Meaning Of Legal Disagreement

13In the same way that we accept that the positivist model looks at the analysis of the word “law” and that positivists hold something like a model of criteria, Dworkin`s criticism would still not be justified. It starts from a relationship between the view that positivism applies to the word “law” and the criteria used by public servants to consider something like law. However, this relationship is problematic: determining the meaning of the word is a undertaking other than determining the legal grounds of a particular legal order. There may be disagreement as to the criteria for extending the “right” without disagreement on the legal grounds, and vice versa. For example, language practice in the United States may agree on the meaning of the word “law,” understanding (for example) that it is a set of principles and norms that express an idea of justice and order, that can regulate human relations, and that respect for them can be imposed by force. Nevertheless, individuals may be divided on the legal grounds of the U.S. justice system. It is also possible that the opposite may occur: a broad convergence on the reasons, but significant differences on the meaning of the word.15 45Als the three levels we have just presented, the differences of opinion relate to the law in general. The next four levels, which I will mention, relate to differences of opinion that occur within specific legal systems. 29 It remains to be explained, however, why differences of opinion unfold as if they were true.

The obvious answer seems to be that those who are mistakenly aware of it and that those who are dishonest do not want to acknowledge the real situation. If so, why have these facts not yet been discovered? One possible answer might be that individuals don`t have much knowledge about the law, they may feel intimidated by those they consider experts, or they may simply do without it. However, non-judges are also part of the debate and are aware of what makes it more difficult to accept that disputes are always errors or dissuality.28 While many cases are characterized as errors and dissuity, other cases require an alternative explanation. To understand that errors and disingenuity explain all cases provides a picture of the practice that many participants would refuse. Therefore, this cannot be a good explanation, at least in the internal analysis, because it does not take into account the perspective of the participants. 26 Positivism would therefore not be fatally weakened by Dworkin`s criticism, as it highlights legal phenomena. However, when trying to assess the importance of differences of opinion, one must take into account not only their number, but also their relevance to the legal system as a whole and to the cause. Moreover, Dworkin`s criticism threatens one of the main principles of positivists, as they emphasize the relevance of convergence as a central feature of legal systems25.25 If Dworkin`s criticism highlights a relevant feature and threatens one of the central arguments of the positivist model, the small number of divergences does not make the problem marginal.