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



Many thanks to George Letsas for comments on earlier drafts.


  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. 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