We’ve got a brand new article, The Official Story of the Law, forthcoming in one of many prime peer-reviewed authorized philosophy journals, the Oxford Journal of Authorized Research. Right here is the summary:
A authorized system’s ‘official story’ is its shared account of the regulation’s construction and sources, which members of its authorized neighborhood publicly advance and defend. In some societies, nonetheless, officers pay lip service to this shared account, whereas privately adhering to their very own unofficial story as a substitute. If the officers implement some novel authorized code whereas claiming constancy to older doctrines, then which algorithm—if both—is the regulation? We defend the authorized relevance of the official story, on largely Hartian grounds. Hart noticed authorized guidelines as decided by social guidelines accepted by a selected neighborhood. We argue that this acceptance requires no real normative dedication; settlement or compliance with the foundations would possibly even be feigned. And this neighborhood needn’t be restricted to an official class, however consists of all who collectively settle for the foundations. Having rejected these synthetic limits, one can take the official story at its phrase.
We hope that that is each a contribution in analytic jurisprudence and in constitutional regulation.
As a matter of analytic jurisprudence, the piece makes two arguments furthering the fundamental insights of H.L.A. Hart—exploring what it’s to “settle for” authorized guidelines, and the sort of neighborhood who should do the accepting. (On this vein, amongst different issues, the piece responds to and builds on earlier work within the OJLS by Mikolaj Barczentowicz and Adam Perry.)
As a matter of constitutional regulation, our argument responds to a recurring query about how to consider “our regulation” of constitutional interpretation. Suppose one thinks that judges systematically invoke one set of issues of their official authorized reasoning, whereas being motivated behind the scenes by one thing else. (For example, one would possibly assume that courts publicly motive in phrases per authentic regulation originalism, whereas really making an attempt to advertise some set of non-legal coverage targets.) The Official Story explains why the foundations of our authorized system are evidenced by the previous reasonably than the latter.