Ronald Dworkin and the Curious Case of the Floodgates Argument


Authors
Noam Gur
Queen Mary University of London
Abstract
This article juxtaposes a jurisprudential thesis and a practical problem in an attempt to gain critical insight into both. The jurisprudential thesis is Dworkin’s rights thesis. The practical problem revolves around judicial resort to the floodgates argument in civil adjudication (or, more specifically, a version of this argument focused on adjudicative resources, which is dubbed here the FA). The analysis yields three principal observations: (1) Judicial resort to the FA is discordant with the rights thesis. (2) The rights thesis is instructive in one way but mistaken in another. While Dworkin has highlighted some valid and sound reasons against judicial policymaking, his conclusive exclusion of judicial policymaking from civil law adjudication is erroneous. Civil law adjudication, it is argued, is an arena of ineliminable tension between principle and policy. (3) The FA is a type of policy argument particularly vulnerable to objections against judicial policymaking. There should, therefore, be a (rebuttable) presumption against judicial resort to it.
Keywords Ronald Dworkin  the floodgates argument  the rights thesis  policy and principle in judicial reasoning  civil adjudication  jurisprudence  tort law
Categories (categorize this paper)
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 43,865
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Dworkin’s Morality and its Limited Implications for Law.Bebhinn Donnelly-Lazarov - 2012 - Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence 25 (1):79-95.
Legal Reasoning and Legal Theory.Neil MacCormick - 1978 - Oxford University Press.
Equality & the Rule of Law: R. M. Dworkin & Liberalism.Sheldon Sherwood Wein - 1982 - Dissertation, University of Waterloo (Canada)
Interpreting Law.Robert Baxter Westmoreland - 1987 - Dissertation, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Principles, Policies and the Power of Courts.Dr Dimitrios Kyritsis - 2007 - Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence 20 (2):379-398.
Dworkin on the Value of Integrity.Jonathan Crowe - 2007 - Deakin Law Review 12:167.
Ronald Dworkin on Law and Interpretation.Paul Lawrence Gaffney - 1990 - Dissertation, The Catholic University of America
Judging in Good Faith.Steven J. Burton - 1992 - Cambridge University Press.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2019-04-05

Total views
0

Recent downloads (6 months)
0

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.

My notes

Sign in to use this feature