Contemporary accounts of adjudication can be divided into those that are ‘orthodox’ and those that are ‘heretical’. Orthodox accounts of adjudication refer to those that, on the whole, fall within the positivist tradition in Anglo-American legal theory. Exemplars of this tradition include Neil MacCormick, Joseph Raz, and Ronald Dworkin. Translated into the field of doctrinal legal scholarship, the orthodoxy becomes ‘rational reconstruction’. That is, orthodox doctrinal scholars take their task to be a good faith rebuilding of the law from the sometimes imperfectly expressed statements of it contained in judicial decisions and statutes. American scholars are by far the most influential proponents of heretical accounts of law and legal reasoning. However, the reasons that restrict the range of orthodox works considered in this volume hold good in relation to heretical work, with the added caveat that there may indeed be important differences between geographical instances of the heresy. This chapter is primarily concerned with the writings of Roberto Unger, Duncan Kennedy, Mark Kelman, Joseph Singer, Clare Dalton, Drucilla Cornell and Pierre Schlag.
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.