IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/oxjlsj/v41y2021i2p407-430..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Opaqueness of Rules†

Author

Listed:
  • Binesh Hass

Abstract

This article takes up the question of whether legal rules are reasons for action. They are commonly regarded in this way, yet are legal rules reasons for action themselves (the reflexivity thesis) or are they instead merely statements of other reasons that we may already have (the paraphrastic thesis)? I argue for a version of the paraphrastic thesis. In doing so, considerable attention is given to the neglected but important puzzle of the opaqueness of rules, which arises out of what some regard as the gap between the evaluative grounds of legal rules and what makes them into reasons for action. After examining an important articulation of the puzzle in the work of Joseph Raz, I argue that the reflexivity thesis is (i) undermined by certain features of rule making and (ii) defeated by the principle of presumptive sufficiency. The result is that it is possible for legal rules to be paraphrastic statements of reasons but, conversely, impossible for them to be reasons in themselves.

Suggested Citation

  • Binesh Hass, 2021. "The Opaqueness of Rules†," Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 41(2), pages 407-430.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:oxjlsj:v:41:y:2021:i:2:p:407-430.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/ojls/gqaa054
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Wensheng Xiao & Yu Tang & Bright Obuobi & Shaojian Qu & Minglan Yuan & Decai Tang, 2023. "The Influence of Rule of Law on Government’s Sustainable Economic Management: Evidence from China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(15), pages 1-23, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:oxjlsj:v:41:y:2021:i:2:p:407-430.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/ojls .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.