本論文旨在縷析美國當代法學家Ronald Dworkin法政哲學中的民主觀。有
別於多數民主，Dworkin宣稱民主不只是多數決，更是一項公民以夥伴關係集體參與政治的自治事業。本文將論證夥伴民主融合了Dworkin法政理論中的許多觀念，包括人性尊嚴、倫理個人主義、平等自由主義、政治社群、權利主張、原則論、整全法、以及對憲法的道德解讀等，從而拓展和改觀我們對民主的既定看法。透過更宏觀地尋繹「民主是什麼？」，本文希冀深入闡釋Dworkin的道德、政治及法律概念，對哲學上的重大爭議進行論辯，並且進一步批判反思夥伴民主的立論，以此，來回答法理學古老的命題「法律是什麼？」。
全文主要有三個部分。首先，在建構詮釋部分，我們依次討論了Dworkin的人性尊嚴倫理學、平等政治哲學與整全法理論中的主要概念，梳釐出Dworkin民主觀的理論基礎、背景圖像與概念關係，進而透過憲政民主與夥伴民主的辯證，證成Dworkin的夥伴民主學說。其次，本文針對Dworkin思想中的個別觀點及其爭議做出辯護，包括：（1）人性尊嚴是客觀而普遍的嗎？（2）自由與平等是相容的嗎？（3）自由主義能形成政治社群嗎？（4）訴諸良善仍可以主張國家中立嗎？（5）法律與道德的關係是什麼？（6）司法審查違反民主精神嗎？（7）憲政主義與民主是衝突的嗎？關於這些價值衝突的調解，顯示了Dworkin多元整體論的融貫立場。最後，則是批判與對話：藉由Jürgen Habermas的審議民主來對夥伴民主進行挑戰。在筆者看來，Dworkin刺蝟型民主觀，強調多元價值能整合在一個整體倫理學架構中，這個理想是高貴的，但欠缺某些民主實踐的元素。換言之，夥伴民主若能補強審議民主的核心論點例如公共領域、公民社會、論辯或溝通原則，將是一個更有吸引力的理論。

This dissertation attempts to analyze Ronald Dworkin’s democratic thought of law and political philosophy. Instead of the majoritarian democracy, Dworkin claims that a genuine democracy means not only majority rule but also the people govern themselves each as a full partner in a collective political enterprise. I will argue and elucidate that “partnership democracy” comes from many ideas of Dworkin’s political and legal theory such as human dignity, ethical individualism, egalitarian liberalism, political community, rights, principle, law as integrity, moral reading of the constitution and so on. For Dworkin, partnership democracy has expanded the meanings of democracy. In search of “what is democracy?”, the thesis constructed Dworkin’s main conceptions of moral, political, and law, discussed the philosophical controversy, and critically reflected his theory to answer the jurisprudence questions: “what is law?”.
There are three parts included in my arguments. First, in the constructive interpretation for democracy, I investigate Dworkin’s ethics of human dignity, political philosophy of equality, and law as integrity. They manifest the theoretical grounds, political background and conceptual relations of partnership democracy. By debating on “constitutional democracy” and “partnership democracy”, the thesis justified Dworkinian theory of partnership democracy. Secondly, the thesis defends philosophical controversy below: (1) Is human dignity objectivie and universal? (2) Do liberty and equality conflict? (3) How is liberal community possible? (4) For the
good life, is it still neutrality of state? (5) What is the relation between law and moral? (6) Is a judicial review undemocratic? (7) Is there any conflict between constitutionalism and democracy? From holism, Dworkin’s coherence arguments deals with the conflict of these values. Finally, based on Jürgen Habermas’ deliberative democracy that criticizes and challenges partnership democracy, I think that Dworkinian “hedgehog” democracy aimed at integrating all values into a whole of ethic framework is noble and ideal, but democracy practice requires more than this. In other words, I argue that if there are public sphere, civil society, discourse or communicative action in partnership democracy, Dworkin’s thought is much more convincible and attractive.

一、Dworkin的主要著作
Dworkin, R. (1978) Taking Rights Seriously. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Dworkin, R. (1985) A Matter of Principle. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dworkin, R. (1986) Law’s Empire. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
Dworkin, R. (1990) “Equality, Democracy, and Constitution: We the People in Court”Alberta Law Review. 28(2):324-346.
Dworkin, R. (1991) “On Gaps in the Law” in P. Amselek and N. MacCormick (ed) Controversies About Law’s Ontology. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. pp.84-90.
Dworkin, R. (1994) Life’s Dominion. New York: Vintage Books.
Dworkin, R. (1996a) “Objectivity and Truth: You’d Better Believe It” Philosophy and Public Affairs. 25(2):87-139.
Dworkin, R. (1996b) Freedom’s Law: The Moral Reading of the American Constitution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dworkin, R. (1998) “The Partnership Conception of Democracy” California Law Review. 86(3):453-458.
