, LJU4801 Assignment 2 (COMPLETE ANSWERS) Semester 1 2026
– DUE March 2026;100% trusted ,comprehensive and complete
reliable solution with clear explanation
Question 1
Explain Ronald Dworkin’s objectivist theory on how judges decide
cases
Ronald Dworkin’s objectivist theory of judicial decision-making,
commonly referred to as “law as integrity,” presents a sophisticated
account of how judges ought to interpret and apply the law. Unlike
traditional legal positivism, which views law primarily as a system of
rules enacted by recognized authorities, Dworkin argues that law is
deeply intertwined with moral principles that aim to ensure justice,
fairness, and consistency within a legal system. According to Dworkin,
judges do not merely apply rules in a mechanical fashion; rather, when
confronted with difficult or ambiguous cases often called “hard cases”
judges must seek an interpretation of the law that best fits and justifies
the entire body of legal practice. This means interpreting statutes,
precedents, and constitutional provisions in a way that treats the legal
system as a coherent whole, upholding principles such as individual
rights, equality, and fairness.
Dworkin criticizes legal positivism’s separation of law and morality,
emphasizing instead that moral reasoning is an integral component of
legal interpretation. Judges, in his view, act as principled decision-
makers who must articulate reasons that justify the law’s application in
light of underlying moral values that the law embodies. For example,
when statutes are ambiguous or silent on certain issues, or when
precedents conflict, judges should interpret the law through the lens of
justice and rights rather than relying solely on past rulings or rigid
procedural rules. This approach requires judges to engage in a process of
– DUE March 2026;100% trusted ,comprehensive and complete
reliable solution with clear explanation
Question 1
Explain Ronald Dworkin’s objectivist theory on how judges decide
cases
Ronald Dworkin’s objectivist theory of judicial decision-making,
commonly referred to as “law as integrity,” presents a sophisticated
account of how judges ought to interpret and apply the law. Unlike
traditional legal positivism, which views law primarily as a system of
rules enacted by recognized authorities, Dworkin argues that law is
deeply intertwined with moral principles that aim to ensure justice,
fairness, and consistency within a legal system. According to Dworkin,
judges do not merely apply rules in a mechanical fashion; rather, when
confronted with difficult or ambiguous cases often called “hard cases”
judges must seek an interpretation of the law that best fits and justifies
the entire body of legal practice. This means interpreting statutes,
precedents, and constitutional provisions in a way that treats the legal
system as a coherent whole, upholding principles such as individual
rights, equality, and fairness.
Dworkin criticizes legal positivism’s separation of law and morality,
emphasizing instead that moral reasoning is an integral component of
legal interpretation. Judges, in his view, act as principled decision-
makers who must articulate reasons that justify the law’s application in
light of underlying moral values that the law embodies. For example,
when statutes are ambiguous or silent on certain issues, or when
precedents conflict, judges should interpret the law through the lens of
justice and rights rather than relying solely on past rulings or rigid
procedural rules. This approach requires judges to engage in a process of
