Abstract: In this dissertation, I propose a solution to Ronald Dworkin’s challenge from hard cases. Hard cases are cases in which the judges agree on the facts of the case and on what the posited law requires, but they disagree on what the law on the matter is. It is commonly thought that hard cases are decided on moral grounds, and that this problem raises the problem of explaining how the law can include unposited moral considerations. Dworkin argues that this problem generalizes, and that a theory of law must explain how all attempts to determine what the law is must make appeal to moral considerations. I argue that existing attempts to solve this problem fail. On the one hand, Dworkin argues that every attempt to determine what the law is must include an appeal to all moral considerations. This overstates the role of morality in law. Legal positivists, on the other hand, hold that moral considerations can be legally binding only when they are anticipated by the posited law. This understates the role of morality in law. By making the validity of moral considerations depend on the posited rules, inclusive positivists remain vulnerable to the possibility that a new hard case will arise that is not anticipated by the posited rules, but that the law can resolve nonetheless. And by excluding all moral considerations from law, exclusive positivists fail to explain law as we know it. Instead, I propose an alternative positivist solution to Dworkin’s challenge. First, legal positivists need not accept Dworkin’s understanding of source-based considerations as excluding all appeals to morality in their applications By econfiguring this problematic distinction, positivists can explain who the law can require frequent appeal to morality in the application of its rules. Secondly, I argue, the problem of hard cases is best understood as in instance of the prior problem of distinguishing legal rules from all other rules to which people are subject. And, I hold that Hart’s solution to this prior problem solves this problem as well. I thus conclude that the problem of hard cases poses no special threat to legal positivism.

Abstract: In this dissertation, I propose a solution to Ronald Dworkin’s challenge from hard cases. Hard cases are cases in which the judges agree on the facts of the case and on what the posited law requires, but they disagree on what the law on the matter is. It is commonly thought that hard cases are decided on moral grounds, and that this problem raises the problem of explaining how the law can include unposited moral considerations. Dworkin argues that this problem generalizes, and that a theory of law must explain how all attempts to determine what the law is must make appeal to moral considerations. I argue that existing attempts to solve this problem fail. On the one hand, Dworkin argues that every attempt to determine what the law is must include an appeal to all moral considerations. This overstates the role of morality in law. Legal positivists, on the other hand, hold that moral considerations can be legally binding only when they are anticipated by the posited law. This understates the role of morality in law. By making the validity of moral considerations depend on the posited rules, inclusive positivists remain vulnerable to the possibility that a new hard case will arise that is not anticipated by the posited rules, but that the law can resolve nonetheless. And by excluding all moral considerations from law, exclusive positivists fail to explain law as we know it. Instead, I propose an alternative positivist solution to Dworkin’s challenge. First, legal positivists need not accept Dworkin’s understanding of source-based considerations as excluding all appeals to morality in their applications By econfiguring this problematic distinction, positivists can explain who the law can require frequent appeal to morality in the application of its rules. Secondly, I argue, the problem of hard cases is best understood as in instance of the prior problem of distinguishing legal rules from all other rules to which people are subject. And, I hold that Hart’s solution to this prior problem solves this problem as well. I thus conclude that the problem of hard cases poses no special threat to legal positivism.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Washington, 2001. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 400-422).

劉傑雄. / 手稿本及手稿本複印本. / Thesis (M.A.)--香港中文大學, 1988. / Shou gao ben ji shou gao ben fu yin ben. / Includes bibliographical references: leaves [13]-[16] / Liu Jiexiong. / Thesis (M.A.)--Xianggang Zhong wen da xue, 1988. / 引言 --- p.1 / Chapter 第一部份 --- 哈特對法律道德關係的看法 --- p.14 / Chapter （甲） --- 社會律則的一般分析 --- p.14 / Chapter （一） --- 社會律則的意義 --- p.14 / Chapter （二） --- 社會律則兩方面的陳述 --- p.16 / Chapter （三） --- 義務 --- p.18 / Chapter （乙） --- 道德 --- p.21 / Chapter （一） --- 道德的意義 --- p.21 / Chapter （二） --- 道德的基本成份 --- p.22 / Chapter （三） --- 道德的特質　 --- p.30 / Chapter （丙） --- 法律 --- p.36 / Chapter （一） --- 基始律則──義務律 --- p.36 / Chapter （二） --- 從屬律則──轉變律、審裁律和認可律 --- p.37 / Chapter （三） --- 法律的成份 --- p.47 / Chapter （丁） --- 法律與道德的關係 --- p.48 / Chapter 第二部份 --- 狄奧堅對哈特的批評 --- p.61 / Chapter （甲） --- 一個基本的概念──原則 --- p.62 / Chapter （一） --- 原則的意思 --- p.62 / Chapter （二） --- 原則和律則 --- p.67 / Chapter （三） --- 原則的來源 --- p.70 / Chapter （乙） --- 對哈特法律理論的批評 --- p.72 / Chapter （一） --- 哈特的兩個選擇 --- p.73 / Chapter （二） --- 第一個選擇──至少有些原則具有法律的約束力 --- p.76 / Chapter （三） --- 第三個選擇──任何原則不具有法律的約束力 --- p.76 / Chapter （四） --- 哈特法律理論的兩難 --- p.88 / Chapter （五） --- 認可律的漏洞 --- p.90 / Chapter （丙） --- 法律與道德的關係 --- p.100 / Chapter 第三部份 --- 哈特與狄奧堅爭辯之評估 --- p.103 / Chapter （一） --- 哈特與狄奧堅爭辯之論題 --- p.103 / Chapter （二） --- 爭辯的爭論點 --- p.103 / Chapter （三） --- 第一個爭論點 --- p.106 / Chapter （四） --- 第二個爭論點　 --- p.116 / Chapter （五） --- 狄奧堅理論的毛病 --- p.124 / 結語 --- p.131

Thesis--Wisconsin. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references.

