This lecture asks whether judges might sometimes be morally justified in covert law-breaking in the interests of justice, the rule of law or good governance. Many historical examples of this phenomenon, are provided, drawn mainly from the British legal tradition, but also from Australia, Canada, India and the United States. Judicial noble lies are distinguished from fig-leaves and wishful thinking, and the relative importance of logic and pragmatism in legal reasoning is discussed. After examining arguments for and against judicial subterfuge, it is concluded that in modern liberal democracies subterfuge is justified only to avoid extreme injustices or violations of the rule of law.

One of the standard criticisms of John Austin’s work is that his portrayal of law, as essentially the command of a sovereign to its subjects, does not fit well with the way law is practiced or perceived by lawyers, judges, and citizens; and since the theory “fails to fit the facts,” Austin’s theory must be rejected in favor of later theories that have better fit. Many influential modern approaches to the nature of law, including Joseph Raz’s exclusive legal positivism and Ronald Dworkin’s interpretivism, while they criticize the lack of fit of theories like Austin’s, themselves unapologetically offer characterizations of legal practice that deviate in significant ways from the way most people practice or perceive law. Thus, it appears that many contemporary legal theorists wish to have it both ways: they use the deviations from conventional understandings as grounds for dismissing some theories by other scholars, but forgive or overlook comparable deviations in their own theories. This article explores what general principles can be learned, or developed, regarding when or to what extent deviation from the way law is practiced and perceived can be justified in a theory of the nature of law by other theoretical gains. Additionally, the article considers whether, in light of the proper approach to fit and mistake in theory-construction, Austin’s theory of law might be a more viable alternative than is conventionally assumed.

This article re-examines the distinction between the libertarian approach and the egalitarian approach to the regulation of campaign finance. The conventional approach (as exemplified by the work of Owen Fiss and Ronald Dworkin) is to reconcile the competing values of liberty and equality. By contrast, this article advances the normative claim that democracies should seek to incorporate both the libertarian and the egalitarian approaches within constitutional law. I argue that instead of emphasizing one value over the other, the ideal position is one that simultaneously recognizes the values of liberty and equality despite the irreconcilable tension between them. Rather than choosing one value over the other, or reconciling these values by redefining them, I claim that it is vital to maintain the tension between liberty and equality by instantiating the conflict in law. Democracy is better served when the law contains an explicit tension between these foundational values.

After setting forth this normative framework, I then apply it to the campaign finance decisions of the Supreme Courts of the United States and Canada, respectively. I make two main claims. First, I argue that although the libertarian/egalitarian distinction is usually presented as a binary choice, the laws of a given jurisdiction often simultaneously display both libertarian and egalitarian characteristics. For this reason, I claim that the libertarian/egalitarian distinction is better conceived of as a “libertarian-egalitarian spectrum.” Second, I argue that in recent years, the U.S. Supreme Court and the Supreme Court of Canada, respectively, have privileged one value—liberty or equality—at the expense of the other. The U.S. Supreme Court has over-emphasized the value of liberty (most notably in its Citizens United decision), with the result that political equality is markedly undermined. By the same token, the Supreme Court of Canada’s commitment to equality has become too one-sided in recent cases (Harper and Bryan), with the result that there are significant impairments to free speech liberties. I argue that both of these approaches are detrimental to democratic participation and governance. Finally, this article offers a preliminary proposal for how courts and legislatures can allow for the conflict between liberty and equality to be instantiated in law.

This paper replies to the criticisms raised by Eric Scarffe and Thomas Christiano against Dworkin’s philosophy of international law. While the former argues that Dworkin’s philosophy of international law boils down into some form of political realism, the latter upholds that Dworkin’s attempt to ground the legitimacy of international law on the states’ duty to improve their own legitimacy is insufficient to establish a solid foundation for international obligations. In my response to these critics, I hold that they are based on an uncharitable and implausible reading of Dworkin’s theory of international law, since Dworkin’s theses about the law, whether we are considering “municipal” or “international” law, only make sense if they are understood in an interpretive way. This is, I submit, the only way to avoid turning Dworkin’s assumption of the “unity of value” into an implausible metaphysical theory of natural law. Once we adopt Dworkin’s interpretive attitude, it becomes clear that the route taken by Dworkin in “A New Philosophy for International Law” was the only route that remained available for his interpretive account of political legitimacy and the foundations of law.

