Jurisprudence Q&A

TRANSCRIPT
Hello, everyone. Hopefully you can see me and hear me. I'm Professor Jill Marshall. I'm here for
the live Q&A, question and answers, for your jurisprudence module. As I'm sure you all know, I'm
the module convener for jurisprudence for the University of London here. The aim really of today
is to try to put your minds at rest. I know this is a really uncertain time for many reasons. What I'd
like to do is to make you feel a bit more confident about your ability to be able to perform well in
the exam, and to give you some pointers, and to answer the questions that have particularly
come in over the last few days on the discussion forum. There's quite a lot of questions. I've tried
to group those together, and we have them on some slides. I will talk around those.
We are going to look at the questions, as I said, that you've already sent me in the forum. They
did relate a lot to Part A. There were also some substantive questions in relation to both Part A
and Part B. Then we'll have, hopefully, we'll have quite a bit of time for other questions that you
may ask, which you can feed through.
In terms of thinking about this, I do want you to really think that this is important even if you feel
you know all of this already, because often this is something which students don't do when we
mark exam papers. It's really to think about how to answer the question, how to structure the
question. There have actually been quite a few questions that you sent through like this, and
maybe also particularly in relation to Part A, which I'll come on to.
In terms of thinking then about answering a question, obviously read the whole exam paper
thoroughly and calmly as much as you can in the circumstances. I know it's difficult because
you're in an exam, but really think strategically about which questions you want to answer, and
then do plan for those.
When you start writing, and this is where planning can maybe come in as well, think about
interpreting the question. You have to interpret the question and explain that to the examiner.
Now, the first point really to think is, do not think that anything is too obvious. The examiner, of
course, will know the information that you're imparting, that you're writing down, but we need
to know that you know it. Set out clearly in a clear introduction, and if you like you could put a
heading, introduction. Obviously, make it clear which question you're answering.
Set out how you've interpreted the question. That means what you think it means. You've got to
set out what you think it means. Do that, then in your introduction, explain why you've
interpreted the question the way you have, and how are you answering the question. For
example, "The answer to this question will be explained by reference to three themes. The first
theme, namely, " and you set out whatever it might be, let's just say justice. It will briefly explain
that and you may be put a sentence. Then in my second theme, equality. I will explore the
meaning of that. Then in the third, I'd set something out again regarding what the theme is.
That's just a quick off the cuff example. You set it out. Three often seems to be good because it
sticks in people's minds, but it doesn't have to be in three parts. You can explain that away in
whichever ways you like, and maybe have five parts, two main sections, however you wish to do
it. Set out clearly in your introduction how you're going to do that.

Page 1 of 11
Now, often I think students think that theirs is like a model answer, and there isn't a model
answer. Obviously, this is a legal subject. You do need to be legally rigorous. You need to refer to
sources, you need to have credible sources. You need to set out in your introduction, as I've said,
then how you're going to make rigorous legal intelligent arguments.
I've put here start with a hook or something punchy, obviously, you don't need to, but this is
probably going to grab the examiner's attention in some way. You might think of a quote,
someone that you find is particularly relevant to that question, because, obviously, it does all
have to relate to the question asked.
I always set out in these slides, and when I'm explaining to any of my students this, what, how,
and why. What you're going to do has to be set out in your introduction, how you're going to do
it. What are you going to be arguing? What position are you going to take? Or you're going to
set out but compare and contrast two theorists, and how are you going to do that? "I'll be doing
it in three parts by reference to the themes of justice, equality and fairness," whatever it might
be leading to the question, and why are you doing that? Because you've explained this is, of
course, particularly important or essential in answering the question asked, which relates to A, B
and C.
Now, you may all think you know that and this is really basic, but you will not believe how many
times students do not do this, and they just launch straight into perhaps maybe a very core
difficult argument, which might be better set out in paragraph five or something or further
down in the main body of their essay. Don't forget to do that. That applies to Part A and Part B,
okay? All of these points apply to both sections or both parts of your Jurisprudence exam.
