Advertisement

Cooperative Conventions, Rules of Recognition and Institutional Practices

  • Rodrigo E. Sánchez Brigido
Chapter
Part of the Law and Philosophy Library book series (LAPS, volume 126)

Abstract

According to Sánchez Brigido, after abandoning the idea that the rule of recognition is a coordinative convention in Lewis’s sense, Postema offered a new, more sophisticated version of conventionalism. According to this new version, the rule of recognition should be understood, not as a coordinative convention, but as a cooperative convention. The paper examines Postema’s cooperative convention account. It claims that it is unsuccessful for a crucial reason: certain features of officials’ practice show that there might be a practice constitutive of a rule of recognition but there need not be any cooperative problem to be solved. Uncertainty, interdependence and mutually conditional preferences (the conditions that define a cooperative problem) need not be present. The paper also suggests that a proper account of rules of recognition should recognize that the practice constituted by such a rule should be understood, not as a cooperative convention, but as a special type of institutional practice.

Notes

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to Hernán Bouvier and Juan Iosa for their comments on an earlier version of this work.

References

  1. Coleman J (1982) Negative and positive positivism. J Leg Stud 11:139–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Coleman J (1998) Incorporation, conventionality and the practical difference theory. Leg Theory 4:381–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Coleman J (2001) The practice of principle. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  4. Green L (1998) The authority of the state. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  5. Green L (1999) Positivism and conventionalism. Can J Law Jurisprud 12:35–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hacker P (1977) Hart’s philosophy of law. In: Hacker P, Raz J (eds) Law, morality, and society: essays in honour of H.L.A. Hart. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  7. Hart HLA (1994) The concept of law, 2nd edn. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  8. Lewis D (1969) Convention: a philosophical study. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  9. MacCormick N (1981) H.L.A. Hart. Edward Arnold, LondonGoogle Scholar
  10. Marmor A (2001) Legal conventionalism. In: Coleman J (ed) Hart’s postscript: essays on the postscript to the concept of law. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  11. Marmor A (2006) How law is like chess. Leg Theory 12:347–371Google Scholar
  12. Marmor A (2009) Social conventions. Princeton University Press, PrincetonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Postema G (1982) Coordination and convention at the foundations of law. J Leg Stud 11:165–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Postema G (2011) A treatise of legal philosophy and general jurisprudence. Springer, DordrechtCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Raz J (1972) Voluntary obligations and normative powers. Proc Aristot Soc Suppl 46:95Google Scholar
  16. Raz J (1979) The authority of law: essays on law and morality. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Raz J (1980) The concept of a legal system. Clarendon Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Raz J (1986) The morality of freedom. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  19. Raz J (1990) Practical reason and norms. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  20. Raz J (2013) Entre la autoridad y la interpretación. Marcial Pons, MadridGoogle Scholar
  21. Sánchez Brigido R (2010) Groups, rules and legal practice. Springer, DordrechtCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Shapiro S (2002) Law, plans, and practical reason. Leg Theory 8:387–441Google Scholar
  23. Vilajosana JM (2010) El derecho en acción. Marcial Pons, MadridGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Universidad Nacional de CórdobaCórdobaArgentina

Personalised recommendations