Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
Loading next page...
/lp/oxford-university-press/evil-contingencies-and-the-rule-of-law-a-response-to-hamish-stewart-zsBzciGrIS
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press
- Copyright
- © 2006 by The University of Notre Dame
- ISSN
- 0065-8995
- eISSN
- 2049-6494
- DOI
- 10.1093/ajj/51.1.179
- Publisher site
- See Article on Publisher Site
Abstract
EVIL CONTINGENCIES AND THE RULE OF LAW: A RESPONSE TO HAMISH STEWART N.E . SlMMONDS Those who studied Matthew Kramer's essay "The Big Bad Wolf: Legal Positivism and its Detractors" without also reading the essay of mine that it criticised will no doubt be surprised by Hamish Stewart's assessment of the Kramer/Simmonds debate on incentives. In Kramer's essay my arguments are characterised as "a great deal of huffing and puffing" ; I am said to display little beyond "an impressive capacity for bombast and invective." At the same 5 6 time my grasp of the issues is described as "shallow" and "faulty." My challenge to Kramer's argument is judged to be "unsustainable," and I am 8 9 said to have "blundered," and to have "gone badly astray," in thinking other- wise. The question of incentives was central to my criticisms of Kramer, at least as I expressed those criticisms in my original essay; but it is nevertheless only one of my arguments against his overall position. In spite of this, it is the only argument that Kramer chooses to discuss: he repeatedly urges his readers to judge the merit of my remaining arguments by the supposedly feeble nature of
Journal
American Journal of Jurisprudence – Oxford University Press
Published: Jan 1, 2006