When you're doing your plan, ideally, you'd be thinking-- You might write down a list of bullet
points, then you might group those bullet points maybe in terms of thinking of the best
structure, and then you start writing the prose, you start writing the actual essay itself. Think,
how does it look? Maybe you're citing quite repetitive. Maybe what you've said further down
would be better further up. If time permits, you can restructure a little bit, and that's maybe why
I'm thinking do more time in preparation. Obviously, you need to leave yourself enough time to
fill exam.
Think, is your essay as excellently presented as you can give it and do it? Is it written in plain
English that is understandable and comprehensible with short sentences? Ideally, again, that's to
make it clearer to anybody reading it, the examiners, the markers reading your paper. Do you
think it makes sense when you read it back? Is it clearly organized? You can use headings if you
wish to. They're often useful, but don't let that detract from the flow, perhaps, of your argument.
It's good then to link each section into the other, maybe just with a sentence, "I will now go on to
examine that point in more detail," and then go into the next point with maybe a new heading.
Obviously, we know in the circumstances there will be spelling errors, et cetera, but try to do
your best with spelling. You need to set out the examiner for the marker, maybe things that you
think are very basic. For example, if it's a question on Dworkin, make sure that you set out the
basics of Dworkin, but structure it in such a way that you feel is really answering the question
that has been asked, and focus in then on whatever the particular specialty or expertise is
required from the actual question asked.
I'm going to move on then. Obviously, again, these are very basic things, but we need to know
that you know them right. You need to know in relation to Part A, that the case is the Conway
case in the Court of Appeal. The Part A guidance, which is set out on the VLE, is the most
important document for you to access and to look at for that purpose. You do need to have read
the case yourself. You need to download it. You need to read it. You need to make notes on it,
and you need to feel it. You should know it very well. What we're then looking for is a

Page 2 of 11
combination of you intertwining the facts of the case, which you do need to spell out, but don't
spend a great deal of your essay doing that, because that's not the object of doing Part A, or with
that have in your mind what is the object of doing Part A.
What we want you to do is to apply the theories, and the theories this year are Dworkin theories
of adjudication and judicial interpretation of law. That's one. Or Natural law, or liberalism and the
law. There will be one question on each in the exam paper in Part A. Question one will be about
that Dworkin. Question two will be about Natural law, and question three will be about
liberalism and law. You only do one question.
You have to think about the overall purpose of Part A, what is Part A for. It's for you to exhibit
your knowledge of the case of the facts and decision, and intertwine that in some way with the
theories, whichever theories you choose there to answer question one, or question two or
question three.
Now, I have been asked quite a lot of questions about the structure, et cetera. We'll move on to
that in a second. It's really for you to decide and to set out in your introduction how you're going
to answer it, and why you've chosen to answer it that way.
It is important to remember we do not want you just to talk about the case. This is not a subject
where we just want you to explore the ins and outs of the facts, the ins and outs of the decision.
We don't want you to talk in great length for most of your essay on that. On the Part A guidance,
you will see that it says, if you spend all of the essay just talking about the case, then that will
have failed to do the exercise properly.
Then on the flip side, if you spend the whole essay just talking about a theory, so if you only talk
about Dworkin, and then don't mention the case or even just mention the case in a couple of
lines, that will not be answering the question, and that will failed to do Part A correctly.
Let's look at some of the questions in relation to this that have already come through. I have
grouped these really in terms of structure and style, and then also maybe more substantive
points.
In terms of structure and style, I'm linking theory to the set case. You've asked what is the exact
format to answering the question? For example, do we state what the case is about first then
discuss the law theory involved then follow up with how they are or are not connected to each
other? Do we need to state a defense and criticism of the theory? Are we required to cite the
cases listed in the Conway case?
In these three questions, I've slightly sort of paraphrased them and grouped some together. In
terms of the exact format, this is actually the way that this student has set the cite signs pretty
sensible. If you set that out in your introduction explaining that how you're going to answer the
question, then I think this sounds pretty good. Obviously, then the substance has to follow up.
