The Rule of Recognition

Essential background info from The Concept of Law: • Hart - Concept of Law ... and • Hart - Concept of Law ...
This is a lecture video about a selection of Scott Shapiro's essay "What is the Rule of Recognition (and Does it Exist)?" The essay concerns HLA Hart's fundamental, secondary rule, the rule of recognition. Shapiro argues that although it is natural to think of the rule of recognition as power-conferring, it is instead duty-imposing. Specifically, it imposes a duty on legal officials, i.e. courts, to apply rules that meat certain criteria of legal validity, and those criteria constitute the test of validity for that legal system. Justicability is also discussed. This lecture is part of a Philosophy of Law course.

[@amayafernando4563]

You are literally saving my life right now, before my final year LLB exam. THANK YOU SO MUCH.

[@oscarm6136]

Un colega y yo nos hemos pegado con esto de fondo, muchas gracias por este momento tan espectacular y épico

[@kateivers3742]

Thank you so much, I finally have Hart in my head!

[@ahmedraza3381]

I have a philosophy of law exam coming up; this helped a lot. Thank you for this! Could you please also cover Kelsen and Dworkin 😭😭

[@profjeffreykaplan]

Glad I could help. I will try, but these videos take a lot of time! I do have a video on Dworkin: ruclips.net/video/MfSRaXY4xh8/видео.html

[@ahmedraza3381]

@@profjeffreykaplan thank you!!

[@serversurfer6169]

Maybe I missed something, but I thought the Rule of Recognition basically says that a legal system and the laws within it only had the validity of rules if the relevant members of society _recognized_ that validity. So if Congress passes a law that even the cops ignore, that lack of recognition effectively rules out that law as part of the legal system. 🤔
Edit: So it seems to both grant power to the legal system itself, and impose a duty to comply with it. Indeed, it is likely the sense of duty that is the _source_ of said power. 🤓

[@gultendana736]

Hi! Thanks for the video. Very interesting ideas. Could you please post a second part explaining how this fits in with legal conventionalism? Mainly Marmor’s argument that the Rules of Recognition are constitutive rather than coordination conventions, and his response to criticisms from Dworkin that rules of recognition are, at best, generally accepted reason. Thank you!

[@danwylie-sears1134]

Proper names don't have to be accurate descriptions. Just because something is named "The Rule of Recognition", that doesn't mean that it has to be a rule at all, and certainly not that it has to be a "rule" in the sense of the particular set of jargon where the name is used.

[@saniabanu499]

thanks a lot for these! Could you pls cover Rawl's theory as well?

[@profjeffreykaplan]

I will get to it eventually!

[@lgdm]

Thanks a lot, that's very helpful and very interesting to watch !

[@d.arshi24]

So no one is talking about how he is writing in the opposite direction the whole time?

[@Megaritz]

My guess is that he's writing normally on a transparent surface, and then uses his editing program to flip the image.

[@GMiller75]

It isn't a British legal system. You are referring to the English legal system. Scotland has its own legal system.

[@jerryyu3776]

Thank you so much!

[@profjeffreykaplan]

You're welcome!

[@michaeljfigueroa]

Fine. I'll go watch your chapter 5 video first

[@DeleteLawz1984]

Mr Kaplan - We are the fastest growing TickTock channel in the world. We would like to interview you right away. [e-mail]