Here are the paper topics. You can arrange to write on your own topic
if you wish, but you must discuss it with me. The papers should be
around eight pages and are due (by e-mail) by 8:00 pm on May 2.
1. The United States and France sign a treaty. Consider the
following skeptical claim about the legally binding nature of this
treaty:
It is entirely possible, of course,
that the treaty is recognized as binding under American and/or French
law. But there is no legal obligation that transcends the French or the
American legal systems. There is no international
law - only domestic law about international relations, e.g.
American law that governs the relationship between the US and other
nations or French law that governs the relationship between France and
other nations. Of course, a country might be morally obligated to abide by its
treaty obligations or might find it in its self-interest to do so. But it is
not legally obligated except
by some domestic legal system's lights.
Using, as much as possible, the materials from this course (Chapter
Nine will be most relevant, but other materials could be too), argue
that the skeptical claim is right or wrong. Be sure to address possible
objections.
2. Consider the case of Riggs v. Palmer (discussed in
Chapter Eleven). Riggs is a hard case, in the sense that judges would
disagree about how the case should be decided. And yet, as Dworkin has
argued, judges speak as if there is a right answer to the case despite
their disagreement. Dworkin believes that such hard cases are a
counterexample to Hart's rule of recognition account of legal systems.
Why? What is his alternative? Is he right? (Chapters Eleven and
Seventeen are most relevant here, although Chapter Sixteen might be as
well.)
3. In Chapter Fifteen, Jeremy Waldron argues that the
question of the objectivity of morality is irrelevant to the issue of
whether judges should decide cases on the basis of moral criteria. What
is his argument and is he right?
4. X1, X2,, X3, .... X5000 are all driving negligently on a
freeway.
Each gets a wrongful gain thereby, namely the benefit of foregoing the
costs of due care. Assume that this wrongful gain is around $5 each.
Unfortunately only one of them, X1267, gets into an accident with P's
car and harms P. The reason why X1267 got into an accident rather than
the others is due
to the brute fact that P happened to be at the wrong place at the
wrong time, a matter over which X1267 had no control or responsibility.
P suffers $20,000 in harm and sues X1267 for compensation. X1267 argues
that he is liable, if anything, only for his wrongful gain of $5. He
recommends that P sue the other Xs for the rest of his damages. As you
know, X1267's argument will fail as a legal matter. But what, if
anything, is the moral reason his argument should fail? Be sure to
assess all the available possibilities.