The most discussed theory of law of the twentieth century – HLA Hart’s theory from _The Concept of Law_ – is fundamentally _psychological_. It explains the existence of legal systems in terms of an attitude taken by legal officials: the internal point of view. Though much has been said about this attitude (what statements _express_ it, what it is _not_, how Hart _ought_ to have conceived of it, etc.), we nonetheless lack an adequate account of the attitude itself. This paper (...) presents and defends an account of the internal point of view and shows how, when understood as the account suggests, this attitude can play the several roles that Hartian positivists need it to play. (shrink)

In this paper, I aim to explicate the distinction between ‘unconditional relevance’ and ‘conditional relevance’ as those terms and related concepts are applied in the context of admissibility determinations in modern trials. I take the U.S. Federal Rules of Evidence to be my model in analyzing these concepts, though on my view any reasonable approach to legal evidence will have to distinguish between these concepts and make appropriate provisions for their separate treatment. I begin by explaining how the Federal Rules (...) define and apply the concepts of relevance and conditional relevance, and I present an influential argument due to Vaughn Ball that threatens to undermine the distinction between the two concepts. I then argue that Ball's argument fails and I diagnose that failure. However, building on some insights from a variety of evidence scholars, I argue that the approach to conditional relevance adopted by the Federal Rules is crucially flawed for reasons entirely independent of the ones raised by Ball's argument. I identify the main constraints that, on my view, any reasonable approach to conditional admissibility must obey, and I argue for a specific proposal that obeys those constraints. On my positive view, two pieces of evidence should be admitted under a Conditional Admissibility Principle only when each piece of evidence would survive ordinary admissibility scrutiny, conditional on the admission of the other one. I conclude by considering the question of whether it should also be necessary for the two pieces of evidence to survive admissibility scrutiny together, as an ‘evidential package’; I argue that, though the issue may arise infrequently in practice, there is good reason to impose this additional requirement. (shrink)

This essay defends the moral permissibility, as a form of punishment, of banishment, namely the exclusion by a state of a citizen from its territory. I begin by outlining the prima facie case for banishment, consider for whom it may be appropriate, and acknowledge constraints on its permissibility. I then defend banishment against the main objections in the literature to banishment or the related measure of denationalization (stripping citizens of their citizenship): impermissible permanency; excessive severity; ineffectiveness; unfairness to those who (...) are punished and the creation of two classes of citizens; unfairness among states; and that banishment without denationalization is incompatible with the nature of citizenship. I adopt a ‘cantilever strategy’: if incarceration is permissible notwithstanding a certain objection, so is banishment. In concluding, I sympathetically discuss the view that, despite the moral permissibility of banishment, the power to banish should not be instituted because of the risk of abuse. (shrink)

Under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) in England and Wales, the liberal commitments to subjective freedom guide obligations towards persons who do not lack capacity. For the subject of proceedings who might lack capacity (P), it is less clear as to what obligations orient best interests decision-making on their behalf. The UK Supreme Court has emphasised the centrality of ‘P-centricity’ in best interests decision-making, where there is the legal obligation to consider P’s subjective views and wishes in a holistic (...) consideration of best interests. Unclarity nonetheless persists as to what is owed to P in the best interests standard, leading to the tendency to interpret obligations of P-centricity through the normative prism of subjective autonomy. This paper argues that such moves reduce the complex moral phenomenology of what a P-centric ethos entails. Instead, the phenomenological and ethical stance of moral considerability and recognition respect can best capture the enriched normative grounding for P-centric decision-making in mental capacity law. (shrink)

Philosophical theories of property rights struggle to adequately explain the moral significance of ownership. We propose that the moral significance of property rights is due to the intersection of what we call "the extended self” and conventionally protected rights claims. The latter, drawing on conventionalist accounts of property rights, explains the social nature and flexibility of property. The former, drawing on naturalist theories, explains their personal nature. The upshot is that we find at this intersection the full moral significance of (...) property. (shrink)

This paper argues that the inheritance of wealth must be grounded on reasons other than the defense of the testator’s right to bequeath or that of an heir’s alleged moral right to receive inheritance. It asserts that the accepted approach in anglophone political philosophy about the justice of inheritance along the framework of ‘justice in transfer’ is misguided. Taking _Rest_ land inheritance in Ethiopia as a case study, it defends a system of corporate ownership of land by the descent group (...) with an internal limitation put on the absoluteness of individual titles. Moreover, it submits, inheritance is permissible on reasons that (a) it must relate to preserving equality of opportunity and of a fair playing field, and (b) it ought to be predicated on a more expansive conception of kinship than is customarily accepted in Western societies. As land becomes progressively scarce, the evolution of ownership from private to family and then to corporate ownership signifies a sound interpretation of what it means to leave enough and as good for others to appropriate. (shrink)

This essay examines why coerced conduct tends not to have the moral and legal consequences that non-coerced conduct often has. In it, I argue against the “incapacitation approach,” the view that coerced conduct tends not to result in the coercer acquiring a permission or an entitlement because the coercee is typically incapable of exercising her rights to change the coercer’s permissions or entitlements. After demonstrating that coercees retain the ability to exercise those rights, this article develops an alternative account: that (...) coerced conduct tends not to have a licensing effect because coercees typically do not elect to effect a change in their coercers’ permissions or entitlements. (shrink)