Dworkin, R. (2000) Sovereign Virtue: The Theory and Practice of Equality. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Dworkin, R. (ed) (2002) A Badly Flawed Election: Debating Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court, and American Democracy. New York: The New Press.
Dworkin, R. (2006a) Justice in Robes. Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Dworkin, R. (2006b) Is Democracy Possible Here? Principles for A New Political Debate. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.
Dworkin, R. (2008) The Supreme Court Phalanx: The Court’s New Right-Wing Bloc. Random House Inc.
Dworkin, R. (forthcoming) Justice for Hedgehogs. Unpublished, excerpts about pp.1-49 in http//www.law.nyu.edu/clppt/program2006/readings/RDpaper.pdf

二、中英文書目
（一）中文文獻
王文宇（1996），〈論德沃京的司法判決理論〉，《台大法學論叢》。第25卷第2期。頁31-60。
王鵬翔（2005），〈論基本權的規範結構〉，《台大法學論叢》。第34 卷第2期。頁1-60。
王鵬翔（2008），〈法律、融貫性與權威〉，《政治與社會哲學評論》。第24期。頁23-68。
王寶軍（2002），〈整體的闡釋性構建─德沃金的法律解釋學中的現代主義與後現代主義〉，《當代西方後現代法學》。朱景文編。北京：法律出版社。頁343-361。
石元康（1991），〈自由主義式的平等：德我肯論權利〉，《正義及其相關問題》。戴華、鄭曉時編。台北：中研院社科所。頁317-342。後收錄於石元康（1995），《當代自由主義理論》。台北：聯經。頁27-56。
石元康（1995），〈自由與社會統一：德我肯論社群〉，《第四屆美國文學與思想研討會論文選集：哲學篇》。何志青、洪裕宏編。台北：中研院歐美所。頁29-52。
江宜樺（1998），《自由主義、民族主義與國家認同》。台北：揚智。
江宜樺（2001），〈當代兩種自由主義之爭〉，《自由民主的理路》。台北：聯經。頁171-204。
米健譯（2002），《後現代法哲學─告別演講》。Arthur Kaufmann著。台北：元照。
朱光潛譯（2005），《柏拉圖文藝對話錄》。Plato著。台北：網路與書。
朱景文（2002），〈當前美國法理學的後現代轉向〉，《當代西方後現代法學》。朱景文編。北京：法律出版社。頁1-18。
朱景文（2004），《對西方法律傳統的挑戰：美國批判法律研究運動》。桂林：廣西師範大學出版社。
朱敬一、李念祖（2003），《基本人權》。台北：時報。
朱敬一、李念祖（2007），〈財產權利分配平等原則的憲法哲思─三種不同的權利理論與憲法釋例〉，《中研院法學期刊》。創刊號。台北：中研院法律所籌備處。頁75-111。
沈宗靈（2007），《法理學》。台北：五南。
阮文泉（1993），《德沃金法律建構解釋理論之研究》。台灣大學法律學研究所碩士論文。未出版。
阮文泉（1997），〈論德沃金建構解釋理論的反實證主義傾向〉，《法理學論叢─紀念楊日然教授》。元照編委會編。台北：元照。頁191-215。
阮文泉（1998），〈法律與文學─以德沃金教授的論述為中心〉，《法律評論》。第64卷7-9期合刊。頁32-40。
余桂霖（1996），〈論杜爾金的正義權利理論〉，《復興崗學報》。第58期。頁1-30。
吳秀瑾（2009），〈德沃金機運平等觀：女性主義批評〉，《政治與社會哲學評論》。第28期。頁89-138。
吳豐維（2008），〈Dworkin能夠支撐全面性主張嗎？〉，發表於政治大學哲學系主辦「台灣哲學學會2008年度學術研討會：科學、規範與實踐理性」。10月25-26日。
李心文（2001），《兩位自由主義者對於社群主義批評的回應：羅爾斯與德我肯》。中正大學法律學研究所碩士論文。未出版。
李忠謙（2006），《法學融貫論之研究─以德沃金的整全法為中心》。台灣大學法律學研究所碩士論文。未出版。
李柏光、林猛譯（1999），《論民主》。Robert A. Dahl著。台北：聯經。
李建良（2006），〈人之尊嚴做為憲法基本價值之規範意義〉，發表於中研院人社中心政治思想專題研究中心主辦「憲政基本價值」學術研討會，11 月23-24日。
李曉峰（2005），《美國當代著名法學家─德沃金法律思想研究》。北京：人民法院出版社。
李震山（2000），《人性尊嚴與人權保障》。台北：元照。
邱玉玲譯（1998），《惠特曼⋅草葉集》。台北：格林文化。
林天河（1995），〈個人與社群之關係：試析柏拉圖《法律篇》〉，《政治社群》。陳秀容、江宜樺編。台北：中研院社科所。頁23-37。
林火旺（2001），《倫理學》。台北：五南。
林立（2002），《法學方法論與德沃金》。台北：學林文化。
林世超（2006），《德沃金法律詮釋理論之研究》。佛光大學哲學研究所碩士論文。未出版。
林芳丞（2007），《從「平等的關懷與尊重」論司法裁判實踐公平正義之可能性》。政治大學法律學研究所碩士論文。未出版。
姚朝森譯（2005），《政治性的概念》。Carl Schmitt著。台北：聯經。
