Dworkin Legal Interpretation Theories

Reviewing the debate history of the jurisprudence theory,"Hart-Dworkin" controversy,involving the most people, is the most fierce controversy and the longest duration, in the second half of the20th century.In the past nearly five years time," Hart and Dworkin dispute has been dominated by discussion of the Anglo-American legal philosophy, like numerous writings and papers mushroomed since1967have issued three Dworkin the emergence in front of us, or advocate for Hart’s defense, or adhere to Dworkin’s position and to continue to expand on Hart’s critique." Postscript " publication in1994by Hart students Raz the legal concept of" finishing "(second edition), again provoked controversy scholars passion and debate to a new height,Hart-Dworkin dispute, arguing that the two sides might be interested in what they were arguing about opinions vary, or both sides of the debate may not be the same problem or object, and the subject of controversy may also not single a theme, it may relate to many the specific sub intertwined propositions. In addition, the duration a long-term, large number of participants in the Debate, argument the two sides continue to transform or modify their stance in response to each other’s criticism results Debates debate between target is involved in changing, which makes us very difficult to grasp to live in a stable center of discussion.While in the process of research, will inevitably encounter the above problems, but many scholars still trying to grasp and identify the core issues of this theoretical dispute-what the law is? That is how to understand the law, how to understand the problems of legal theory, the above problem can be transformed into according to the legal proposition or the true value of the legal proposition what.Hart represented by legal positivism according as concise question of fact-the basis of the legal proposition depends on an historical fact, and thus there is only a controversy about a legal proposition meets the legal basis for the experience. Unless the lawyers and judges share a historical fact as a legal basis, or they can not engage in meaningful debate.The disadvantage of this theory can not explain the theoretical debate exists in the practice of law shall be the basis of the legal proposition. The positivist reason why to accept the underlying causes of the concise factual point of view, is to assume that the legal concept of a standard, namely:in any concept of time, we have to follow the rules shared, these rules set a proper u.,e of the concept of standards.The legal interpretation of the theory as an explanatory concept that the law require judges and individual citizens to determine what the law is, constructive interpretation. This approach requires that all cases in the past to find a suitable and able to provide the best moral grounds of principle and then to determine the true value of the legal proposition conditions based on those principles. Proper legal theory should be used to construct interpretation.To this end, the legal theorist should take the participant perspectives debate the significance of the legal proposition, rather than living in what legal practice is described in the legal practice outside. Hart advocate legal theory is value-neutral descriptive theory, Dworkin argued that legal theory is a normative theory, there is no description theory.This paper argues that the law is an interpretive concept, only the first value to determine the legal existence in order to understand the concept of the law. To this end, the legal theorists moral reasoning must be involved in determining what that value is. Thus, the legal theory is not descriptive theory, but a normative theory.By the combing and evaluation Hart, Dworkin relevant laws expanded discussion of what legal theory problems, we believe that the core of the problem is the problem of the relationship of law and morality, also involved in legal theory and moral relations. The law is an explanatory concept to allow legal practitioners to debate the value of the law, so as to show legal practice of the Faith; jurist to really understand the legal interpretative, must also debate the value of the law, their legal theory is a normative theory.