Do we state what the case is about first? You can state what the case is about first, but when I say
first, after your introduction. Explain in your introduction all the things I've already said. Then go
on to the facts of the case, something like that, which may only be very short, like paragraph,
two paragraphs. Then discuss, let's just say it's on Dworkin, a bit of Dworkin. Then you can go on
to intertwine them more how they are or not connected to each other. Then you have a
conclusion.
Obviously, Part A is still answering an essay. You still have to write it as an essay. It's not like a
case note, or anything that you may think is more mechanical or technical. It's an essay with a
good flow, written in proper English, et cetera.

Page 3 of 11
You can do it that way, but you don't have to do it that way. You could still have an introduction,
explaining what you're going to do and why. Then you would talk about a bit of Dworkin. Let's
just stick with Dworkin, and say you've chosen that question. You would say a little bit about
Dworkin, and then maybe say, I see this clearly in the case, or the case demonstrates that this is
not the case. It's not the situation that we're seeing. You can argue it either way and intertwine
then the Dworkin theory with the aspects of different parts of the case.
Now, just in relation to the second and third bullet points there, do we need to state a defense
and criticism of the theory? I think that would be best. Yes. It's always good, in any question or in
any essay that you're doing on a theorist, to set out, on the one hand, positive points about the
theory, and on the other, negative or disadvantages to using the theory. You can draw them on
other theorists and bring them in, in their criticisms of whatever the theorist is that you're talking
about. Always remember the question and relate everything back to the question. If you start
talking about Hart, if you start talking about Kelson, for example, and the question is about
Dworkin, explain why you're doing that. Then make sure that when you maybe look at your
essay in completion, that most of it hasn't been on the other theorists. You don't want it to be
nearly on Kelson when it's particularly asking you about Dworkin, because you will, again, have
failed to answer the question properly.
All the cases cited in Conway, you do not have to cite them, but you may find that some of them
are particularly relevant to answering the question on the theorist or the theory that you've
chosen in the set case, question of Part A. Therefore, feel free to talk about those other cases, but
your main focus should be Conway and Conway's analysis of those cases. That means you do not
obviously need to go and read those real cases yourself. Only what is said in Conway about
them. That's sort of that.
Then, other questions we've been asked in relation to Natural law and Dworkin and the set case.
The question has asked, in relation to Natural law theory, what will be the areas that we need to
go through? Is the question based on general Natural law theory, or is it specific? Usually, in Part
B, Natural law questions are specific, based on a certain theory to analyze acts in a particular
Natural law theory. Does a similar approach apply?
Let's just read this question first. Examiners can set whichever questions they like. I'm afraid I
cannot tell you what the question's going to say. There will be some question, and I think this is
obviously a real great help for you, something about Natural law. You know Natural law is going
to come up. That can take a very general question, and it can also be quite specific. It might
focus on particular theorist of Natural law, or it might be more general. It might be on classical
Natural law, it might be more modern Natural law. It might ask you specific issues why Natural
law, and ask you to relate it to the question.
That's all I can tell you, because you need to revise on the basis of everything about Natural law
that you think might come up, and then use that information in an original way in your exam to
answer the question.
I think also it's not necessarily the case that say that in Part B, it's usually more specific because
that's not always the case are. In Part B, there will definitely be a Natural law question, because
there has been in Part A, but it might be very general, or it might be quite specific. All I can say is
that it's very specific. Don't forget what I said earlier about setting everything in context by not
going to the really core difficult things, first of all, set out in your introduction how you're going
to answer it, and then explain the context of perhaps Natural law, if you find that's going to be
useful, and set that out in your introduction that that's what you're going to do.

Page 4 of 11
There was a particular question about that as well, in terms of, "Can I go into more detail in terms
of the downfall of Natural law theory and then the revival of it again?" Yes you can. Set that out
in your introduction, as long as you think it's relevant to the question asked.
Please advise on what possible questions or areas when it comes to Part A, under the Dworkin's
approach. As I said, again, I can't tell you because that would be giving you the exam questions,
which I can't do. What you need to go in, if you think I want to do Dworkin, I want to do a
Dworkin question, is to feel that you revised that, that you know everything by Dworkin as much
as you would like to, and have perhaps different plans that if there's more focus on principles
and policies, what would I say? If it's more focused on interpretation, what would I say? If there's
more focusing more on literature, what would I say? If there's more focus on Hercules, what
would I say, et cetera? Or if there's very general questions on Dworkin, what would I say? Try and
do your plans and your revision on that basis.