姚朝森（2006），〈人的尊嚴與理性法則─康德人權觀的立論根基〉，發表於中國政治學會主辦「中國政治學會2006年度學術研討會：憲政、民主與人權」。9月17日。
洪絹閔（2006），《胎兒與懷孕女性生命內在價值的權衡─德沃金與康奈爾的同與異》。政治大學法律學研究所碩士論文。未出版。
徐振雄（2002a），〈德沃金「權利理論」中有關「墮胎合憲性」之論證及其限制〉，《萬能學報》。第24期。頁215-230。
徐振雄（2002b），〈德沃金論「道德侵犯非罪化」與「自由主義的政治社群」─ 一個古老的命題：社會可透過刑罰執行道德嗎？〉，《月旦法學雜誌》。第91期。頁107-121。
秦修明等譯（2000），《民主在美國》。Tocqueville著。台北：貓頭鷹。
高榮志（2007），《德沃金「唯一正解」之理論與實踐─由「晶晶書庫案」的「猥褻」爭議談起》。台北大學法律學系碩士論文。未出版。
莊世同（2000），〈Ronald Dworkin與柔性法實證主義〉，《月旦法學雜誌》。第64期。頁54-69。
莊世同（2001），〈再訪Hart的承認規則〉，《當代基礎法學理論：林文雄教授祝壽論文集》。編委會編。台北：新學林。頁73-109。
莊世同（2002），〈法律的規範性與法律的接受〉，《政治與社會哲學評論》。創刊號。頁43-84。
莊世同（2003），〈尋找法律的亞特蘭提斯：《法律帝國》的兩種閱讀〉，《政治與社會哲學評論》。第5期。頁307-316。
莊世同（2007a），〈合法性與德沃金法理論的道德基礎：初步的考察與省思〉，發表於中正大學哲學系主辦「德沃金的法政哲學」學術研討會。4月27-28日。
莊世同（2007b），〈描述性法理論是可能的嗎？一個批判性的反省〉，《政治與社會哲學評論》。第21期。頁1-46。
莊世同（2008），〈合法性與整全性─對德沃金法治觀的審視與反思〉，《2008法律思想與社會變遷》。王鵬翔編。台北：中研院法律所籌備處。頁45-84。
莊世同（2009），〈民主、人權與人性尊嚴─德沃金的高貴論證〉，《台灣民主季刊》。第6卷第3期，頁209-213。
陳文政（2006），《世紀憲法判決─布希控高爾案之分析》。台北：五南。
陳宜中（2007），〈仇恨言論不該受到管制嗎？反思德沃金的反管制論證〉，《政治與社會哲學評論》。第23期。頁47-87。
陳閔翔（2009a），〈德沃金「人性尊嚴原則」之理論意涵與實踐應用〉，《政治與社會哲學評論》。第29期。台北：巨流。頁195-249。
陳閔翔（2009b），〈論德沃金的民主理論：一個憲政自由主義的解讀〉，《台灣政治學刊》。第13卷第2期。頁171-223。
陳閔翔（2010），〈書評：民主是可能的嗎？《人權與民主生活》的微言與大義〉，《思想15：文化研究：游與疑》。台北：聯經。頁197-212。
陳起行（2001），〈Dworkin法理學、融貫與法資訊系統〉，《政大法學評論》。第65期。頁1-85。
陳顯武（2005），〈論法學上規則與原則之區分─由非單調邏輯之觀點出發〉，《台大法學論叢》。第34卷第1期。頁1-45。
許家馨（1999），《法與道德：德沃京對法實證主義分離命題之批判》。政治大學法律學研究所碩士論文。未出版。
許章潤編（2003），《認真對待人權》。桂林：廣西師範大學出版社。
許章潤（2004），《法學家的智慧：關於法律的知識品格與人文類型》。北京：清華大學出版社。
許漢（2007），〈我們最好相信有客觀的道德真理，是嗎？〉，發表於中正大學哲學系主辦「德沃金的法政哲學」學術研討會。4月27-28日。
郭秋永（2001），《當代三大民主理論》。台北：聯經。
焦寶乾（2002），〈德沃金的司法自由裁量權理論與中國實踐〉，《法理學論叢》（第3卷）。張文顯、李步云編。北京：法律出版社。頁444-506。
曾國祥（2001），〈歷史實踐與啟蒙批判：歐克秀之哲學保守主義初探〉，《自由主義》。蔡英文、張福建編。台北：中研院社科所。頁227-260。
曾國祥（2004），〈憲政主義與民主的衝突：美國政治思想的一個側面〉，《政治與社會哲學評論》。第11期。頁35-82。
曾國祥（2009），《主體危機與理性批判：自由主義的保守詮釋》。高雄：巨流。
黃舒芃（2003），〈再訪「抗多數困境」─從Dworkin憲法理論的角度檢視Bickel的司法審查理論〉，《歐美研究》。第33卷第4期。頁685-709。中譯文請見（2009），《民主國家的憲法及其守護者》。台北：元照。頁391-411。
黃瑞祺（1998），〈理性討論與民主：哈伯瑪斯之溝通理論的民主涵義〉，《多元主義》。蕭高彥、蘇文流編。台北：中研院社科所。頁337-377。
黃瑞祺（2005），〈民主的重構及深化：一個社會學的觀點〉，《社會學：多元、正義、民主與科技風險》。李炳南編。台北：台大國發所。頁149-162。
黃瑞祺（2007），《批判社會學》。台北：三民。
黃瑞祺、陳閔翔（2010），〈審議民主與法治國理想：哈伯馬斯的民主觀〉，《批判、溝通和實踐：哈伯馬斯80論集》。台北：允晨。（頁數排版中）
傅鶴鳴（2009），《法律正義論─德沃金法倫理學思想研究》。北京：商務印書館。
張國清譯（2003），《後形而上學希望─新實用主義社會、政治與法律哲學》。Richard Rorty著。上海：上海譯文出版社。
張國清（2007），〈法哲學研究的語言哲學假定─兼論德沃金「唯一正確答案」研究方法的獨斷性〉，《法律與人文》。林來梵編。北京：法律出版社。頁281-289。
蔡英文（2002），《政治實踐與公共空間》。台北：聯經。
楊士奇（2001），《德握金論公民違抗》。政治大學哲學研究所碩士論文。未出版。
楊惠君譯，胡全威校（2008），〈民主憲政〉，《政治與社會哲學評論》。Richard Bellamy著。第24期。頁1-22。
劉宏斌（2009），《德沃金政治哲學研究》。長沙：湖南大學出版社。
劉俊麟（2008），〈哲學家德沃金獲得2007年霍爾堡國際紀念獎〉，《思想》。第8期。頁318-322。
劉瑞華、黃春興（2001），〈法之自行─德我肯理直原則的經濟學解釋〉，《律師雜誌》。第259期。頁15-30。
鄧正來譯（1999），《法理學》。Bodenheimer著。台北：漢興。