Memoria (licenciado en ciencias jurídicas y sociales) / Esta tesis presenta una reflexión metateórica de la historia de la filosofía del derecho de los siglos XX y XXI al interior de la tradición analítica. Para dicho propósito se divide en tres ejes argumentativos. El primero presenta la elucidación de la noción de tradición analítica en filosofía, a partir de la distinción entre “tradiciones y concepciones filosóficas” propuesta por M. E. Orellana Benado, con el fin de dar cuenta de sus orígenes, rasgos distintivos y discusiones más relevantes. El segundo ofrece una comprensión iusfilosófica de la tradición analítica en el siglo XX. Sobre la base de: la Teoría Pura del Derecho (1934) de Hans Kelsen y El Concepto de Derecho (1961) de H. L. A. Hart. Analizando las dos aproximaciones metodológicas de este último (al derecho como sociología descriptiva y como teoría jurídica analítica) y sus puntos centrales. Finalmente, revisa las consecuencias que trajo la publicación de la segunda edición de El Concepto de Derecho (1994) con el Postscript, añadido por sus editores, texto en el que Hart responde a sus críticos. El tercer eje argumentativo muestra en dos partes el desarrollo de la filosofía jurídica analítica de los tres primeros lustros del siglo XXI. Una de ellas considera la importancia y actualidad de los proyectos de Kelsen y Hart, mientras que la otra indagará en el surgimiento de nuevas concepciones iusfilosóficas como el naturalismo jurídico, el pragmatismo jurídico, el Law & Economics y los estudios críticos del derecho

Le 6 février 2015, la Cour suprême du Canada a rendu un jugement historique, unanime et anonyme. Dans l'arrêt Carter c. Canada (Procureur général), la Cour reconnaît que l'interdiction mur à mur de l'aide médicale à mourir porte atteinte aux droits constitutionnels de certaines personnes. En effet, les adultes capables devraient pouvoir demander l'aide d'un médecin pour mettre fin à leur vie s'ils respectent deux critères : consentir clairement et de façon éclairée à quitter ce monde et être affecté de problèmes de santé graves et irrémédiables leur causant des souffrances persistantes et intolérables. Or, cette décision constitue un renversement juridique, car un jugement inverse avait été rendu en 1993. En effet, vingt-deux ans auparavant, la Cour suprême avait jugé à cinq contre quatre que l'interdiction du suicide assisté était constitutionnelle. Dans l'arrêt Rodriguez c. Colombie-Britannique, la majorité avait statué que la protection du caractère sacré de la vie dans toute circonstance, tant pour les personnes vulnérables que pour les adultes capables, était une raison suffisante pour ne pas accorder de dérogation aux articles du Code criminel qui concernent le suicide assisté. Les juges majoritaires craignent alors que toute ouverture à l’aide au suicide entraine un élargissement progressif des critères d’admissibilité, ce que plusieurs appellent l’argument du « doigt dans l’engrenage ». Dans le cadre de ce mémoire, le renversement juridique Rodriguez-Carter sera analysé à la lumière du débat entre H. L. A. Hart et Ronald Dworkin. Alors que le premier défend une nouvelle version du positivisme modéré, le second offre une théorie nouvelle et innovatrice, nommée l’interprétativisme. L’objectif est simple : déterminer laquelle de ces deux théories explique le mieux le renversement juridique canadien concernant l’aide médicale à mourir. L’hypothèse initiale soutient que les deux théories pourront expliquer ledit renversement, mais que l’une le fera mieux que l’autre. / On February 6th 2015, the Supreme Court of Canada issued an anonymous, unanimous landmark judgment. In Carter v. Canada (Attorney General), the Court recognized that a blanket prohibition of physician-assisted dying violates the constitutional rights of certain individuals. Indeed, a competent adult person should be allowed to seek help from a doctor to end her life if she meets two criteria: clearly consent to the termination of life and have a grievous and irremediable medical condition causing enduring suffering that is intolerable to the said individual. This legal decision constitutes an judicial overrule, because a reverse judgment was made in 1993. In fact, twenty-two years ago, the Supreme Court ruled five to four in favour of the ban on assisted suicide. In Rodriguez v. British Columbia (Attorney General), the majority ruled that the protection of the sanctity of life in all circumstances, both for vulnerable people for capable adults, was reason enough not to invalidate the sections of the Criminal Code concerned with assisted suicide. The majority then feared that any opening to assisted suicide would cause a gradual widening of the eligibility criteria, what many have called the argument of the “slippery slope”. As part of this thesis, the Rodriguez-Carter judicial overrule will be analyzed in light of the debate between H. L. A. Hart and Ronald Dworkin. While the former is known for his defence of a new version of soft positivism, the latter offers a new and innovative theory, named interpretivism. The goal is simple: to establish which of these two theories best explains the Canadian legal overrule regarding physician-assisted dying. The initial hypothesis is that both theories may explain said reversal, but one will do so better than the other.

Memoria (licenciado en ciencias jurídicas y sociales) / Nuestra memoria intenta mostrar que es posible pensar un más allá del derecho positivo en la conexión que creemos necesaria con la moral y que el ideal de justicia es posible si se parte desde esta perspectiva. Para llegar hasta allí comenzaremos por esbozar lo que entenderemos por Positivismo Jurídico, mostrando sus cimientos y analizando a sus principales exponentes para posteriormente explicar la existencia de una moral interna en el derecho y como puede ser ésta el camino para conectarse con la justicia apreciando la relación de alteridad que debe haber entre ambos conceptos si se quiere hacer frente a la urgente amenaza que significa la irrupción del estado de excepción.