google Scholar

35. Bell, Policy Arguments Google Scholar supra n. 7 at 247-64.

36. Id.at 215-224.

37. Paterson, The Law Lords, supran. 19 at 123–32.Google ScholarFor a more quantitative analysis of judicial decisions that also relies on a conception of the judicial role, see Robertson, David “Judicial Ideology in the House of Lords: A Jurimetric Analysis”(1982,12British Journal of Political Science 1.Google Scholar

38. Loughlin, Martin “Procedural Fairness”Google Scholar supran. 24 at 215.

39. For an effort to do so in one field of law, seeIbid.

40. Bell acknowledges this point; he argues that Dworkin misunderstands the British political system and its division of authority, and that his theory of rights-based adjudication simply gives more power to judges than British constitutional traditions allow

41. See e.g. Hart Ely, John Democracy and Distrust: Judicial Review and Representative Government (Cambridge: Harvard University Press 1980).Google Scholar

42. See, for example Pound, Roscoe “Mechanical Jurisprudence” (1908), 8 Columbia Law Review 605; Google Scholar Horwitz, Morton The Transformation of American Law (Cambridge: Harvard University Press 1977).Google Scholar

43. Llewellyn, Karl The Common Law Tradition: Deciding Appeals (Boston: Little, Brown 1960) at 3–7.Google Scholar

44. Stevens, Law and Politics supra (Boston: Little, Brown n. 18 at 323-53.Google Scholar

45. The Rt. Hon. SirDenning, Alfred Freedom Under the Law (London: Stevens 1949).Google Scholar

46. For evidence of substantive judicial reasoning, see Stevens, Law and Politics supra n. 18 at 320.Google Scholar

47. For a further critique of such categories, see Paine, Lynda Sharp “Instrumentalism v. Formalism: Dissolving the Dichotomy” (1978), 1978Wisconsin Law Review 997.Google Scholar

48. For a discussion of the abortion decision and what it meant,see Luker, Kristin Abortion and the Politics of Motherhood (Berkeley: University of California Press 1984).Google Scholar

49. Griffith, J.A.G. The Politics of the Judiciary 3rd ed., (London: Fontana 1985) Other studies from this perspective include McAusla, Patrick The Ideologies of Planning Law (Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1980) and Robson, Peter and Watchman, Paul Justice, Lord Denning and the Constitution Farnborough, Hants Gower, 1981).Google Scholar

50. Griffith, The Politics of the Judiciary supran. 49 at 203.Google Scholar

51. Id.at 198-201.

52. R. v. Secretary of State for Home Affairs ex p. Hosenball, [1977] 1 W.L.R. 766.

53. Griffith, Politics of the Judiciary supran. 49 at 24142.Google Scholar

54. Dworkin, Taking Rights Seriously supran. 3.Google Scholar

55. Browne, Patrick “Judicial Reflections” (1982), 35 Current Legal Problems 1 at 14.Google Scholar

56. Associated Provincial Picture Houses v. Wednesbury Corp, [1948] 1 K.B. 223.

57. See e.g. Heclo, Hugh and Wildavsky, Aaron The Private Government of Public Money,2d ed. (London: Macmillan, 1981). Google Scholar

58. For a discussion of legal reasoning in education cases that points out the assumptions courts make from the logic of their cases, see Tweedie, Jack “Rights in Social Programmes: The Case Of Parents’ Choice of Schools” [1986] Public Law 407.Google Scholar

59. Stevens, Jack Law and Politics supran. 18 at 319–21.Google Scholar

60. See Prosser, Tony Test Cases for the Poor London: Child Poverty Action Group, 1983.Google Scholar

61. Very promising recent work has been done on the effects of recent decisions regarding local politics. See Bridges, Lee, Gamre, Chris, Lomas, Owen, McBride, Jeremy, Ranson, Stewart Legality and Local Politics (Brookfield, Vermont: Gower Publishing Co.,, 1987).Google Scholar

62. Alan Paterson’s study, for example, has this advantage. Though in the end he focuses on judges’ attitudes toward their jobs, he also begins to look at courts as an institution subject to influence from others. He explores the arguments that the Bar uses to the Law Lords, and tries to draw out the influence they might have on the judges’ decisions. The Law Lords are not only isolated individuals, uninfluenced by anything but their class background in reaching their understanding of the law. For an understanding of law as social process, see Moore, Sally Falk Law as Process London: Routledge and Kegal Paul, 1978.Google Scholar