廖正睦（1998），《德沃金自由主義式平等理論之研究》。政治大學政治學研究所碩士論文。未出版。
謝世民（1999），〈論德我肯的資源平等觀〉，《人文及社會科學集刊》。第11卷第1期。頁123-153。
謝世民（2002），〈政治權力、政治權威與政治義務〉，《政治與社會哲學評論》。創刊號。頁1-40。
謝世民（2007），〈德沃金式的全球正義觀〉，發表於中正大學哲學系主辦「德沃金的法政哲學」學術研討會。4月27-28日。
謝世民（2008a），〈法律的概念與本質〉，發表於政治大學哲學系主辦「台灣哲學學會2008年度學術研討會：科學、規範與實踐理性」。10月25-26日。
謝世民（2008b），〈德沃金的入世法學〉，《中國時報》。11月1日。A16。
謝世民（2009），〈一種德沃金式的全球正義觀〉，發表於中央研究院人社中心政治思想專題中心主辦「全球正義與世界秩序」學術研討會。12月7-8日。
謝世民（2010），〈論政治義務：初步回應幾點對Ronald Dworkin理論之批評〉，發表於中央研究院人社中心政治思想專題中心主辦「政治秩序與道德秩序：現代性的規範涵蘊」學術研討會。4月29-30日。
鄭哲民（1995），〈美國墮胎權的爭議：Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania, et al.,v. Robert P. Casey, et al.etc.一案之最高法院判決理由分析〉，《美國最高法院重要判例之研究：1990~1992》。焦興鎧編。台北：中研院歐美所。頁105-128。
錢永祥（2001），〈自由主義為什麼關切平等─當代的一個看法〉，《縱欲與虛無之上：現代情境裡的政治倫理》。台北：聯經。頁347-369。
錢永祥（2003），〈道德平等與待遇平等：試探平等概念的二元結構〉，《政治與社會哲學評論》。第6期。頁195-230。
錢滿素、袁華清譯（2006），《審判》。Franz Kafka著。台北：商周。
盧珮玲（2005），《分配平等的兩種觀點：德沃金論資源與沈恩論能力》。清華大學哲學研究所碩士論文。未出版。
薄菁菁（1997），《德我肯論墮胎與安樂死》。中正大學哲學研究所碩士論文。未出版。
戴華（2007），〈德沃金論基因科技所衍生的倫理議題〉，發表於中正大學哲學系主辦「德沃金的法政哲學」學術研討會。4月27-28日。
顏厥安（1998），《法與實踐理性》。台北：允晨。
顏厥安（2002），〈憲政主義的法治向度─由法實證主義檢討憲政法理學的理論與實踐問題〉，《現代性與中國社會文化》。蔡英文、江宜樺編。台北：新台灣人基金會。頁115-188。
顏厥安（2004a），《鼠肝與蟲臂的管制─法理學與生命倫理論文集》。台北：元照。
顏厥安（2004b），《規範、論證與行動─法認識論論文集》。台北：元照。
顏厥安（2005a），《憲邦異式─憲政法理學論文集》。台北：元照。
顏厥安（2005b），《幕垂鴞翔─法理學與政治思想論文集》。台北：元照。
顏厥安（2008），〈德沃金之詮釋主義及其徹底化〉，《中研院法學期刊》。第3期。頁163-200。
蘇文流（1995），〈服從與政治社群：《克里圖》與《辯護》中蘇格拉底的論點初探〉，《政治社群》。陳秀容、江宜樺編。台北：中研院社科所。頁1-22。
顧肅（2006），《自由主義基本理念》。台北：左岸文化。

（二）外文文獻
Ahrensdorf, P. J. (1995) The Death of Socrates and the Life of Philosophy: An Interpretation of Plato’s Phaedo. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Annino, P. G. (1997) An Evaluation of Ronald Dworkin’s Hermeneutical Theory of Law. New York: UMI Company.
Altman, A. (1992) “Fissures in the Integrity of Law’s Empire: Ronald Dworkin and the Rule OF Law” in A. Hunt (ed) Reading Dworkin Critically. New York and Oxford: Berg. pp.157-186.
Arneson, R. J. (2002) “Sovereign Virtue” Ethics, 112(2):367-371.
Aristotle, (1984) The Politics. translated by C. Lord. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.
Badinter, R. and S. Breyer. (ed) (2004) Judges in Contemporary Democracy: An International Conversation. New York and London: New York University Press.
Barker, P. (ed) (1996) Living As Equals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bartlett, S. (2000) “Discursive Democracy and a Democratic Way of Life” in L. E. Hahn (ed) Perspectives on Habermas. Chicago and La Salle, Illinois: Open Court. pp.367-386.
Barron, A. (1992) “Ronald Dworkin and the Challenge of Postmodernism” in A. Hunt (ed) Reading Dworkin Critically. New York and Oxford: Berg. pp.141-156.
