Abstract
Abstract In “Explaining Theoretical Disagreement” (2009), the chapter’s author defended an answer to Ronald Dworkin’s argument that legal positivists cannot adequately explain disagreements among judges about what the criteria of legal validity are. This chapter responds to a variety of critics, in particular, Kevin Toh. It argues that Toh misrepresents H. L. A. Hart’s own views, and misunderstands the role of "presupposition" in both Hart and Kelsen. The chapter further argues that a correct reading of Hart is compatible with the error-theoretic interpretation of theoretical disagreement the author defended in 2009.
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.
