Constitutional Fidelity, the Rule of Recognition, and the Communitarian Turn in Contemporary Positivism

M. Adler
{"title":"Constitutional Fidelity, the Rule of Recognition, and the Communitarian Turn in Contemporary Positivism","authors":"M. Adler","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.897988","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Contemporary positivism has taken a communitarian turn. Hart, in the Postscript to \"The Concept of Law,\" clarifies that the rule of recognition is a special sort of social practice: a convention. It is not clear whether Hart, here, means convention in the strict sense elaborated by David Lewis, or in some weaker sense. A number of contemporary positivists, including Jules Coleman (at one point), Andrei Marmor, and Gerald Postema, have argued that the rule of recognition is something like a Lewis-convention. Others have suggested that the rule of recognition is conventional in a weaker sense - specifically, by figuring in a shared cooperative activity (SCA) among officials. Chris Kutz, Scott Shapiro, and Jules Coleman (more recently) have adopted this model. This Article criticizes the Lewis-convention and SCA models of the rule of recognition, drawing on U.S. constitutional theory. Imagine a society of U.S. officials who are committed to the text of the 1787 Constitution in a strong way: each official would continue to accept the text as supreme law even if every other official defected to an alternative text, and no official is prepared to bargain or negotiate with the others about the supremacy of the text. The social practice among these officials is neither a Lewis-convention (since there is no alternative text to which every official would shift if every other official did), nor an SCA (since the officials have no general intention to mesh their conceptions of legal validity, and in particular have no intention to compromise with officials who deny the supremacy of the 1787 text). Therefore, under the Lewis-convention and SCA models, a hypothetical society of U.S. officials who are committed, first and foremost, to the 1787 text rather than to the community of officials, is not a full-fledged legal system. But this is deeply counterintuitive. The hypothetical society simply embodies, in a particularly pure form, an attitude of fidelity to the 1787 text that many officials and citizens currently profess. The tension between the Lewis-convention and SCA models of the rule of recognition, and constitutional fidelity, points the way to a different model of the rule of recognition: namely, that the rule of recognition is a social norm.","PeriodicalId":275936,"journal":{"name":"Duke Law School Public Law & Legal Theory Research Paper Series","volume":"43 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2006-04-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Duke Law School Public Law & Legal Theory Research Paper Series","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.897988","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

Contemporary positivism has taken a communitarian turn. Hart, in the Postscript to "The Concept of Law," clarifies that the rule of recognition is a special sort of social practice: a convention. It is not clear whether Hart, here, means convention in the strict sense elaborated by David Lewis, or in some weaker sense. A number of contemporary positivists, including Jules Coleman (at one point), Andrei Marmor, and Gerald Postema, have argued that the rule of recognition is something like a Lewis-convention. Others have suggested that the rule of recognition is conventional in a weaker sense - specifically, by figuring in a shared cooperative activity (SCA) among officials. Chris Kutz, Scott Shapiro, and Jules Coleman (more recently) have adopted this model. This Article criticizes the Lewis-convention and SCA models of the rule of recognition, drawing on U.S. constitutional theory. Imagine a society of U.S. officials who are committed to the text of the 1787 Constitution in a strong way: each official would continue to accept the text as supreme law even if every other official defected to an alternative text, and no official is prepared to bargain or negotiate with the others about the supremacy of the text. The social practice among these officials is neither a Lewis-convention (since there is no alternative text to which every official would shift if every other official did), nor an SCA (since the officials have no general intention to mesh their conceptions of legal validity, and in particular have no intention to compromise with officials who deny the supremacy of the 1787 text). Therefore, under the Lewis-convention and SCA models, a hypothetical society of U.S. officials who are committed, first and foremost, to the 1787 text rather than to the community of officials, is not a full-fledged legal system. But this is deeply counterintuitive. The hypothetical society simply embodies, in a particularly pure form, an attitude of fidelity to the 1787 text that many officials and citizens currently profess. The tension between the Lewis-convention and SCA models of the rule of recognition, and constitutional fidelity, points the way to a different model of the rule of recognition: namely, that the rule of recognition is a social norm.
宪法忠诚、承认规则与当代实证主义的社群主义转向
当代实证主义转向了社群主义。哈特在《法的概念》的后记中阐明,承认规则是一种特殊的社会实践:一种惯例。不清楚哈特在这里指的是戴维•刘易斯(David Lewis)所阐述的严格意义上的惯例,还是某种较弱意义上的惯例。许多当代实证主义者,包括朱尔斯·科尔曼(Jules Coleman)、安德烈·马莫尔(Andrei Marmor)和杰拉尔德·波斯特马(Gerald Postema),都认为认知规则有点像刘易斯惯例。另一些人则认为,承认规则在较弱的意义上是传统的——具体来说,是指官员之间的共享合作活动(SCA)。Chris Kutz, Scott Shapiro和Jules Coleman(最近)采用了这个模型。本文以美国宪法理论为基础,对承认规则的Lewis-convention模式和SCA模式进行了批判。想象一个美国官员社会,他们以一种强烈的方式致力于1787年宪法的文本:每个官员都将继续接受文本作为最高法律,即使其他官员都叛变到另一个文本,没有官员准备就文本的至高无上性与他人讨价还价或谈判。这些官员的社会实践既不是刘易斯公约(因为如果其他官员都这样做,就没有其他官员会转向的替代文本),也不是SCA(因为官员们一般不打算将他们的法律有效性概念相结合,特别是不打算与否认1787年文本至上的官员妥协)。因此,在Lewis-convention和SCA模型下,一个假设的美国官员社会,首先是对1787年的文本而不是对官员群体的承诺,并不是一个成熟的法律体系。但这是严重违反直觉的。这个假想的社会只是以一种特别纯粹的形式体现了一种忠于1787年宪法文本的态度,这是许多官员和公民目前所宣称的。承认规则的Lewis-convention模型和SCA模型之间的紧张关系,以及宪法忠诚,指出了承认规则的另一种模型:即,承认规则是一种社会规范。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信