Beyleveld, D. and R. Brownsword (2001) Human Dignity in Bioethics and Biolaw. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bix, B. (1993) Law, Language, and Legal Determinacy. Oxford: Clarendon.
Burley, J. (ed) (2004) Dworkin and His Critics. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Brown, A. (2009) Ronald Dworkin’s Theory of Equality: Domestic and Global Perspectives. Basingstoke; New York:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Brown, R. L. (2006) “How Constitutional Theory Found its Soul: The Contributions of Ronald Dworkin” in S. Hershovitz (ed) Exploring Law’s Empire: The Jurisprudence of Ronald Dworkin. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp.41-68.
Casal, P. and A. Williams (2004) “Equality of Resources and Procreative Justice” in J. Burley (ed) Dworkin and His Critics. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. pp.150-169.
Clayton, M. (2004) “A Puzzle about Ethics, Justice, and the Sacred” in J. Burley (ed) Dworkin and His Critics. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. pp.99-110.
Cohen, M. (ed) (1984) Ronald Dworkin and Contemporary Jurisprudence. Totowa, New Jersey: Rowman and Allanheld.
Coleman, J. L. (2001) The Practice of Principle: In Defense of A Pragmatist Approach to Legal Theory. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
Colin, M. M. (1998) Liberalism, Justice, and Markets Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
Cooper, J. M. (ed) (1997) Plato: Complete Works. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company.
Covell, C. (1992) The Defence of Natural Law: A Study of the Ideas of Law and Justice in the Writings of Lon L. Fuller, Michael Oakeshott, F. A. Hayek, Ronald Dworkin and John Finnis. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Culver, K. (2001) “Leaving the Hart-Dworkin Debate” University of Toronto Law Journal. 51(4):367-399.
David, G. B. (2004) “Dworkin, Precedent, confidence and Roe V. Wade” University of Pennsylvania Law Review. 152(3):1221-1253.
Dewey, J. (1980) Democracy and education. in J. Dewey (ed) The middle works, 1899-1924(9) Carbondale & Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press.
Dews, P. (1999). “Communicative Paradigms and the Question of Subjectivity: Habermas, Mead and Lacan” in P. Dews (ed) Habermas: A Critical Reader. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. pp.87-117.
Donohue, B. (2002) “Judicial Hegemony: Dworkin’s Freedom’ Law and the Spectrum of Constitutional Democracies” Ratio Juris 15(3):267-282.
Dyzenhaus, D. (2007) “The Rule of Law as the Rule of Liberal Principle,” in A. Ripstein (ed) Ronald Dworkin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.56-81.
Eberle, E. J. (2002) Dignity and Liberty: Constitutional Visions in Germany and the United States. Westport, Conn: Praeger.
Edgar, A. (2006). Habermas: The Key Concepts. London, New York: Routledge.
Fallon, R. H. Jr. (2003) “Marbury and the Constitutional Mind: A Bicentennial Essay On the Wages of Doctrinal Tension” California Law Review. 91:1-55.
Fallon, R. H. Jr. (2004) The Dynamic Constitution: An Introduction to American Constutional Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Finnis, J. (1996) “Is Natural Law Theory Compatible with Limited Government?” in R. P. George (ed) Natural Law, Liberalism, and Morality: Contemporary Essays. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, pp.1-26.
Fleming, J. E. (2006) “The Place of History and Philosophy in the Moral Reading of the American Constitution” in S. Hershovitz (ed) Exploring Law’s Empire: The Jurisprudence of Ronald Dworkin. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp.23-40.
Foley, E. B. (2001) “Requiem for Hercules” Constitutional Commentary. 18(2):463-479.
Forsyth, M. and M. K.-Soper. (eds) (1996) The Political Classics: Green to Dworkin. New York: Oxford University Press.
Gaffney, P. (1996) Ronald Dworkin on Law as Integrity: Rights as Principles of Adjudication. Lewiston: Mellen University Press.
Galston, W. A. (1986) “Equality of Opportunity and Liberal Theory” in F. S. Lucash (ed) Justice and Equality Here and Now. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, pp.89-107.
Galston, W. A. (2001) “The Obligations of Equality” Review of Politics. 63(3):607-611.
Gardner, J. (2006) “Law’s Aims in Law’s Empire,” in S. Hershovitz (ed) Exploring Law’s Empire: The Jurisprudence of Ronald Dworkin. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.207-223.
Giddens, A. (1998) The Third Way: The Renewal of Social Democracy. Malden, Mass.; Cambridge: Polity Press.
Giddens, A. (2000) The Third Way and Its Critics. Malden, Mass.: Polity Press.
Glassman, R. M. (1989) Democracy and Equality: Theories and Programs for the Modern World. New York: Praeger.
Guest, S. (1997) (second ed) Ronald Dworkin - Jurists: Profiles in Legal Theory. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Gray, J. (2002) Two faces of liberalism. Polity Press.
Habermas, J. (1979) Communicative and the Evolution of Society. translated by T. McCarthy. Boston: Beacon Press.
Habermas, J. (1984) The Theory of Communicative Action, vol.1- Reason and the Rationalization of Society. translated by T. McCarthy. Boston: Beacon Press.
Habermas, J. (1989a) “The Public Sphere: An Encyclopedia Article” in S. E. Bronner and D. M. Kellner (ed) Critical Theory and Society: A Reader. New York: Routledge, Chapman and Hall, Inc.
Habermas, J. (1989b) The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. translated by T. Burger. Oxford: Polity Press.
Habermas, J. (1990) Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action. translated by C. Lenhardt and S. W. Nicholsen. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Habermas, J. (1996) Between Facts and Norms: Contribution to A Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. translated by W. Rehg. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Habermas, J. (1998) The Inclusion of the Other: Studies in Political Theory. C. Cronin and P. D. Greiff (eds) Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Harris, J. (ed) (2001) “Introduction: The Scope and Importance of Bioethics,” in John Harris (ed) Bioethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.1-22.
Hart, H. L. A. (1994) (second ed) The Concept of Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Held, V. (1984) Rights and Goods: Justifying Social Action. New York: The Free Press.
Hegel, G. W. F. (1991) Elements of the Philosophy of Right. A. W. Wood (ed) translated by H. B. Nisbet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hershovitz, S. (ed) (2006) Exploring Law’s Empire: The Jurisprudence of Ronald Dworkin. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Herzog, D. (2002) “How to Think About Equality” Michigan Law Review. 100(6):1621-1639.
Honeyball, S. and J. Walter. (1998) Integrity, Community, and Interpretation: A Critical Analysis of Ronald Dworkin’s Theory of Law. Aldershot: Ashgate/Dartmouth.
Hunt, A. (ed) (1992) Reading Dworkin Critically. New York and Oxford: Berg.
Kamm, F. M. (2004) “Ronald Dworkin’s Views on Abortion and Assisted Suicide” in J. Burley (ed) Dworkin and His Critics. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. pp.218-240.
Kekes, J. (2002) “Objections to Democratic Egalitarianism” Journal of Social Philosophy. 33(2):163-169.
Kellner, D. (2000) “Habermas, the Public Sphere, and Democracy: A Critical Intervention” in L. E. Hahn (ed) Perspectives on Habermas. Chicago and La Salle, Illinois: Open Court. pp.259-287.
