Coherentists fail to distinguish between the individual revision of a conviction and the intersubjective revision of a rule. This paper fills this gap. A conviction is a norm that, according to an individual, ought to be ascribed to a provision. By contrast, a rule is a judicially ascribed norm that controls a case and is protected by the formal principles of competence, certainty, and equality. A revision of a rule is the invalidation or modification such a judicially ascribed norm, provided that the judge meets the burden of argumentation of formal principles. Thus, judges can revise their convictions without changing the law.

中文翻译：

---

面向两面的连贯主义和形式原则被遗忘的作用

连贯主义者无法区分信念的个体修正和规则的主体间修正。本文填补了这一空白。定罪是一种规范，根据个人的说法，它应该归于一项规定。相比之下，规则是司法赋予的规范，它控制案件并受到能力、确定性和平等等正式原则的保护。对规则的修改是对这种司法赋予的规范的无效或修改，前提是法官承担了对形式原则进行论证的负担。因此，法官可以在不改变法律的情况下修改他们的定罪。