LJU4801
Assignment 2 Semester 1 2026
Unique number:
Due Date: April 2026
QUESTION 1 (3 DIFFERENT ANSWERS PROVIDED)
Ronald Dworkin’s objectivist theory explains that judges do not simply make law according
to personal preference, but are guided by objective standards found within the legal system
itself.1 He accepts that some cases are easy because one clear rule applies, and in those
matters the judge mainly identifies the rule and applies it to the facts.1
Terms of use
By making use of this document you agree to:
Use this document as a guide for learning, comparison and reference purpose,
Terms of use
Not to duplicate, reproduce and/or misrepresent the contents of this document as your own work,
By making use of this document you agree to:
Use this document
Fully accept the consequences
solely as a guide forshould you plagiarise
learning, reference,or and
misuse this document.
comparison purposes,
Ensure originality of your own work, and fully accept the consequences should you plagiarise or misuse this document.
Comply with all relevant standards, guidelines, regulations, and legislation governing academic and written work.
Disclaimer
Great care has been taken in the preparation of this document; however, the contents are provided "as is" without any express or
implied representations or warranties. The author accepts no responsibility or liability for any actions taken based on the
information contained within this document. This document is intended solely for comparison, research, and reference purposes.
Reproduction, resale, or transmission of any part of this document, in any form or by any means, is strictly prohibited.
, +27 81 278 3372
QUESTION 1 (3 DIFFERENT ANSWERS PROVIDED)
Ronald Dworkin’s objectivist theory explains that judges do not simply make law
according to personal preference, but are guided by objective standards found within
the legal system itself.1 He accepts that some cases are easy because one clear rule
applies, and in those matters the judge mainly identifies the rule and applies it to the
facts.2 His theory becomes more important in hard cases, where more than one rule
may seem relevant or where the answer is not obvious from the text alone. In such
cases, the judge must decide which rule best fits the case by looking beyond narrow
wording to the principles that support the legal system.3 For Dworkin, law is not only
a collection of rules. It also includes deeper principles, values and standards that
have developed through the legal tradition, especially through precedent and earlier
judicial decisions. A judge must therefore interpret the law as part of a coherent
whole and choose the answer that best reflects the moral and legal structure already
present in that system.4 This means that judges are constrained by the tradition of
the legal system and cannot decide cases in an entirely free or personal way.
Dworkin’s view is called objectivist because he believes that the correct answer must
be discovered from legal materials and the principles underlying them, rather than
invented by the judge. In this way, judicial reasoning remains connected to the
broader integrity, history and accepted meaning of the law.5
OR
Ronald Dworkin’s objectivist theory explains that judges do not simply make law
according to personal feelings, but decide cases within the limits of the legal system
and its established tradition.6 He accepts that some matters are easy because one
clear rule applies, but he is mainly interested in hard cases where more than one
rule may seem relevant.7 In those difficult matters, the judge must do more than
choose freely. Dworkin argues that the judge must identify which rule best fits the
1
IJ Kroeze, Legal Philosophy: Only Study Guide for LJU4801 (University of South Africa 2017) 113.
2
ibid 118.
3
Ibid.
4
ibid 118–119.
5
ibid 114.
6
IJ Kroeze, Legal Philosophy: Only Study Guide for LJU4801 (University of South Africa 2017) 118.
7
ibid 118.
Disclaimer
Great care has been taken in the preparation of this document; however, the contents are provided "as is"
without any express or implied representations or warranties. The author accepts no responsibility or
liability for any actions taken based on the information contained within this document. This document is
intended solely for comparison, research, and reference purposes. Reproduction, resale, or transmission
of any part of this document, in any form or by any means, is strictly prohibited.
, +27 81 278 3372
case and then test that rule against the deeper principles that support the legal
system.8 These principles are not random moral opinions taken from outside the law.
They come from the legal tradition itself, especially from precedent, past judgments
and the values already recognised in the system.9 The judge therefore works like an
interpreter of an unfolding legal story, trying to give the most coherent and principled
account of the law. This means that judicial reasoning must remain connected to
what has already been said and decided in law. Dworkin’s view is objectivist
because it rejects the idea that judges may decide as they please. Even in hard
cases, judges are constrained by the history, structure and principles of the legal
order within which they operate.10 For Dworkin, a proper judgment is not a personal
preference dressed up as law. It is a reasoned decision that fits the legal tradition
and justifies it in the best possible way.
OR
Ronald Dworkin’s objectivist theory explains that judges do not simply make law
according to personal choice when they decide difficult cases. He accepts that some
matters are easy because one clear rule applies, and in those situations the judge
mainly identifies and applies that rule. The harder cases arise when more than one
rule may be relevant, or where the rule does not give a complete answer. In such
cases, Dworkin says judges must look beyond the bare wording of rules and
consider the legal principles that support them. These principles are not random
moral opinions. They come from the legal tradition of the system, especially past
decisions and established legal practice.11 In this way, the judge is still constrained
by objective legal material and not left free to decide however he or she likes.12
Dworkin therefore believes that adjudication must fit with the history, structure and
8
ibid 118–119.
9
ibid 119.
10
ibid 114 and 118–119.
11
IJ Kroeze, Legal Philosophy: Only Study Guide for LJU4801 (University of South Africa 2017) 118.
12
ibid 118.
Disclaimer
Great care has been taken in the preparation of this document; however, the contents are provided "as is"
without any express or implied representations or warranties. The author accepts no responsibility or
liability for any actions taken based on the information contained within this document. This document is
intended solely for comparison, research, and reference purposes. Reproduction, resale, or transmission
of any part of this document, in any form or by any means, is strictly prohibited.
