Publication Date

Spring 1993

Journal

University of Toronto Law Journal

Abstract

The article critiques Andrew Altman's defense of liberalism against critical legal studies (CLS), arguing that his account of the rule of law relies on unexamined presuppositions and fails to address the indeterminacy of legal meaning. Altman's metaphor of the rule of law as a checkerboard of zones of freedom is challenged for its definitional ambiguity and reliance on natural law, which undermines his critique of CLS. The analysis suggests that liberalism's inability to tolerate political intrusion into the rule of law exposes its dogmatic underpinnings, while deconstruction offers a more nuanced understanding of legal meaning and its ethical implications.

Volume

43

Issue

2

First Page

257

Last Page

288

Publisher

University of Toronto Press

Disciplines

Jurisprudence | Law | Law and Society | Rule of Law

Download

Share

COinS