« Coming to a Nuisance Near You: Dr. Phil | Main | Learning Curves at the Supreme Court »

Thursday, October 12, 2006

Research Canons: Law & Philosophy

Our next subject matter for the research canons project is Law & Philosophy.  (See here for a discussion of the research canons project, including some newly added categories, dates, and links to previous installments.)  Please comment on the books and articles that are essential to a new academic in the field.

Since there are different subfields of philosophy, please specify to whom certain works would be canonical.

Patrick O'Donnell has contributed a very extensive bibliography, downloadable here. 

UPDATE: Larry Solum's Top Ten Contemporary Jurisprudence Books are here.  The "Leiter Top 10 Books in Jurisprudence" can be found here

Posted by Matt Bodie on October 12, 2006 at 07:56 AM in Research Canons | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c6a7953ef00d834bb8f8553ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Research Canons: Law & Philosophy:

Comments

There are already several competing lists for this subject floating around on the internet (Leiter had one, as did Solum) so I'll not try to give a long account. But, I'll say that for Dworkin I'd rather include _Taking Rights Seriously_ than _Law's Empire_, if I had to choose, because while I think there's more to his constructive account of law than, say, Leiter doe (and that Dworkin's account is often misunderstood), it seem to me that his most important contributions are the more negative ones found in TRS rather than the positive ones in LE.

Posted by: Matt | Oct 12, 2006 9:38:50 AM

If we're talking philosophy of law, Leiter's list seems better to me. Dworkin's shorter pieces in TRS & other books might be more important, but they aren't his most important contributions to the philosophy of law. Law's Empire is definitely the thing to include. Hart, Fuller, Finnis & Dworkin are the biggies.

I'd love for there to be more philosophy and law, like applying philosophy of language to constitutional interpretation, but I don't think there's anything canonical there. This surely isn't, but I don't think anything in the preemption footnote (32 in the SSRN version, 36 in the final) is really canonical either.

Posted by: Chris | Oct 12, 2006 12:38:26 PM

If you're unable to download my bibliography, I'll send it upon request.

Posted by: Patrick S. O'Donnell | Oct 13, 2006 11:08:34 AM

Post a comment