Still send some questions relating to these ideas of Part A and Part B. A question has been asked,
"Will all three sections which come in Part A definitely come up in Part B?" I can answer that
question very straightforwardly by saying yes. All of the topics listed in Part A guidance will
appear. That's just the one, two, three, so Dworkin, Natural law, Liberalism and law will appear as
questions in Part B. They will usually, and I'm pretty sure they will this time, come up with
questions four, five, and six.
You can look at past exam papers on this, look back at all those, much information on the VLE
about that, in terms of past papers. You'll see four, five, and six, as this is obviously the more
recent years of past papers because this system only came in a couple of years ago, with the set
case, anything that relates to the set case. Obviously, bear in mind that the themes of the set
case will change each year. The set case itself changes each year, and the numbering will
change.
What I told you is the number. We've got Dworkin, question one. Question two is on Natural law.
Question three is on Liberalism and law. Then question four, five, and six will correspond, and it
will clearly be set out that you are not allowed to answer this question if you answered question
one or question two or question three. That will be clearly set out in your exam paper. Do not
answer the questions you're not supposed to in Part B when you've answered it in Part A. I think
you can see there's three topics that will definitely be up in Part B.
Obviously, the exam paper is much longer than that, and there will be other topics that come up
too, and you can answer as you wish from Part B. Just in terms of the new guidance on that, I'd
really just refer you really to Simon Askey and his videos and information about any changes
that have been made on the basis of the current crisis.
Again, which I mentioned earlier, I highly recommend, and it's essential, isn't it, to read the
whole exam paper first. I hope you know that, to read the whole exam paper first, and then
strategically to decide, when I say strategically decide, think which you feel you really excel in as
the most, so you can answer the best.
Some more questions here that have been asked in the forum, Dworkin. These are perhaps
much more substantive, detailed questions. The question has asked, "Is there, in Dworkin's, an
adjudication theory of law, an unconscious bias, something akin to a policy or a political theory
on how certain cases ought to be decided?" Then the student asked, "If so, isn't Dworkin
implicitly smuggling in personal views?" They then seek to contrast that with Carlson, which,
perhaps in the way it's phrased, Carlson's preferable because he's not smuggling in his personal
views.
You can argue this, and you can set this out. You substantiate whatever point, an argument that
you're giving, with the original source material. You talk and refer to Dworkin's original material.
Page 5 of 11
You can talk about Penner or another textbook as whatever it said in Freeman's and Lloyd's
jurisprudence in any of the secondary resources on Dworkin. You could talk another type of
thing, but it would depend on another type of theorist or theory. I don't want you to spend too
long on the other theories if the question is really focused on Dworkin.
Try to think about in terms of the essay itself has to be the majority about Dworkin, but you can,
of course, with that, must refer to the criticisms of Dworkin, depending on what the question is
asking you. This is a very intelligent point that this student has made because it's thinking about
policies and principles and some other questions around this aspect of Dworkin's theory. There
have been criticisms made of Dworkin that basically when he's talking about principles and
policies, he's talking about rules or he's talking about policies or sometimes a policy could be a
principle.
Now, Dworkin would dispute that. You set out any criticism, referring to the theorists, and then
you say, "Well, but Dworkin refutes this and he said that principles and policies are really dealing
with quite different things. The principles are talking about the rights of individuals. The policies
are more utilitarian based, based on what politicians do, or what the legislator or the executive is
doing, and not what judges do, et cetera, et cetera."
Now, another intelligent question, "Is it too much to ask judges to behave the way that Dworkin
presupposes"?
Again, this is for you students to set out in your essay that you think this is the case or you think
this isn't the case. It can be argued both ways. In an intelligent and rational legal argument and
essay, you would set out, on the one hand, and on the other hand, both sides of the argument,
and explain which you find is more convincing and why. You may be taking the view that judges
are being asked to do too much. This is an idea of an ideal judge. How can anyone be an ideal
person? Judges are people, et cetera, et cetera.