Kelly, P. (1996) “Ronald Dworkin: Taking Rights Seriously” in M. Forsyth, and M. K.-Soper (eds) The Political Classics: Green to Dworkin, New York: Oxford
University Press. pp.263-287.
Kleinig, J (1978) “Human Rights, Legal Rights and Social Change” in E. Kamenka and A. E-S Tay (eds) Human Rights: Ideas and Ideologies. London: Edward Arnold Publishers. pp.36-47.
Koh, H. H., and R. C. Slye. (1999) “Deliberative Democracy and Human Rights: An Introduction.” in H. H. Koh, and R. C. Slye (eds) New Haven, Deliberative Democracy and Human Rights. CT: Yale University Press.
Kymlicka, W. (2001) (second ed) Contemporary Political Philosophy: An Introduction. Clarendon Press: Oxford University Press.
Kymlicka, W. (2004) “Dworkin on Freedom and Culture” in J. Burley (ed) Dworkin and His Critics. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. pp.113-133.
Lilla, M. (2001) “Wolves and Lambs” in R. Dworkin, M. Lilla, and R. B. Silvers (eds) The Legacy of Isaiah Berlin. New York: The New York Review of Books. pp.31-42.
Leiter, B. (ed) (2001) Objectivity in Law and Morals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lukes, S. (2001) “An Unfashionable Fox” in R. Dworkin, M. Lilla, and R. B. Silvers (eds) The Legacy of Isaiah Berlin. New York: The New York Review of Books. pp.43-58.
Lyons, D. (1984) “Moral Aspects of Legal Theory” in M. Cohen (ed) Ronald Dworkin and Contemporary Jurisprudence. London: Duckworth. pp.49-69.
MacCormick, N. (1991) “Foreword to the English Edition” in P. Amselek and N. MacCormick (ed) Controversies About Law’s Ontology. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. pp.vii-x.
Mackie, J. (1984) “The Third Theory of Law” in M. Cohen (ed) Ronald Dworkin and Contemporary Jurisprudence. London: Duckworth. pp.161-172.
Macleod, C. M. (1998) Liberalism, Justice, and Markets: A Critique of Liberal Equality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Macleod, C. M. (2002) “Book Reviews: Sovereign Virtue” Canadian Journal of Political Science, 35(1):210-211.
Madison, J., A. Hamilton, and J. Jay. (1987) The Federalist Papers. London: Penguin Books.
Matravers, M. (2002) “Responsibility, Luck, and the ’Equality of What?’ Debate” Political Studies. 50(3):558-572.
McCarthy, T. A. (1978). The Critical Theory of Jürgen Habermas. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
McLeod, I. (1999) Legal Theory. Hampshire: Macmillan.
Montesquieu, (1991) The Spirit of Laws. Vo.1. translated by T. Nugent. Littleton, Colorado: Fred B. Rothman＆Co.
Morrison, W. (1997) Jurisprudence: From the Greeks to Post-Modernism. Cavendish Publishing Limited.
Mulhall, S. and A. Swift. (1996) (second ed) Liberals and Communitarians. Oxford: Blackwell.
Pasquino, P. (2001) “One and Three: Separation of Powers and the Independence of the Judiciary in the Italian Constitution” in J. Ferejohn, J. N. Rakove, and J. Riley. (eds) Constitutional Culture and Democratic Rule. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp.205-222.
Perry, M. J. (1988) Morality, Politics and Law: A Bicentennial Essay. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
Pettit, P. (1997) Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and Government. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Plato, (2000) The Trial and Death of Socrates: Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, Death Scene From Phaedo. translated by G. M. A. Grube. Indianapolis, I N: Hackett.
Plaw, A. (2004) “Why Monist Critiques Feed Value Pluralism: Ronald Dworkin’s Critique of Isaiah Berlin” Social Theory and Practice. 30(1):105-126.
Plaxton, M. (2008) “Arguments of Virtue and Constitutional Criminal Procedure”University of Toronto Law Journal 58:355-376.
Posner, R. A. (1990) The Problems of Jurisprudence. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Posner, R. A. (1995) Overcoming Law. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Posner, R. A. (1999) The Problematics of Moral and Legal Theory. Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Priel, D. (2007) “Book Review: In Search of Argument” Texas Law Review 86:141-164.
Rakowski, E. (2001) “Ronald Dworkin, Reverence for Life, and the Limits of State Power” Utilitas. 13(1):33-64.
Rasmussen, D. M. (1996). “How is Valid Law Possible? A Review of Between Facts and Nroms by Jürgen Habermas” In M. Deflem (ed) Habermas, Modernity, and Law. London: Sage Publications. pp.21-44.
Rawls, J. (1993) Political Liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press.
Rawls, J. (1999) (revised ed) A Theory of Justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Raz, J. (1979) The Authority of Law: Essays on Law and Morality. Oxford: Clarendon.
