This chapter poses five questions. First, are adherence rules serious rules or pseudorules? Second, what reasons do various adherence rules provide to judges? Third, what reasons do various adherence rules exclude from consideration? Fourth, which adherence rules, if any, do lawmakers have reasons to promulgate and why? Fifth, how should judges take adherence rules into account in their decisions? The function of adherence rules is analyzed in light of discussions by Joseph Raz and Frederick Schauer. The chapter distinguishes between permissive, moderate, and restrictive adherence rules. Various arguments for promulgating adherence rules are discussed, including arguments from formal legality, settlement, predictability, stability, error, efficiency, coordination, reliance, legitimacy, autonomy, respect, and fairness. The chapter concludes that there are good reasons to promulgate a restrictive rule.
Oxford Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.
If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.