Res Publica

, Volume 18, Issue 2, pp 201–206 | Cite as

The Planning Theory of Law

Scott Shapiro: Legality. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 2011, 472 pp
Article

Notes

Acknowledgments

Many thanks to George Letsas for comments on earlier drafts.

References

  1. Austin, John. 1998. The province of jurisprudence determined. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing.Google Scholar
  2. Bratman, Michael. 1987. Intention, plans, and practical reason. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bratman, Michael. 1999. Faces of intention. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dworkin, Ronald. 1977. Taking rights seriously. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Dworkin, Ronald. 1986. Law’s Empire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Finnis, John. 1980. Natural law and natural rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Fuller, Lon. 1964. The inner morality of law. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Greenberg, Mark. 2004. How facts make law. Legal Theory 10: 157–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Greenberg, Mark. 2011. The standard picture and its discontents. In Oxford studies in philosophy of law, vol. 1, ed. Leslie Green, and Brian Leiter, 39–106. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hart, H.L.A. 1994. The concept of law, 2nd ed. In Eds. Penelope Bulloch and Joseph Raz. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Shapiro, Scott. 1998. Hart’s way out. Legal Theory 4: 469–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Shapiro, Scott. 2002. Law, plans, and practical reason. Legal Theory 8: 387–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Shapiro, Scott. 2007. The Hart-Dworkin debate: A short guide for the perplexed. In Ronald Dworkin, ed. Arthur Ripstein, 22–55. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Shapiro, Scott. 2009. Was inclusive positivism founded on a mistake? Ratio Juris 22: 326–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Smith, Dale. 2010. Theoretical disagreement and the semantic sting. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 30: 635–661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Stavropoulos, Nicos. 2007. Why principles? Oxford Legal Studies Research Paper. Available at SSRN. http://www.ssrn.com/abstract=1023758. Accessed 1 October 2010.
  17. Stavropoulos, Nicos. 2009. The relevance of coercion: Some preliminaries. Ratio Juris 22: 339–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University College LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations