Scott Shapiro’s Legality argues the positivist Planning Theory of law meets the anti-positivist challenge posed by the argument from theoretical disagreements about law (ATD) in Ronald Dworkin’s Law’s Empire. Legality equates theoretical disagreements with what Shapiro calls meta-interpretive disagreements, and then offers a legal theory of meta-interpretation that purportedly accounts for the existence of meta-interpretive disagreements by showing how it is rational or intelligible for legal actors to have such disagreements. This paper argues Legality misconstrues Law’s Empire. The true challenge of ATD was to provide a theory of law that would vindicate the judgment that law is discovered in cases of theoretical disagreements, rather than made. Legality sees the challenge of Law’s Empire to be to show how it is rational or intelligible for legal actors to have theoretical disagreements, which is different from showing how there really is pre-existing law to be found in cases of theoretical disagreements. So the challenge Legality addresses is circumscribed. But Legality does not even succeed at addressing its own more circumscribed challenge, because, under the Planning Theory of meta-interpretation, legal actors are mistaken to think they are finding law in cases of theoretical disagreements.

中文翻译：

---

合法的法律的帝国

斯科特夏皮罗的合法性认为，实证主义的法律规划理论遇到了反实证主义的挑战，这是由罗纳德·德沃金的《法律帝国》中关于法律的理论分歧（ATD）的争论所带来的。合法性将理论分歧与夏皮罗所说的元解释分歧等同起来，然后提供了元解释的法律理论，据称通过展示法律行为者如何存在这种分歧是合理的或可理解的，来解释元解释分歧的存在。本文认为合法性误解了法律的帝国。ATD 的真正挑战是提供一种法律理论来证明法律是在理论分歧的情况下被发现而不是制定的判断。合法性认为法律帝国的挑战在于展示法律行为者在理论分歧的情况下如何是合理或可理解的，这与表明如何在理论分歧的情况下确实存在预先存在的法律不同。因此，合法性解决的挑战是有限的。但合法性甚至无法成功解决其自身更局限的挑战，因为在元解释的规划理论下，法律行为者错误地认为他们在理论分歧的情况下找到了法律。