Familiar legal theories are epistemologically and politically stato-centric theories; they aim to rationalize intra- and inter-national legal systems. If this Westphalian approach were to be abandoned, then its replacement might be called Global Law, which invites theorizing that is not stato-centric. When that change happens, one would talk about a Global Turn in legal theory. Describing this turn is the aim of the paper.

This description is articulated around two ideas about the history and geography of the globalizing of Law, and three intuitions about the fate of legal theory itself once this Global Turn is taken. Namely, how theorizing Law from this perspective leads to focus on what is emerging and circulating, how the aesthetics of legal thinking shifts towards perspectivism and dissociation, and how more pluralistic, eclectic and pragmatic modes of reasoning and arguing about Law become dominant. What follows is neither a substantial or positivistic analysis, nor a prediction or a wish, but an attempt to point out tendencies which might be essential features of contemporary legal thinking.

Dworkin’s proposal for a new philosophy of international law shares all the important features of his latest stage of philosophizing about domestic law. As a derivative theory, however, it faces not only the same problems as the original position, but some new ones as well. This paper focuses on three problems. First, already Dworkin’s exposition of the international legal regime of human rights, which is briefly analyzed in the paper, suffers from the ill-treatment of sovereignty, insofar as it is equated with the outdated Westphalian conception. Furthermore, Dworkin’s attempt to ground human rights in value monism opens a number of intricate philosophical and practical issues. At the general plane of international law, this theoretical proposal becomes even more vulnerable. Second, Dworkin’s moral reading of international law makes a revolutionary discontinuity with the developed institutional practices and standards of the international community, which is within his own theory considered as one of the key features of legality. Finally, Dworkin’s proposal is profoundly futuristic and utopian. It is no more about the claim that ‘law as it is’ needs to be assessed in light of ‘law as it ought to be’, according to some inherent standards of political morality of a given political community, but in light of some law that might develop in the distant future. The paper concludes by noticing that if Dworkin’s ‘interpretivist’ theory is to be employed in the area of international law, it would have to be along some different lines than the ones proposed by Dworkin himself.

This essay endeavors to comment on the main themes of Ernest J. Weinrib’s The Idea of Private Law. Weinrib’s primary example of private law, and the example I shall pursue here, is tort law. In a typical torts case, the plaintiff complains that he has been injured as the proximate result of the wrongdoing (usually the negligence) of the defendant. This, the plaintiff says, is a breach of legal duty for which the defendant is liable. Questions about the foundations of tort law are questions about the significance of the terms in this story and about why, when it is proven that a transaction characterizable in these terms has occurred, the plaintiff is entitled to what he asks for, namely, compensation.

The very idea of collective rights has for a long time now been regarded with suspicion by moral and political philosophers. In recent years, however, this attitude has become more difficult to sustain, for the language of collective rights has come to dominate some of the most contentious political issues of our day. Consider, for example, the controversy surrounding the alleged injustices suffered by the indigenous peoples of North America. The arguments that best capture the core of these allegations appeal to collective rights. These arguments maintain that the injustices commonly suffered by an indigenous people involve the violation of rights held collectively by them rather than by particular individuals.

Many contemporary practitioners of analytic jurisprudence take their understanding of legal positivism largely from Hart, and the debates about legal positivism exist largely in a post-Hartian world. But if we examine carefully the writings and motivations of Bentham and even Austin, we will discover that there are good historical grounds for treating both a normative version of positivism and a version more focused on legal decision-making as entitled to at least co-equal claims on the positivist tradition. And even if we conceive of the inquiry in philosophical and not historical terms, there are reasons to doubt the view that a theory of the nature of law is the exclusive understanding of the core commitment of legal positivism. Positivism as a descriptive theory of the nature of law is important, but so too is positivism as a normative theory about the preferable attitude of society or theorists, and so too is positivism as a normative or descriptive theory of adjudication and other forms of legal decision-making. Those who understand positivism and the positivist tradition as being more normative or more adjudication-focused than the contemporary understanding allows are thus committing neither historical or philosophical mistakes, and little would be lost were we to recognize the multiple important contemporary manifestations of the legal positivist tradition.