Assignment 2 Semester 1 2026
Unique number:
Due Date: April 2026
QUESTION 1 (3 DIFFERENT ANSWERS PROVIDED)
Ronald Dworkin’s objectivist theory explains that judges do not simply make law according
to personal preference, but are guided by objective standards found within the legal system
itself.1 He accepts that some cases are easy because one clear rule applies, and in those
matters the judge mainly identifies the rule and applies it to the facts.1
Terms of use
By making use of this document you agree to:
Use this document as a guide for learning, comparison and reference purpose,
Terms of use
Not to duplicate, reproduce and/or misrepresent the contents of this document as your own work,
By making use of this document you agree to:
Use this document
Fully accept the consequences
solely as a guide forshould you plagiarise
learning, reference,or and
misuse this document.
comparison purposes,
Ensure originality of your own work, and fully accept the consequences should you plagiarise or misuse this document.
Comply with all relevant standards, guidelines, regulations, and legislation governing academic and written work.
Disclaimer
Great care has been taken in the preparation of this document; however, the contents are provided "as is" without any express or
implied representations or warranties. The author accepts no responsibility or liability for any actions taken based on the
information contained within this document. This document is intended solely for comparison, research, and reference purposes.
Reproduction, resale, or transmission of any part of this document, in any form or by any means, is strictly prohibited.
, +27 81 278 3372
QUESTION 1 (3 DIFFERENT ANSWERS PROVIDED)
Ronald Dworkin’s objectivist theory explains that judges do not simply make law
according to personal preference, but are guided by objective standards found within
the legal system itself.1 He accepts that some cases are easy because one clear rule
applies, and in those matters the judge mainly identifies the rule and applies it to the
facts.2 His theory becomes more important in hard cases, where more than one rule
may seem relevant or where the answer is not obvious from the text alone. In such
cases, the judge must decide which rule best fits the case by looking beyond narrow
wording to the principles that support the legal system.3 For Dworkin, law is not only
a collection of rules. It also includes deeper principles, values and standards that
have developed through the legal tradition, especially through precedent and earlier
judicial decisions. A judge must therefore interpret the law as part of a coherent
whole and choose the answer that best reflects the moral and legal structure already
present in that system.4 This means that judges are constrained by the tradition of
the legal system and cannot decide cases in an entirely free or personal way.
Dworkin’s view is called objectivist because he believes that the correct answer must
be discovered from legal materials and the principles underlying them, rather than
invented by the judge. In this way, judicial reasoning remains connected to the
broader integrity, history and accepted meaning of the law.5
OR
Ronald Dworkin’s objectivist theory explains that judges do not simply make law
according to personal feelings, but decide cases within the limits of the legal system
and its established tradition.6 He accepts that some matters are easy because one
clear rule applies, but he is mainly interested in hard cases where more than one
rule may seem relevant.7 In those difficult matters, the judge must do more than
choose freely. Dworkin argues that the judge must identify which rule best fits the
1
IJ Kroeze, Legal Philosophy: Only Study Guide for LJU4801 (University of South Africa 2017) 113.
2
ibid 118.
3
Ibid.
4
ibid 118–119.
5
ibid 114.
6
IJ Kroeze, Legal Philosophy: Only Study Guide for LJU4801 (University of South Africa 2017) 118.
7
ibid 118.
Disclaimer
Great care has been taken in the preparation of this document; however, the contents are provided "as is"
without any express or implied representations or warranties. The author accepts no responsibility or
liability for any actions taken based on the information contained within this document. This document is
intended solely for comparison, research, and reference purposes. Reproduction, resale, or transmission
of any part of this document, in any form or by any means, is strictly prohibited.
, +27 81 278 3372
case and then test that rule against the deeper principles that support the legal
system.8 These principles are not random moral opinions taken from outside the law.
They come from the legal tradition itself, especially from precedent, past judgments
and the values already recognised in the system.9 The judge therefore works like an
interpreter of an unfolding legal story, trying to give the most coherent and principled
account of the law. This means that judicial reasoning must remain connected to
what has already been said and decided in law. Dworkin’s view is objectivist
because it rejects the idea that judges may decide as they please. Even in hard
cases, judges are constrained by the history, structure and principles of the legal
order within which they operate.10 For Dworkin, a proper judgment is not a personal
preference dressed up as law. It is a reasoned decision that fits the legal tradition
and justifies it in the best possible way.
OR
Ronald Dworkin’s objectivist theory explains that judges do not simply make law
according to personal choice when they decide difficult cases. He accepts that some
matters are easy because one clear rule applies, and in those situations the judge
mainly identifies and applies that rule. The harder cases arise when more than one
rule may be relevant, or where the rule does not give a complete answer. In such
cases, Dworkin says judges must look beyond the bare wording of rules and
consider the legal principles that support them. These principles are not random
moral opinions. They come from the legal tradition of the system, especially past
decisions and established legal practice.11 In this way, the judge is still constrained
by objective legal material and not left free to decide however he or she likes.12
Dworkin therefore believes that adjudication must fit with the history, structure and
8
ibid 118–119.
9
ibid 119.
10
ibid 114 and 118–119.
11
IJ Kroeze, Legal Philosophy: Only Study Guide for LJU4801 (University of South Africa 2017) 118.
12
ibid 118.
Disclaimer
Great care has been taken in the preparation of this document; however, the contents are provided "as is"
without any express or implied representations or warranties. The author accepts no responsibility or
liability for any actions taken based on the information contained within this document. This document is
intended solely for comparison, research, and reference purposes. Reproduction, resale, or transmission
of any part of this document, in any form or by any means, is strictly prohibited.
