QUESTION: There are gaps in the law (propositions about the law that are neither true nor false until a correctly authorised legal official or group makes them true or false)
There are two basic ways to do this summative. One is to see the course material as background and skills development, getting you ready to do some research and writing on your own. This method would be to research the question independently, understanding the different schools as background to the debate you will see when researching the topic directly. The other way is to pick some of the theories that are relevant to the question from our readings and to put them in opposition to each other over this issue, seeing the research mainly as adding to what you already know about what the theories are saying on the subject. In either case (but needing to be said more to those doing the second), you do NOT need to show a comprehensive command of the views we studied. (That would likely be a detriment.) I’ve made it pretty clear that Dworkin is the main guy on the other side of the issue, that positivism and realism are the main theories on the pro- side but that other theories could be used creatively on one side or another. In the second method you have to be careful not to simply set the theories against each other and say you prefer the side that argues for gaps. You need to show why that side is stronger on that issue. (You can’t say law has gaps is true because legal positivism says so and legal positivism is better than Dworkin – especially if you end up saying it’s better than Dworkin because it argues for gaps – as that would be begging the question.)
TO GET THIS OR ANY OTHER ASSIGNMENT DONE FOR YOU FROM SCRATCH, PLACE A NEW ORDER HERE
