David Dyzenhaus Argument Against The Rule Of Law

David Dyzenhaus’ article, “The State of Emergency in Legal Theory,” examines the sufficiency of the “Legality model” to explain public officials’ responses to state emergency who use extra-legal measures. In a state of emergency, Dyzenhaus suggests that the rule of law should be upheld regardless of a state emergency. Before going on, it is important to understand that Dyzenhaus’ disagrees with Gross’ Extra-Legal Measures model and propose the “Legality model.” He makes the argument that the state has to protect state security while upholding the rule of law. According to Dyzenhaus, the rule of law must be based on the notion of values. He asserts that these values should be accepted as proper sets of practices and that every individual has the moral power to differentiate between right and wrong. He proposes that the rule of law is essentially about giving a reasonable decision and allowing people to interact with one …show more content…
Dyzenhaus makes the argument that the Gross’ Extra-Legal Model is fundamentally flawed for the reason being that it crucial that the rule of law is upheld. Moreover, Dyzenhaus maintains that Gross did not understand the definition of the rule of law. Accordingly, I intend on showing that there is credibility in Dyzenhaus’ argument as he delineates the mechanisms of the rule of law. I agree with Dyzenhaus argument that government should "respond to emergency situations… in a way that complies with the rule of law." In order to show this legitimacy, I will divide my argument into three different subdivisions. First, I discuss the legality model and distinguish why it is an adequate model to explain the role of the government in a state emergency. Subsequently, I discuss Dyzenhaus criticism of Gross. Finally, I argue that the Legality Measure model is substantiated because it grants a point of political