We describe transmission of Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase-producing Escherichia coli sequence type (ST) 1193 in a group home. E. coli ST1193 is an emerging multidrug-resistant clone not previously shown to carry carbapenemases in the United States. Our investigation illustrates the potential of residential group homes to amplify rare combinations of pathogens and resistance mechanisms.

This article provides a scheme of intelligibility for correlativity, recognising its importance for analytical and normative aspects of legal relations. It considers a variety of types of normative correlativity, investigates the logic of correlativity, and distinguishes three forms of correlation involving legal rights. It undertakes careful re-examination of Aristotelian texts to reveal neglected or misrepresented insights, restores certain Hohfeldian distinctions, and argues for a more complicated relationship between correlativity and reciprocity than previously acknowledged. Specific sections employ the scheme to provide critiques of Weinrib’s use of correlativity in his understanding of private law as corrective justice, and Zylberman’s amalgam of reciprocal correlativity in his non-instrumental view of human rights. A brief concluding section notes the deep asymmetry of law and suggests an understanding of corrective justice based on asymmetry rather than equality. More speculatively, it raises doubts about the core conviction of Kantian thinking on legal and social relationships.

Fundamental legal conceptions are considered in relation to the analytical concerns of Hohfeld and Bentham, and also in relation to the normative concerns of constitutional and common law protection of rights and liberties. The use of a square of opposition to expound fundamental conceptions is rejected in favour of “a triangle of possibilities”. It is argued that using this device helps to provide a clearer understanding of which conceptions may appropriately be recognised as analytically fundamental, and in turn avoids confusion over the normative treatment of practical situations that may arise through the designation of legal rights and liberties as “fundamental”. In particular, the nature of legal liberties, and the priority accorded to legal rights, are both questioned.

This essay considers the growing interest in the methodology of jurisprudence in the context of a broader examination of the relationship between legal theory and the practice of law. Attention is drawn to the particular puzzles of how theory can both be independent of and yet inform practice, and how methodology can take a similar stance towards theory. Through a detailed analysis of the methodological positions adopted by Dworkin, Raz, and Coleman and Simchen, the conclusion is reached that methodology is not a resource capable of offering an independent assessment of the merits of competing theories.

Mainstream jurisprudential discussion is traced through the Hart-Dworkin debate to assumptions on the relationship between theory and practice initially adopted by Hart and sustained by subsequent contributors. The morbid condition of a prominent part of contemporary jurisprudence is identified with an unwarranted elevation of theory over practice. A more fruitful role for theory is suggested, in expounding the controversies met in the practice of law and considering the potential that exists for resolving them. It is suggested that this approach breaks down an artificial divide between descriptive and normative jurisprudence.

A number of ancillary matters are discussed in the essay including: semantic (and metasemantic) approaches to legal theory, Dworkin’s semantic sting, the distinction between methodological and theoretical elements of Law's Empire, Dickson on the ‘indirectly evaluative approach’, the position of Hart in his Postscript, and Raz's split theory of legal reasoning and law.

Allan Hutchinson’s recent book, The Province of Jurisprudence Democratized, is regarded as presenting the opportunity for considering what is involved in seeking to establish the province of jurisprudence as a distinctive field of inquiry. The scale of Hutchinson’s ambition matches John Austin’s original efforts to determine the Province of Jurisprudence, but seeks to replace an analytical approach to jurisprudence he associates with Austin by a theoretical approach committed to advancing “strong” democracy. This provokes an initial reflection on the nature of theoretical disageement, and in particular disagreement which goes beyond trivial theoretical contestability so as to contest the nature of the subject matter that is being investigated by establishing an appropriate field of inquiry for it. Three different techniques are introduced which are capable of demarcating the subject matter of jurisprudence through establishing a field of inquiry favouring a particular theoretical viewpoint: axiomatic disengagement, ambitious insight, and a split field of inquiry.