There are many versions of legal positivism; perhaps as many as there are legal positivists around. All the versions of legal positivism, however, subscribe to the so-called Separation Thesis. This thesis basically maintains that detenriining what the law is, does not necessarily, or conceptually, depend on moral or other evaluative considerations about what it ought to be in the relevant circumstances. Legal positivists differ, however, and quite substantially, over the appropriate interpretation of this thesis. The so-called ‘strong’, or ‘exclusive’ version of legal positivism maintains that moral considerations never determine the legal validity of norms. ‘Soft’ positivists, on the other hand, do maintain that there is a close relation between legal validity and morality, but they hold that this relation is, at best, a contingent matter; it does not derive from the nature of law or legal reasoning as such. Soft-positivists claim that moral considerations determine legal validity only in certain cases, namely, in those cases which follow from the rules of recognition that happen to prevail in a given legal system.

In this paper I consider the arguments for and against textualism, or the position that the meaning of a text can be ascertained solely by reference to the rules of grammar and the conventional meanings of the words used in the text. Textualism has a great deal of intuitive force and has been attractive to lawyers because it seems to advance the rule of law. Textualism promises to deliver accessible, objective, and clear meanings for legal texts, which in turn will achieve predictability, co- ordination, efficiency, and the constraint of state officials. My analysis concludes, however, that the arguments for the impossibility of textualism are convincing. What follows from this? Surprisingly little. Clear and compelling meanings for legal texts are still possible, as is the rule of law. Existing practices need to be redescribed— but not changed—as a result of textualism’s failure. Some of these redescriptions do upset the conventional self-understandings of lawyers (rewriting the law, for example, turns out to be a pervasive practice), but this does not matter much because practices and accounts of practices are independent things. Extensive changes made to one need not have effects on the other.

If there is one doctrine distinctively associated with legal positivism, it is the separability of law and morality. Both in opposition to classical natural-law thinkers and in response to more recent theorists such as Ronald Dworkin and Lon Fuller, positivists have endeavored to impugn any number of ostensibly necessary connections between the legal domain and the moral domain. Such is the prevailing view of legal positivism among people familiar with jurisprudence. During the past couple of decades, however, that prevailing view has come into question among some estimable legal positivists. In particular, Joseph Raz and his followers have queried the importance and the very tenability of an insistence on the separability of law and morality. The present article maintains that the traditional view of legal positivism is correct and that the recent skepticism about it on the part of some positivists is unfounded. When the notion of the disjoinability of law and morality is understood properly as a large array of theses, it proves to be resistant to the challenges that have been mounted against it.

Contemporary Kantians suggest that the original acquisition of property is problematic for Kant’s theory of private law. Kant requires that private law obligations be consistent with the equal freedom of everyone. However, a rule of original acquisition seems to favor the acquirer’s freedom over others’: the acquirer originally obtains property in an unowned object simply by taking control of it, and thus seems to impose obligations on everyone else (to respect the property right) through her own “unilateral” action or choice. This article first addresses proposed Kantian solutions to the supposed “unilateralism” problem, which involve the creation of a “civil condition” of public legal institutions to determine property rights. Such solutions make property rights a matter of distributive justice rather than corrective justice. Moreover, they cannot actually solve the unilateralism problem. But in any event, the supposed “unilateralism” problem is in fact no problem at all for Kant. This is because one person’s original acquisition does not limit others’ “freedom” in the Kantian sense of that term. In this respect Kant’s account of property is equivalent to Hegel’s, which contemporary Kantians have criticized for denying any problem of unilateralism. And both Kant and Hegel’s accounts are fully consistent with a theory that explains property as a matter of corrective, rather than distributive, justice.

In 1993, two young boys were convicted for the murder of a two-year-old toddler, James Bulger. Both boys were ten years old when the murder was committed. Such a violent act raises the timeless question: At what age should a child be held fully responsible by a nation’s criminal justice system for criminal conduct? Serious crimes are being committed by young persons and the public seems to have the impression that such acts are being committed at an increasingly young age.

Generally, the age of criminal responsibility (or legal responsibility) refers to the age at which a person becomes subject to the full penalties provided by the criminal law and this age varies greatly from country to country. In the Bulger case, at the age of ten, both boys had reached the age of criminal responsibility in England. Yet in other countries, this would not have been the case. In Canada, for example, the young persons would not have been subject to the criminal law since the minimum age of legal responsibility is twelve years. Historically, young persons have been given special treatment under the criminal law. Under the doli incapax (incapable of committing a crime) standard, a child’s capacity to commit a crime was questioned when attempting to affix criminal responsibility. Some countries still adhere to this common law doli incapax rule. In the first section of this paper, I will outline both the historical and present diversity between countries in relation to the age of criminal responsibility, as well as the associated advantages and disadvantages of these various systems.

