Dworkin is a well-known jurist who expanded the ingredients of law by arguing that reliance on

rules alone cannot define law. The fact that principle application is a legal reality, as evidenced
by hard cases, provides a more convincing theory about the nature of law. Along with it,
Dworkin introduces the idea that law is interconnected rather than isolated, which he compares
to a chain novel metaphor. Because principles are preferred over rules in difficult cases, it may
appear that such interpretation makes law inconsistent, unclear, and lacking in coherence. In
order for us to reach a sound conclusion, he must first shed light on Dworkin's entire theory
before arriving at a rational-driven conclusion.
Ronald Dworkin based his legal theory on Hart's legal theory criticism. Hart stated that the law is
a set of rules, validated by the rule of recognition, that govern the behaviour of the state, and
that individuals and people follow the law because of their own and society's reflective attitude,
which he refers to as the Internal and External Points of View. According to Dworkin, this is not
a consistent theory because it primarily disregards the application of principles, as seen in the
cases of R vs. R and Riggs vs. Palmer. Judges have applied principles in difficult cases where
there is no law or the existing law results in a travesty of justice, but Hart does not take them
into account. Hart responds by stating that the rule of recognition requires judges in such cases
to create new laws. Dworkin responds with a critical principle that will be violated. He writes that
this will undercut democracy and violate the separation of powers. As a result of this crisis,
Dworkin introduces principles that judges should follow in difficult cases. These are based on
justice, fairness, and equality and aim to serve the larger interest of justice. The principles are
abstract and vary from case to case rather than being applied in a "all or nothing" fashion.
This can be seen in the case of Donoghue vs. Stevenson, where the courts applied the
neighbour principle to avoid a violation of consumer rights and ensure justice was served.
Similarly, in the aforementioned case of Riggs vs. Palmer, the incumbent law stated that the
will's beneficiary would be awarded the estate, but in the case scenario, the beneficiary was
also a murderer. The courts ruled that no one could benefit from their crime, so the grandson
who murdered his grandfather was not given a beneficial interest in the estate.
Dworkin expanded on his theory by stating that there is always one correct answer in any given
situation. It is up to the judges' perseverance and dedication to find such right answer, which
means that while the current law may be incapable of catering to the needs of justice, this does
not imply that the law is incapable of providing right answer. The fact that lower court decisions
are overturned by the higher courts demonstrates that justice is to be found by the judges
themselves. It was more clearly demonstrated when the superior court's decision was held not
to be binding on the fellow judges, allowing them to deviate from the rational provided. Lord
Gardener stated this in 1966, mandating Supreme Court judges to depart from established
principle.
However, Dworkin introduces an ideal judge, Judge Hercules, who aids in understanding such
notions in his one right answer thesis. Dworkin claims that JH is a judge who is well-versed in
the law and all established precedents. When deciding the fate of any case, he will undoubtedly
consider all of the principles and rules. Such a judge will not be prejudiced and will not allow his
subjective thoughts to influence his decisions. This can be seen in the case of Lady Arden, the
Supreme Court's first female judge. As a result, her own opinion has weight, as evidenced by
the case of Stack vs. Dowden, in which Lady Hale ruled that non-monetary contributions can
result in the acquisition of a share in land. This decision is solely based on the fact that she was
raised in society as a woman.
Dworkin then continued his explanation of the law and introduced the concept of law as
integrity. This means that law is not created in isolation but is linked to all previous law. The
rationale behind such a well-thought-out statement was that the law emerges from the moral
fabric of society, as morality plays an equal role in the creation and interpretation of the law.
This concept can be understood using the example of a chain novel, in which each chapter is
linked to the chapter before it. The case of Donoghue vs. Stevenson helps us understand this
because the neighbour principle was borrowed from the Bible, which says to "respect thy
neighbours." Even in later cases, the law developed in company law for the lifting of the
corporate veil demonstrates that all of the cases of Solomon, Macura, Lee, and Giles were
linked and reiterated a similar concept.
Along with this, Dworkin mentions that, as previously stated, law can only be interpreted and not
written down. The interpretation process is divided into three stages: pre-interpretative,
interpretative, and post-interpretative. The process progresses from practise without rationale to
practise with rationale and then to complete change of practise due to changes in societal
norms.
As a result, three interpretation approaches exist: the conventional approach, pragmatism, and
the integrity approach. In the first approach, judges will rigidly interpret the law and apply it as it
is. This conforms to the literal interpretation of the law. The second theory holds that the judges
show no compliance with the rules and rely entirely on the principles, which are viewed from a
very practical standpoint. This aligns with the concept of realism, as judges use their discretion
when adjudicating. The final approach, which Dworkin favours, is known as the integrity
approach, in which judges are required to interpret the law by reading rules in accordance with
principles and determining whether the fit is compatible with the substance. Fit refers to the law,
whereas substance refers to arguments based on fairness and equality.
Given the preceding discussion, it is safe to say that Dworkin's theory of law does not lack
coherence, clarity, or consistency because it is based on logical inference. Dworkin defines law
as anything that is founded on rules and principles rather than policy. Except for a few
revolutionary exceptions, law is always connected with previous law, and that is how courts
have applied the law. This makes sense because stare decisis is a well-established legal
concept that is generally followed by the courts. Since courts have relied on principles and rules
to adjudicate cases, and these cases have been upheld by lower courts, it is clear that
Dworkin's theory of law is not only coherent, but also entails consistency and clarity in the legal
system.