The “Hart-Dworkin” Debate: Critical Capacity for Russian Legal Theory
https://doi.org/10.17803/2311-5998.2023.104.4.079-090
Abstract
This article is devoted to an analysis of the early arguments within the Anglo-American philosophical and legal discussion, known in the academic literature as the “Hart-Dworkin” debate. The key theses attributed by R. Dworkin to the legal positivism of H. Hart and his proponents are examined: the pedigree thesis, the discretion thesis, the obligation thesis and the separability thesis. R. Dworkin’s criticism of these theses, on the basis of legal positivists’ undervaluing of the role of legal principles, as well as the capacity of these arguments for reconsideration of the key assumptions of mainstream Russian legal theory, is characterized. The central statements of the exclusive (hard) and inclusive (soft) legal positivism as two strategies of reaction to R. Dworkin’s critique are analysed. The separability thesis is discussed through the framework of J. Coleman’s distinction between positive and negative versions of the positivist legal theory. The conclusion that the nature of the nexus between moral and legal norms has not been properly problematised in contemporary Russian legal theory and that the arguments in the Hart-Dworkin debate have critical capacity to challenge dogmatism on this issue is justified.
About the Authors
A. S. Bystrov
Higher School of Economics University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Andrey S. Bystrov, Senior lecturer of the School of theory of law and comparative law, Cand. Sсi. (Law) , Associate Professor,
3, Bol′shoj Tryoxsvyatitel′skij per., Moscow, 109028
S. V. Vinogradov
Higher School of Economics University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Sergey V. Vinogradov, Lecturer of the School of digital law and bio-law, postgraduate student,
3, Bol′shoj Tryoxsvyatitel′skij per., Moscow, 109028
References
1. Дворкин Р. О правах всерьез. - М.: РОССПЭН, 2004. - 392 с.
2. Дидикин А. Б. Аналитическая философия права: истоки, генезис и структура. - Томск: Издательство Томского университета, 2016. - 244 с.
3. Коваль С. В. Разграничение принципов и правовых норм в философии права Р. Дворкина // Вестник Московского университета. - Серия 7: Философия. - 2020. - № 2. - С. 63-71.
4. Малько А. В., Нырков В. В., Шундиков К. В. Теория государства и права: учебник для среднего профессионального образования. - М.: Норма ; Инфра-М, 2022. - 432 с.
5. Теория государства и права: учебник для юридических вузов и факультетов / под ред. В. Б. Исакова. - М.: Норма ; Инфра-М, 2023. - 656 с.
6. Теория государства и права: учебник / под ред. М. Н. Марченко, Е. М. Дерябиной. - М.: Проспект, 2019. - 432 с.
7. Харт Г. Л. А. Понятие права. - СПб.: Изд-во Санкт-Петербургского университета, 2007. - 302 с.
8. Coleman J. L. Incorporationism, Conventionality, and the Practical Difference Thesis // Hart’s Postscript: Essays on the Postscript to the Concept of Law. - New York: Oxford University Press, 2001. - P. 99-147.
9. Coleman J. L. Markets, Morals and the Law. - New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. - 393 p.
10. Coleman J. L. Methodology // The Oxford Handbook of Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law. - New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. - P. 311-351.
11. Coleman J. L. Negative and Positive Positivism // The Journal of Legal Studies. - 1982. - Vol. 11. - No. 1. - P. 139-164.
12. Dworkin R. Law’s Empire. - Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1986. - 470 p.
13. Dworkin R. The Model of Rules // The University of Chicago Law Review. - 1967. - Vol. 35. - No. 1. - P. 14-26.
14. Dworkin R. Taking Rights Seriously. - Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1977. - 563 p.
15. Hart H. L. A. The Concept of Law. - 2-nd ed. - Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994. - XII + 315 p.
16. Hart H. L. A. Positivism and the Separation of Law and Morals // Harvard Law Review. - 1958. - Vol. 71. - No. 4. - P. 593-629.
17. Leiter B. Beyond the Hart/Dworkin Debate: The Methodology Problem in Jurisprudence // American Journal of Jurisprudence. - 2003. - Vol. 48. - No. 1. - P. 17-51.
18. Philosophy of Law. An Introduction to Jurisprudence. - 2-nd ed. (revised). - Boulder: Westview Press, 1989. - XVI + 240 p.
19. Raz J. Legal Principles and the Limits of Law // The Yale Law Journal. - 1972. - Vol. 81. - P. 823-854.
20. Shapiro S. J. The «Hart-Dworkin» Debate: A Short Guide for the Perplexed / University of Michigan Law School // Public Law and Legal Theory Working Paper Series. - 2007. - No. 77. - P. 1-54. - URL: http://ssrn.com/abstract=968657.
Review
For citations:
Bystrov A.S., Vinogradov S.V. The “Hart-Dworkin” Debate: Critical Capacity for Russian Legal Theory. Courier of Kutafin Moscow State Law University (MSAL)). 2023;(4):79-90. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17803/2311-5998.2023.104.4.079-090
Views:
402
Email this article 