Raz, J. (1986) The Morality of Freedom. Clarendon Press: Oxford University Press.
Raz, J. (1994) Ethics in the Public Domain: Essays in the Morality of Law and Politics. Clarendon Press: Oxford University Press.
Raz, J. (2004) “Speaking with One Voice: On Dworkinian Integrity and Coherence”in J. Burley (ed) Dworkin and His Critics. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. pp.285-290.
Ripstein, A (ed) (2007) Ronald Dworkin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ripstein, A (2007) “Introduction: Anti-Archimedeanism” and “Liberty and Equality”in A. Ripstein (ed) Ronald Dworkin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.1-21; 82-108.
Rosenfeld, M. (2001) “The Rule of Law and the Legitimacy of Constitutional Democracy” Southern California Law Review. 74:1307-1351.
Rorty, R. (1988). “The Priority of Democracy to Philosophy” in The Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom. M. D. Peterson and R. C. Vaughan (ed) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp.257-282.
Rorty, R. (1991). Objectivity, Relativism and Truth: Philosophical Papers Vol.1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sandel, M. (1984) (ed) Liberalism and Its Critics. New York: New York University Press.
Sandel, M. (1996a) “Judgemental Toleration” in R. P. George (ed) Natural Law, Liberalism, and Morality: Contemporary Essays. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, pp.107-112.
Sandel, M. (1996b) Democracy’s Discontent: America in Search of a Public Philosophy. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Sandel, M. (1998) (second ed) Liberalism and the Limits of Justice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sandel, M. (2005) Public Philosophy: Essays on Morality in Politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Scheffler, S. (2003a) “What is Egalitrianism?” Philosophy and Public Affairs 31(1):5-39.
Scheffler, S. (2003b) “Equality as the Virtue of Sovereign: A Reply to Ronald Dworkin” Philosophy and Public Affairs 31(2):199-206.
Schneider, C. (2000) “The Constitutional Protection of Rights in Dworkin’s and Habermas’ Theories of Democracy” UCL Jurisprudence Review. pp.101-121.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1976) Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. London: George Allen and Unwin.
Shapiro, I. (ed) (2001) Abortion the Supreme Court Decisions. Indianapolis, Ind: Hackett Publishing Company.
Shapiro, S. J. (2007) “The ‘Hart-Dworkin’ Debate: A Short Guide for the Perplexed”in A. Ripstein (ed) Ronald Dworkin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp.22-55.
Shorey, P. (1958) What Plato Said. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Srzednicki, J. T. J. (1976) Elements of Social and Political Philosophy. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.
Sunstein, C. R. (1996) Legal Reasoning and Political Conflict. New York: Oxford University Press.
Sunstein, C. R. (1999) One Case at A Time: Judicial Minimalism on the Supreme Court. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Stavropoulos, N. (1996) Objectivity in Law. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Stone, I. F. (1989) The Trial of Socrates. New York: Anchor Books.
Taylor, C. (1989) “Cross-Purposes: The Liberal- mmunitarian Debate” in Rosenblum (ed) Liberalism and the Moral Life. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. pp.159-182.
Tebbit, M. (2000) Philosophy of Law: An Introduction. London and New York: Routledge.
Tucker, D. F. B. (1995) The Rehnquist Court and Civil Rights. Aldershot: Dartmouth.
Waldeon, J. (1993) Liberal Rights. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Waldron, J. (2004) “The Rule of Law as a Theater of Debate” in J Burley (ed) Dworkin and His Critics. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. pp.319-336.
Walzer, M. (1990) “The Communitarian Critique of Liberalism.” Political Theory. 18(1):6-23.
Weinreb, L. L. (1996) “The Moral Point of View” in R. P. George (ed) Natural Law, Liberalism, and Morality: Contemporary Essays. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, pp.195-212.
White, S. K. (1988). The Recent Work of Jürgen Habermas: Reason, Justice and Modernity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wihl, G. S. (2004) “Fish and Dworkin on the Work of Interpretation in a Democracy”in G. A. Olson and L. Worsham. (ed) Postmodern Sophistry. Albany: State University of New York Press. pp.75-96.
Williams, A (2002a) “Equality for the Ambitious: Critial Study” Philosophical Quarterly, 52(208):377-389.
Williams, A. (2002b) “Dworkin on Capability” Ethics. 113(1):23-39.
Woozley, A. D. (1984) “No Right Answer” in M. Cohen (ed) Ronald Dworkin and Contemporary Jurisprudence. London: Duckworth. pp.173-181.
Zipursky, B. C. and J. E. Fleming (2007) “Right, Responsibilities and Reflections on the Sanctity of Life” in A. Ripstein. (ed) Ronald Dworkin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp.109-135.
Zuckert, M. P. (1996) “Is Modern Liberalism Compatible with Limited Government?”in R. P. George (ed) Natural Law, Liberalism, and Morality: Contemporary Essays. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press. pp.49-85.