This article emanates from a Symposium hosted by Professor Margaret Ann Wilkinson and sponsored by the University of Western Ontario Law School and Centre for Innovation Law and Policy. The Symposium and the resulting articles aim to explore the theoretical dimensions of intellectual property law. This article argues, in contrast to the learned scholarship of my co-panellist, that theorising about intellectual property law is an innately political act that implements a pragmatic moment fueled by economic, social and cultural factors.

After the decision by the Supreme Court of Canada in Lavallee, Canadian women who are victims of serious domestic abuse have been able to invoke an ‘enlarged’ conception of self-defence to exonerate some acts of killing abusers. While concern remains about Lavallee, this judgement broke important ground in insisting on a more sensitive account of the actual experience of abused women, and in giving recognition to the reasonable fears that such women have for their lives. However, other than self-defence, there is no criminal law defence or plea that has been effective as a (partial) excuse or justification for killings by abused women. In this paper, I will consider the potential for a plea of provocation to serve such a role. Provocation has acquired some standing in other jurisdictions as a defence for abused women who kill but it has not as yet been effectively used in Canada. I will look at the appropriateness of provocation as a plea in some abuser homicides. The paper will discuss some ways in which the plea of provocation could be enlarged in scope and in normative power; the paper will also examine some shortcomings of the current understanding of provocation to serve a defence for women who kill. Since homicides by women make up a small fraction of all homicides, even a reformed defence of provocation would be rarely used. But the more important question is whether a plea which has been available to men for several centuries should not also be (much more) available to women who kill, and whether closer attention to the situations and perspectives of women in abusive relationships yields good grounds for thinking some kill as excusable or reasonable responses to serious provocation. The underlying concern is an equality concern; that women have equal access to suitable defences for their putative breaches of the criminal law, and that standards of reasonableness operative in criminal case deliberation be as responsive to women’s experience and women’s values as they are to men’s.

Critique of liberalism has a long tradition. However, those launching critical attacks against liberalism frequently turn out to be liberals themselves who are concerned, for instance, about the common equation of liberalism with a bourgeois attitude of “possessive individualism” or with the reduction of liberal politics to an empty proceduralism. The recent debate between liberalism and communitarianism largely amounts to such a kind of liberal self-criticism. Even outspoken communitarian critics, like Sandel, undoubtedly appreciate important achievements of liberalism; often they take these achievements more or less for granted.

“Subsidiarity” views of crime against humanity propose that state crime is at the core of the idea, thus necessitating a further level of authority. That proposal can be given a strong moral justification in terms of the enormous risks that arise from a state’s authority and territorial control. Discussions of crime against humanity by Larry May and Norman Geras, however, offer different views of the idea, May proposing that it be seen as group-based crime (in one or both of two senses), Geras proposing that it be seen as a serious violation of human rights. Those views are questioned on the basis of their fit with either the nature of the crimes involved or the moral basis of their condemnation, and the subsidiarity view is restated.

The following article begins by engaging in a debate with the literature on Carl Schmitt, a literature whose most obvious feature is its age. Nevertheless, the comprehensive engagement with Carl Schmitt's work which has appeared in the meantime has not in every respect advanced our knowledge in the area discussed in this article, because its attention is chiefly focussed on other matters. But that in itself indicates a problem.

Legal positivism, like breakfast cereal, seems to come in a wide variety of brands, with modest variations in the ingredients. Each brand offers slightly different promises as to the benefits of choosing it over its competitors. The question for the tired morning consumer is whether anything important is at stake in the choice,’ or whether he or she should just choose whatever is handy or on sale that month. In this article, I will consider some of the debates within legal positivism, and some of the disputes between legal positivism and its critics, as a means of exploring some more general issues regarding the process of theorizing about law. In discussing the internal debates within legal positivism, I will focus on the debate between inclusive and exclusive forms of positivism, though there are numerous other, if lesser known, intra-group squabbles to be found, which are also of interest and warrant attention.