LJU4801
ASSIGNMENT 2
DUE DATE: ( ) MARCH 2025
, Assessment 2 LJU4801
Instructions
Questions
1. There are divergent views on how judges decide cases. From the objectivist
theories’ perspective judges are part of a community of interpreters and this community
determines how judges must decide cases.
Briefly explain this perspective using Dworkin’s communalist theory. Your
answer should not exceed 300 words.
Dworkin’s communalist theory, as part of the objectivist approach, asserts that
judges are not independent decision-makers but are instead constrained by a broader
community of interpreters. This community includes other judges, legal scholars, and
the legal traditions of the system within which they operate¹. The theory suggests that
judicial decision-making is not a subjective exercise but is guided by the principles and
values historically embedded in the legal system².
1Dworkin, R. (1986). Law’s Empire. Harvard University Press.
Dworkin distinguishes between
"Easy cases" and "hard cases." In easy cases
Judges simply apply established legal rules as the logical starting point³. However, in
hard cases, where multiple legal rules may apply or where the law is unclear, judges
must weigh competing principles⁴. These principles are determined by examining past
legal decisions and the broader moral and ethical values within the legal system⁵.
Dworkin argues that judges must engage in what he calls constructive interpretation,
meaning they should interpret authoritative legal sources in a way that aligns with the
best understanding of legal tradition and integrity⁶.
ASSIGNMENT 2
DUE DATE: ( ) MARCH 2025
, Assessment 2 LJU4801
Instructions
Questions
1. There are divergent views on how judges decide cases. From the objectivist
theories’ perspective judges are part of a community of interpreters and this community
determines how judges must decide cases.
Briefly explain this perspective using Dworkin’s communalist theory. Your
answer should not exceed 300 words.
Dworkin’s communalist theory, as part of the objectivist approach, asserts that
judges are not independent decision-makers but are instead constrained by a broader
community of interpreters. This community includes other judges, legal scholars, and
the legal traditions of the system within which they operate¹. The theory suggests that
judicial decision-making is not a subjective exercise but is guided by the principles and
values historically embedded in the legal system².
1Dworkin, R. (1986). Law’s Empire. Harvard University Press.
Dworkin distinguishes between
"Easy cases" and "hard cases." In easy cases
Judges simply apply established legal rules as the logical starting point³. However, in
hard cases, where multiple legal rules may apply or where the law is unclear, judges
must weigh competing principles⁴. These principles are determined by examining past
legal decisions and the broader moral and ethical values within the legal system⁵.
Dworkin argues that judges must engage in what he calls constructive interpretation,
meaning they should interpret authoritative legal sources in a way that aligns with the
best understanding of legal tradition and integrity⁶.
