Abstract
It is sometimes claimed (in Anglo-American jurisprudential literature) that the rule of recognition sets the criteria for identifying legal norms and that this, therefore, means that canons of interpretation are also part of these criteria. Such a view then faces the problem of theoretical disagreements that call into question the rule of recognition itself and legal positivistic accounts of law. The paper argues that the rule of recognition sets the criteria only for sources of law and not legal norms themselves and that a theory of interpretation that distinguishes between normative texts (sources of law) and legal norms (as meanings of legal texts) can help explain why the rule of recognition might still be conceived as a conventional rule based on the convergent practice of officials and the fact that officials sometimes disagree about the correct interpretation of legal texts.
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.
