
The eBooks we sell are sold as a single-user licence and are intended for the end user only.
The sale of some eBooks are restricted to certain countries. To alert you to such restrictions, please select the country of the billing address of your credit or debit card you wish to use for payment.
For further information see https://www.wildy.com/ebook-formats
Once the order is confirmed an e-mail will be sent to you to allow you to download the eBook. For UK purchases this will be automatic. For purchases outside the UK a member of staff will need to confirm the sale. (Staff are available to do this during normal business hours, Mon-Fri 8:30-17:00 UK time)
All eBooks are supplied firm sale and cannot be returned. If you believe there is a fault with your eBook then contact us on ebooks@wildy.com and we will help in resolving the issue. This does not affect your statutory rights.
This book presents a contemporary perspective on legal rights centred on the longstanding will theory–interest theory debate. Starting with classical rights literature, central aspects of the debate in its modern idiom are contextualised within a social theory setting developed from the writings of Max Weber.
The book explores the idea that the institutional and coercive character of legal enforcement necessitates viewing legal rights as a locus of social power residing within the 'institutional imagination': that is, in the decision-making of key institutional actors such as judges, prosecutors, police, governmental authorities – and ultimately supreme court judges – who routinely mobilise coercive mechanisms towards the enforcement of legal rights and powers. This marks a departure from the trend of rights literature to view legal rights largely from the standpoint of the right-holder.
The book also touches on whether the emerging perspective points towards a 'third way' beyond the traditional two theoretical approaches.
A major task of the study is the construction of an archetypal supreme court judge – personifying the 'institutional imagination' – fashioned, via Weberian sociology, from a critique of Ronald Dworkin's 'Herculean' judge and measured against doctrinal exegesis that draws on sources which include UK higher appellate court judgments.