Theorizing Areas of Law: A Taxonomy of Special Jurisprudence

This paper provides a taxonomy of the different kinds of theory that may be offered of an area of law. We distinguish two basic types of philosophical accounts in special jurisprudence: non-normative accounts and normative accounts. Section II explains the two central subspecies of non-normative accounts of areas of law: (i) conceptual and ontological theories and (ii) reason-tracking causal theories. Section III explores normative theories of areas of law. Normative accounts sub-divide into detached and committed normative accounts. Detached or committed normative accounts can be subdivided further into the following cross-cutting categories: (i) pro tanto or all-things-considered, (ii) hyper-reformist or practice-dependent. Section IV shows that our taxonomy does not presume a prior commitment to any particular school in general jurisprudence. This paper clarifies methodological confusion that exists in theorising about areas of law, and contributes to the sub-field of thinking generally about special jurisprudence. (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) evaluatively best (vii) the instance of a kind reason(s)