Does this theory mean there's a two-tiered legal system, standard and hard cases, and that
instead of promoting equality before the law, we sacrifice equal access to law, depending on
resources available to argue cases? I've linked this below. I think the person who asked the
question also linked this to the first question under Dworkin Marxism. Really this seems to be
relating to me to be a question relating to who has access to the law.
If you do not have access to the law, how can we even talk about hard and standard cases, or
how can you even think about rights and principles when perhaps you can't even access the
legal system, for whatever reason to do with resources? That could be that you don't have any
money, and you need a lot of money to go to court, something like that. Again, this is a very
important issue. You can draw on this as a position or an argument and bring this into your
essay.
I do think, at least a little bit, or I could link a lot, depending on whatever the question may be
and how you're answering it, Dworkin, and this is the next question then. provide, real criticism
of the analysis of our societies such as laws of false ideology, that law does not protect those
without access to money for legal defense, which is raised by Marxists, and they refer to Altizer?
Again, very important points here that you could learn into, if you wish, a Dworkin answer or a
Marxist analysis answer if you thought it was appropriate depending on the specific question
asked, and depending as well, obviously on your introduction and how you've set out how
you're going to answer the question. I really think that the standard position is that Dworkin
does not provide a real criticism, depending on your definition of real criticism, but it's the same
objective with external criticism of the legal system in a liberal democracy. He does not provide
that. He doesn't talk by law of false ideology. This is something which a critical legal perspective

Page 6 of 11
of the Marxists, and you could also turn it around a bit and maybe talk about it in terms of the
critical feminist perspective.
Dworkin also doesn't talk about false ideology of gender equality or something like that,
because Dworkin is a liberal theorist within liberal legal theory. His focus is on the individual
person and how that individual person is protected or not in the current legal system. That's
how I would see this. There are different ways you can argue this. You can set out different
points of view if you wish and substantiate that with your source material.
Is the Marxist view of law as a superstructure that formal rights are vacuous with no real
application for the majority of the population in capitalism?
I think I'm just going to answer this quite straightforwardly and say, yes, that is the Marxist view
of law, generally speaking. You can talk about rights, but we really don't have proper rights in a
capitalist system. Those who are powerful with more money, who are the capitalists, will have
that power. They will have that essence of rights, if you like, but there's a lot in that. You can
dissect that as you wish.
I think I've come to the end then of the slides. The time has come for you to fire through to me
lots of different questions if you feel that has not covered them. If I feel I can answer them if
they're not related to what's coming up in the exam or anything like that, and then I will answer
them as best I can.
Okay, everyone, so there's questions coming through. I'm going to answer the questions that
you've asked so far in relation to Marxism. Marxism seems to be pretty popular in terms of some
of your questions coming through.
First of all, the questions' been asked in Marxism, and also to a certain extent, some feminist
theorists, whether the formation of the individuals, so we're talking maybe about liberalism and
the law or Marxism and the law, whether or not that is something which we need to cover in any
detail. I would like you to think about the big themes of the course, in general. Do you have
these in mind when you're obviously doing your revision in terms of the different theorists?
Talk about the biggest things. I think the big thing here is the individual and the community.
This can come into liberalism and the law, and also in Marxism, and ideas of reification and
ideology. Think about the individual in the community. For example, in liberalism and the law,
and any question on this in terms of equality and the uniqueness of the person, of individual
autonomy, think about that relationship between our individual freedom to live as we wish in
society. The Hart-Devlin debate would come into that, John Stuart Mill, different things in your
study guide relating to ideas of justice. The relationship between rights and utilitarianism about
welfare, and autonomy in the self that's protected by law. In a liberal legal system, they're
protected some high by the law.
