The law’s relationship with morality is a matter of enduring controversy. Although most scholars accept that there is a link between law and morality, the most troubling question is whether the law should be used to enforce certain moral values. The latter formed the basis of the Hart vs Devlin debate, which dominated twentieth-century jurisprudential discussion from the 1960s onwards.
This article presents a new context for that debate: the margin of appreciation that states can take advantage of when interpreting their human rights obligations. It is argued that this is the twenty-first century battleground for the Hart vs Devlin debate.
Your organisation does not have access to this article.
Sign up today to give your students the edge they need to achieve their best grades with subject expertise
Subscribe
