David Dyzenhaus Argument Against The Rule Of Law

Good Essays
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

Related Documents

  • Decent Essays

    Proposition: Hart argues that we conceptualized the Grudge informer case by maintaining unjust law is still a law, but perhaps so unjust that it should be disobeyed: On the one hand, we will begin our analysis by explaining the first part of the proposition “Hart argues that we conceptualized the Grudge informer case by maintaining unjust law is still a law”. In order to understand why according to him an unjust law is still a law, it is necessary to remind briefly his view on the connection between law and morality. As a matter of fact, it is obvious that as Hart is a legal positivist, he is claiming that there is not a necessary connection between law and morality but a contingent one . Nevertheless, even if there is a possible connection…

    • 2196 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Consequently, regardless of whether the intervention is at its core motivated by humanitarian objectives, once invoking the principles the actor would be required to abide by them as if genuinely driven by them. If a state was to claim humanitarian reasoning, they would then be bound by humanitarian laws and their military actions constrained within them (Mertus 2003: 226). In terms of the controversial US invasion of Iraq, which many believe to have been a case of distorting the R2P principles in an effort to legitimise their use of force, this has provided an…

    • 2225 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    In “Legal Realism, Critical Legal Studies, and Dworkin”, realism highlights the challenges and negative qualities that Positivism encompasses, not only through criticism but a detailed explanation of an alternate perspective of how the law should be. Hart then responds to these criticisms that point out underlying flaws in the realists views, which indicate his modern view on Positivism and how it has evolved from a better known classic version used previously. Even though Hart does defend Legal Positivism, he acknowledges the growth and development that must occur in order for it to successfully capture the structure of law that needs to be in place in order for a society to function in a civilized manner. Even though Hart’s version of a legal…

    • 1619 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    In this regard, the realist have grounds to claim that their movement is misunderstood. Criticism of legal formalism by legal-realist can be justified by the ultimate purpose of the realists. Unlike legal formalist that wanted to maintain a strict distinction between law as it is and law as it ought to be, the purpose of legal realist being the reform of the law, is that they believed that the ‘ought’ of the law could not be effectively advanced until the ‘is’ was clearly understood. Legal realist wanted people in the legal profession to spend more time thinking about how law appears on the ground: to citizens for whom the law only means prediction of what the trial judge will do in their…

    • 2094 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Topic One In the Concept of Law, Hart attempts to depict one of the differing viewpoints to his own beliefs of positivism; this one being Austen’s of which he calls the theory of coercive orders. Essentially, the theory of coercive orders is when a political superior commands a political inferior with the backing of a threat. In what Hart details as a valid legal system, the criminal statute may be construed as a threat, however, the important difference between that and coercive orders is that the ‘threat’ of not behaving correctly in accordance with the rules applies to the entirety of the jurisdiction, not merely the underlings. It is that rational that also leads Hart to take issue to the idea of laws being commands that apply only to the…

    • 1077 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Acacia Frempong-Manso 400013992 Philos 3N03 November 30th 2017 G.A Cohen’s criticisms of Rawls G.A. Cohen is best recognized in modern political philosophy for making the claim that the principles of justice are an essential reason behind the justification of an action-guiding principle, however, they are inappropriate to the conduct political practice. In Cohen's book, Rescuing Justice and Equality, he makes two criticisms of John Rawls. The first objection is that Rawl's is unable to limit the range of distributive justice solely to the doctrine of institutions. The second objection is that Rawl's wrongly pairs justice with practice leading to political principles.…

    • 1483 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Human Rights Definition

    • 786 Words
    • 4 Pages

    They are conditional and subject to lawful interference and restrictions. However, before these rights can be subject to any lawful interference or restrictions, they are subject to a test for legality as prescribed in the Articles of the Convention . The interference has to be prescribed by the law which means that it should have some reference to provisions made in domestic law. It is also required that the provisions be free from arbitrary interference by public authorities. Also, the law has to be accessible to those it will affect; and it should be formulated in a manner whereby the certain outcome of a conduct will be known to the individual.…

    • 786 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    He uses the specific term unjust laws to make sure there is a distinction between laws that should be followed and laws he believed should not be followed. “Human progress” is yet another word in King’s letter. This is about the progress that…

    • 960 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    The first key argument presented states that people have a “right to an explanation and a right to challenge any infringement of their rights”. Consequently, they reason that the right to an explanation unwraps the likelihood of reconsideration to how the state has treated “victims of infringement” . Furthermore, the authors justify that only a judicial body with the power of review can recognize the right to an explanation because the judiciary is suited to address the explanatory requirements. The argument is then concluded to clarify that judicial review will most likely follow legislative deliberation. This argument restructures the first point on the characteristics that judiciaries…

    • 1859 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    In this essay I will be arguing that although non-intervention is understood as a norm in the field of international law, there are circumstances when humanitarian intervention is necessary in order to respond to serious abuse- such as when a state commits crimes or inflicts abuse upon their own citizens. (Baylis, Smith and Owens 479) Through explanation and analysis of the policies and processes of the United Nations, I will then be presenting arguments, involving the topics of human rights and moral duties, as to why humanitarian intervention is not only an effective solution, but also necessary at times. I will also examine a few of the common arguments against humanitarian intervention and go on to explain why they are invalid and flawed…

    • 1872 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Decent Essays

Related Topics