ABSTRACT
Does a proper understanding of the role of philosophical inquiry and its relation to scientific inquiry entail that we should replace conceptual analysis with another methodology? Brian Leiter supports that very conclusion by offering a methodological criticism of recent analytical legal philosophy. I argue that Leiter’s proposal for breaking the deadlock of the Hart/Raz Debate by supporting an exclusivist account of the rule of recognition on the grounds of its social-scientific utility leads to an unduly narrow conception of the relevant features of a legal system.
