TY - JOUR
AU - Smith, Dale
AB -  DALE SMITH DISAGREEING WITH WALDRON: WALDRON ON LAW AND DISAGREEMENT1 Jeremy Waldron, Law and Disagreement. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999, 332 pp. and The Dignity of Legislation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 242 pp. Of the many thought-provoking theses put forward in Waldron's latest two books, Law and Disagreement and The Dignity of Legislation, I wish to focus on just two: the claim that we must look for procedural, rather than substantive, solutions to political problems; and the claim that Parliament, rather than the courts, is the appropriate institution to deal with political disputes, including disputes regarding rights. I shall accept (a version of) the first claim, but argue that Waldron has failed to make good on the second claim. WALDRON ' S P OSITION The circumstances of politics Waldron's starting point, in arguing for these theses, is what he calls "the circumstances of politics". The first of these is that, even after deliberation, people disagree in good faith about issues of policy, principle, justice and right; the second is that, despite this disagreement, people feel a need for common decisions and courses of action regarding these matters.2 As we shall see, the first makes political decision-making necessary, while the 
TI - Disagreeing with Waldron: Waldron on Law and Disagreement
JF - Res Publica
DO - 10.1023/A:1009692226435
DA - 2001-01-01
UR - https://www.deepdyve.com/lp/springer-journals/disagreeing-with-waldron-waldron-on-law-and-disagreement-KzQZnIMfsl
SP - 57
EP - 84
VL - 7
IS - 1
DP - DeepDyve
ER -