Hutchinson’s principal concern with the democratization of law, legal theory, and the province of jurisprudence is examined in detail. The process of democratization and its anti-elitist character is traced through Hutchinson’s opposition to the aloof philosophical analysis of the universal in favour of an engagement with local and particular issues. However, the weight Hutchinson places on his conception of strong democracy, so as to provide a different understanding of the the law-power nexus and of the relationship between law and morality operating in strong democracies, is shown to be misplaced. Two related failings are pointed out. First, there is a failure to recognize competing groupings within the people, which contradict the uniform collective body Hutchinson associates with those formerly governed by elites and then constituting those liberated to exercise self-governance. Secondly, this links into Hutchinson’s exclusive preoccupation with the participatory axis of democracy – which he regards as the core feature of strong democracy, and at the same time the basis for the law-power nexus and the law-morality relationship within a strong democracy. This is revealed as an inadequate and impoverished understanding of democracy once the presence of competing groupings within the people is acknowledged. Hutchinson’s one-dimensional representation of democracy along a participatory-representational continuum is rejected for failing to recognize a distinct fiduciary-beneficiary axis, which a richer understanding of “for the people” conveys. These corrections have important consequences for a role for law that cannot be reduced solely to politics, and for a broader sweep to analytical jurisprudence than Hutchinson allows.

Hutchinson’s own efforts to capture the province of jurisprudence are then assessed. These are recharacterized as seeking to establish within a split field of inquiry a theory of strong democratic law, but, in the absence of a convincing account of the nature of democracy and its relationship with law, the project is judged to be unfulfilled.

This review of Margaret Martin’s book, Judging Positivism, considers the three levels on which her book operates as an intricate study of the principal works of Joseph Raz; a challenging critique of legal positivism, and a thoughtful reflection on the potential of legal theory. The main focus of the review is Martin’s argument against Raz’s exclusive positivism, which proceeds by identifying a change in the premises or theses of Raz’s theory of law over the course of his different writings, and then making an accusation of inconsistency and incoherence against Raz. The review examines the nature of Martin’s accusation and suggests some possible responses to it. It also comments on the relationship between Martin’s assessment of Raz and her wider rejection of legal positivism, and on her related concerns for the potential of legal theory.

Joseph Raz’s recent discussion of law’s autonomy and public practical reasons, in response to an essay by Gerald Postema, provides further illumination of Raz’s own view of the nature of law; it forcefully challenges Postema’s purported identification of the defining task of law; and it clarifies the relationships between a number of strands, or theses, that enter the debate over an appropriate theoretical model for law. It is not necessary to locate this discussion within the more general setting of the conflict between Natural Law and Positivism—nor is it in any case clear that that sharp contrast is sustainable. Within the traditionally accentuated divide between Natural Law and Positivism, to talk of the autonomy of law would be taken as a simple positivist proclamation against the subjugation of law to moral standards. What emerges from Raz’s article is a subtle interplay between different characteristics and expressions of the law, which is capable of entertaining moral influence and social objective whilst retaining clear theses that seek to capture the distinctively legal nature of the phenomenon under investigation.

In Raz’s recent article, the distinctive nature of law is still linked to an idea of autonomy expounded in terms of the sources thesis and the pre-emption thesis. The former identifies legal materials with legal sources free from the constraints of a further evaluative check, and the latter provides legal reasons to act for those subject to the law free from the consideration of further extra-legal factors. The greater sophistication of this concept of autonomy rests on the allowance Raz gives to the impact of moral factors and issues of social cooperation on legal reasoning, and his acknowledgment that legal reasoning itself is not autonomous.

Fascination with the Coase Theorem arises over its apparently unassailable counterintuitive conclusion that the imposition of legal liability has no effect on which of two competing uses of land prevails, and also over the general difficulty in tying down an unqualified statement of the theorem. Instead of entering the debate over what exactly the theorem holds, this article suggests that the core of Coase's reasoning is flawed and to the extent that any version of the theorem relies upon this reasoning it can be disproved. The article commences by modelling the nature of the counter-intuitive thrust to the Coase Theorem, which is used to trace the development of Coase's reasoning, and ultimately to expose the flaw it contains. The heart of the article comprises the allegation of an error made by Coase when he transferred his core argument to the context of economic rents. Ancillary observations are made on the relationship between the Coasean analysis of characteristically legal problems and the conditions of general market equilibrium, and the theoretical status of Law-and-Economics.

This article engages with Jaffey's recent contribution on the nature of no-prior-duty remedial obligations. Jaffey's use of a right-liability relation and his challenge to Hohfeld's analytical scheme are rejected as unsound. An alternative model distinguishing three pathways to account for remedial obligations and other legal consequences is proposed. This draws on the Hohfeldian scheme but extends it to permit the full expression of reflexive liabilities, mutually correlative liabilities, and the operation of nonhuman conditions. The proposed approach also recognizes a weaker form of a Hohfeldian power, which is required in considering the way that the law deals with the allocation and realization of risk.