"The Province of Jurisprudence Democratized contributes to the legal academy's shift away from a technical analytical philosophy to a jurisprudence that reflects a more democratic approach. It advances the claim that there is no position of theoretical or political innocence and that like the law it seeks to illuminate, legal theory must recognize its own political and social swing. Allan C. Hutchinson contends that, whatever else democracy might entail or imply, it must oppose elite rule whether by autocrats, functionaries or theorists, however enlightened or principled their proposals or interventions may be, and that authority must come from below, not above. The author's in-depth investigation into some of the most famous works of jurisprudence offers constructive suggestions to improve these historical arguments and forces open the longstanding issue of failed analytical methodologies of jurisprudence." "Scholars, students, and legal theorists alike will find this book engaging as they fashion their own objective criticisms regarding the concepts of 'truth,' 'fact,' and the relationship between 'law' and 'morality.' By challenging the foundational basis of contemporary legal thought. Allan C. Hutchinson attempts to wrest contemporary jurisprudence from the stifling grip of analytical legal theory, as he proposes to open it to a more thoroughly democratic approach."--BOOK JACKET.

This is the first ever collected volume on John Austin, whose role in the founding of analytical jurisprudence is unquestionable. After 150 years, time has come to assess his legacy. The book fills a void in existing literature, by letting top scholars with diverse outlooks flesh out and discuss Austin’s legacy today. A nuanced, vibrant, and richly diverse picture of both his legal and ethical theories emerges, making a case for a renewal of interest in his work. The book applies multiple perspectives, reflecting Austin’s various interests – stretching from moral theory to theory of law and state, from Roman Law to Constitutional Law – and it offers a comparative outlook on Austin and his legacy in the light of the contemporary debate and major movements within legal theory. It sheds new light on some central issues of practical reasoning: the relation between law and morals, the nature of legal systems, the function of effectiveness, the value-free character of legal theory, the connection between normative and factual inquiries in the law, the role of power, the character of obedience and the notion of duty.​

Any effort to understand how law works has to take seriously its main players – judges. Like any performance, judging should be evaluated by reference to those who are its best exponents. Not surprisingly, the debate about what makes a 'great judge' is as heated and inconclusive as the debate about the purpose and nature of law itself. History shows that those who are candidates for a judicial hall of fame are game changers who oblige us to rethink what it is to be a good judge. So the best of judges must tread a thin line between modesty and hubris; they must be neither mere umpires nor demigods. The eight judges showcased in this book demonstrate that, if the test of good judging is not about getting it right, but doing it well, then the measure of great judging is about setting new standards for what counts as judging well.

This book draws an extended analogy with military theory to propose a new model for legal ethics.

Law is best interpreted in the context of the traditions and cultures that have shaped its development, implementation, and acceptance. However, these can never be assessed truly objectively: individual interpreters of legal theory need to reflect on how their own experiences create the framework within which they understand legal concepts. Theory is not separate from practice, but one kind of practice. It is rooted in the world, even if it is not grounded by it. In this highly original volume, Allan C. Hutchinson takes up the challenge of self-reflection about how his upbringing, education, and scholarship contributed to his legal insights and analysis. Through this honest examination of key episodes in his own life and work, Hutchinson produces unique interpretations of fundamental legal concepts. This book is required reading for every lawyer or legal scholar who wants to analyse critically where he or she stands when they practice and study law.

The process used to select judges of the Supreme Court of Canada has provoked criticism from the start. Some observers argue the process - where the prime minister has unfettered discretion - suffers from a democratic deficit, but there is also disagreement regarding alternative methods of selection. The Democratic Dilemma: Reforming Canada's Supreme Court explores the institutional features of the Court, whether the existing process used to select judges ought to be reformed, the overall legitimacy of the Court, as well as the selection and appointment processes of Supreme Court justices in other liberal democracies. This book will be of special interest to students and scholars of Canadian federalism, the judiciary, and comparative supreme courts. The Democratic Dilemma: Reforming Canada's Supreme Court is the second volume in the Institute of Intergovernmental Relations' Democratic Dilemma series. The first, The Democratic Dilemma: Reforming the Canadian Senate is edited by Jennifer Smith. Contributors include Arthur Benz (Technische Universität Darmstadt, Germany), Jorge O. Bercholc (Institute of Social and Legal Research Ambrosio L. Gioja), Eugénie Brouillet (Université Laval), Erin Crandall (McGill University), Neil Cruickshank (Algoma University), F.C. DeCoste (University of Alberta), Yonatan Fessha (University of the Western Cape, South Africa), Peter W. Hogg (Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP), Eike-Christian Hornig (Technische Universität Darmstadt, Germany), Allan C. Hutchinson York University), Achim Hurrelmann (Carleton University), Andrée Lajoie (Université de Montréal), Martin Manolov (Human Resources and Skills Development Canada), Aman McLeod (Rutgers University), Peter McCormick (University of Lethbridge), Peter Oliver (University of Ottawa), Yves Tanguay (CRIDAQ), Alan Trench (solicitor, England and Wales), and Nadia Verrelli (Algoma University and Queen's University).

Toward an Informal Account of Legal Interpretation offers a viable account of law, judicial decision-making, and legal interpretation that is as fresh as it is familiar. The author expertly challenges the dominant mode of formalist theorizing and proposes an explanatory account of legal interpretation that can profitably be understood as an 'informal' intervention. Such an informal approach has no truck with either the claims of the formalists (i.e., that law is something separate from ideology) or those of the anti-formalists (i.e., that law is nothing other than ideological posturing). Hutchinson insists that, when understood properly, legal interpretation is an applied exercise in law-and-ideology; it is both constrained and unconstrained in equal measure. In developing this informalist account through a sustained application of the 'no vehicles in the park' rule, this book is wide-ranging in theoretical scope and substance, but also accessible and practical in style.