ABSTRACT
The turn to interpretation in legal theory marks a move away from the formalist/realist divide, and toward language, as the medium of law, and to the question of principles and values as underlying legal reasoning. If legal argument is about justifying the application of the law in terms of principles and values, then the judges may be right in engaging with moral and political justifications, or wrong to artificially exclude them. We look at how two of the more influential analytical theories have approached these questions and dilemmas. The first is the theory of “extended formalism” as advanced by H.L.A. Hart and his theory of the “open texture of the law” and as supplemented by Neil MacCormick. The second is the theory of Ronald Dworkin, with particular emphasis on his elevation of principles over policies, his argument about rights as trumps, and his theory of law as integrity.
