Abstract
Scholars who argue for an extralegal prerogative power make two related but distinct claims. One is that it is impossible to handle some crises according to the rule of law. The other is that it is better if we do not attempt to handle crises by law but instead choose to leave them to an extralegal prerogative. The first of these relies upon a peculiarly narrow understanding of law. The second is impractical, yet the arguments its supporters advance against accommodationism are sound. A full alternative or supplement to extralegalism has not been adequately theorized but begins to come to light when the arguments in favor of both versions of the extralegalist thesis are examined.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
