The arbitrator, who orders judges to decide cases using the same methodology from which integrity has been derived, namely constructive interpretation. Custom Essay Writing ServiceServices is here to offer expert help at affordable prices with a guarantee on an A/A+ rating After presenting the methodological claims of fit and best light, Dworkin offers his own legal opinion – theory, which he believes is best suited to legal practice and presents it in its best light. This theory – “law as integrity” – describes the interpretation of law essentially as follows: the legal interpreter first arrives at a set of moral principles that correspond to “institutional legal materials” and presents them in their best light; Then, using these principles, the interpreter establishes the correct legal rights and obligations. Thus, (quite confusing to the reader, but perhaps not surprising) Dworkin`s legal view introduces the requirements of adequacy and best light as criteria for the correct set of moral principles from which all legal provisions flow. Section I explains Dworkin`s theory and examines its value (concluding that it is an incomprehensible description of what “integrity” is), while Section II discusses the relationship between “law as integrity” and impartiality of legal interpretation. As we shall see, according to the principle of “law as integrity”, the correct interpretation of the law is always impartial. In fact, we are dealing here with two independent concepts (on the one hand, the idea that the different treatment of apparently similar persons must be justified by a recognized principle, on the other hand – integrity, the idea that the different treatment of apparently similar persons must be justified by the set of principles that justify all other legal rights and obligations). And no quick conclusions can be drawn from respecting one concept to respecting the other. Yet Dworkin breaks these two concepts and simply believes that they are one (thinking that lack of integrity is simply the problem when the chessboard is widely applied: lack of integrity is the generalized arbitrariness of the case of specific legal systems to the law as a whole, and aversion to chessboard solutions is only a special case of the general impulse to integrity).13 seems to be a mistake though.

The obvious problem with this assumption (which merges the arbitrariness of the laws of the chessboard with the alleged arbitrariness of a lack of integrity) is that, unlike the arbitrariness manifested in the statutes of the chessboard, which we find morally unacceptable, the kind of arbitrariness that the lack of integrity is supposed to manifest is both morally acceptable and widespread.17 The same goes for “integrity” – as Dworkin calls the request, that the law “speaks with one voice” – not requiring all our laws to conform to a set of moral principles that never conflict with each other in their practical advice (that would be a rather absurd request); Instead, integrity requires the maintenance of a particular priority or order of precedence among moral principles – throughout the legal system and throughout the legal system. When we see an opportunity to live our lives more in accordance with our Word, we do so. We clean up any mess or misunderstandings that people might have because of our lack of integrity. And we will begin to experience a freedom and strength that comes from respect and living in harmony with the law of integrity. To live in integrity is to follow the grain of the universe. If we swim against the current, we reap the painful shards of our dishonest behavior, and it is expensive. The real estate team is made up of lawyers who focus on all aspects of real estate and real estate law. The team provides strategic legal services. Integrity is being in harmony with what is. Inner harmony within ourselves and outer harmony with the people around us. We experience a state of comfort when we allow ourselves to be drawn into integrity.

In case of absence, there is a feeling of fear and trouble. I have a keen interest in case law and appreciate the concept of law as a guiding principle for judges rather than as a wish. The article is well written. Dr. Anupam Kurlwal, Assistant Professor, ILMS, GURGAON, INDIA What is the “instinct” Dworkin speaks of that figures so prominently in the argument for integrity? This instinct, says Dworkin, manifests itself in our rejection of legal “chessboard solutions.” He writes: (Do not confuse the two tests that use the “fit and better light” requirements: As we saw in the previous chapter, according to Dworkin, the correct conception of law is the conception that best fits legal practice and puts it in its best light. This is a test. Now, Dworkin believes that the correct conception of law is the conception he calls “law as integrity,” and according to this conception, good legal requirements are those that correspond to the moral principles that best fit institutional legal documents and put them in their best light. This is the second test. These two tests are independent of each other.) There are other examples, but they are all symptoms of the same unfortunate state: Dworkin merges two independent ideas – the absence of a recognizable reason or principle for an established distinction (the checkerboard idea) and the absence of a recognizable reason or principle that equally applies everywhere (integrity). And while there is some affinity between the two terms, this is certainly not the identity Dworkin claims to see.

Why does Dworkin think the two are identical? I think Dworkin believes that a certain concept of rationality underlies both an aversion to distinction without principles and respect for integrity. As we have seen, the problem with the statutes of the chessboard is ultimately that they are unable to justify distinctions between categories: they simply make arbitrary distinctions. The law serves this purpose, Dworkin says, by requiring that any legal requirement be consistent with certain moral principles. What moral principles are these? It is the moral principles that best “correspond and justify” the “institutional legal documents”. “Institutional legal documents” means all laws, precedents and regulations of administrative authorities and other such documents from official sources of law. The legal interpreter who reviews these legal documents must come up with a set of moral principles that best fit these documents and present them in their best light. For example, the principle that a person should not profit from an injustice he or she has committed is probably a principle that corresponds to legal documents (it underpins many laws and legal doctrines), and it puts those documents in their best light (it makes these documents look good and desirable). Any legal requirement must then respect this principle in one way or another (we`ll see how). Thus, the method by which legal interpreters arrive at the correct legal rights and obligations is essentially as follows: they first arrive at a set of moral principles that are demonstrated in institutional legal documents (i.e. that correspond to legal documents) and that make these legal documents appear as good and desirable (i.e. they put these documents in their best light); And then they determine what the law requires by ensuring that any legal requirement is consistent with those moral principles.