If you contrast that to Marxist position, and to a certain extent, the feminist legal theorist's
positions, perhaps most obviously, radical feminism. This individual is formed, in their view,
through the social circumstances that we find ourselves in. For a Marxist, this is saying that we
are formed through and in the capitalist system. Therefore, we have that false ideology or that
false consciousness. If you're a radical feminist, the position would be that who we are as a
person is being created in global patriarchy. Therefore, we may talk about having rights, et
cetera, but it's a little bit false. We have been formed that way through that social structure.
Therefore, that needs to fundamentally change in some way. Then also think about the bigger
picture in terms of overall, what is law. Maybe something which is dealt with by positivists, and
focused in on whether or not and when we're looking at something we could say, well, it's come
from a particular source, it's covering A, B and C, therefore, it is law. Whether we like it or not,

Page 7 of 11
whether we think it's moral or not. That's the positivist's decision in Hart and Kelsen and Ross. I
know there's obviously differences between soft and hard positivism that you would draw upon
in terms of your analysis.
Then I think also you can think more widely about maybe although Dworkin is a liberal legal
theorist, he is thinking more widely about the underlying values within the liberal system. To a
certain extent, I think maybe Hart as well, but this is focusing in on their legal theory. Because I
know a lot of these theorists, they have political theory on the one hand and legal theory on the
other. What you need to concentrate on is whatever is in the study guide. What is law for and the
values underpinning it, is something that particularly would come out of analysis in Dworkin,
and also obviously in Natural Law.
You also need to be thinking about how you would set out those arguments. Set out an
argument of the good points of a theorist, and then a counter-argument of why you find them
unconvincing. You can compare and contrast, depending on the question.
Let me see what else is coming through on the chat. This is an interesting question. What does it
mean by an external and internal criticism of the law? I think I'll just explain that maybe a little bit
more in terms of a Marxist position and a radical feminist position. It's called almost an external
critique, or a critique from the outsider. It's trying to really radically critique the whole system.
That would be an external critique of law.
An internal critique of law would be from Dworkin vis-a-vis Hart, something like that. Because
they agree, in a liberal democracy, they agree on that liberal legal system, but it's what law is and
what law's for. That is the source of disagreement. It's an internal argument, in that sense.
Hopefully, that's dealt with any issues you might have had on that.
Theory of adjudication and the theory of interpretation. Probably not to get caught up too much
in this. A theory of adjudication is in many ways like a theory of interpretation according to
Dworkin. His theory of adjudication involves the ideal judge, as one example. He also talks about
interpreting and what judges therefore ought to do to reach the best answer that they can.
Anything do judges is adjudicating, it's making decisions in cases. Any part of his theory talking
about hard cases, talking about the role of Hercules and the ideal judge. Then that constructive
interpretation. He talks about fit integrity, use of principles. That's all part of the theory of
adjudication and the theory of interpretation. Perhaps, when you go into something in more
detail concerning the idea of what judges do with fit and integrity, et cetera, that is more
focusing on his interpretive theory in contrast to Hart as well.
Other questions coming through. The question, do we need to pass over the sections of the
statutes which were considered in Conway such as the Suicide Act, the Human Rights Act in the
convention? Passover I think means ignore or don't deal with. If that is what it means, then I
would say no, you don't pass over them. You do have to engage with those. If you think it's
relevant to answering the question, which it probably will judge depending on whether you're
answering on liberalism, for example, and liberalism law might relate to, does someone have
autonomy over their own body? You don't have to go into them in great detail but refer to them
as they're referred to in the case itself, I would say. You don't need to know the ins and outs of
those pieces of legislation on the treaty, but you do need to know what it says in the case about
them.
Then you do need to think how they may relate to any question. If it might be a liberal
autonomy, autonomy of the person, or if it might be about Dworkin's interpreted theory. You
may think they're not also links into rights of the individual, or if you think about what is Natural
in terms of Natural law, what is moral, what is right reason telling us to do in particular situations.
You may think that that relates to that legislation as well in some way.

Page 8 of 11
Another question's been asked in Part A, if I'm answering on Dworkin, can I bring in other
theorists such as Marxism and Hart?
Yes, you can, but as I said earlier, I think maybe think about overall picture that you're presenting
in your essay answer. When it's been completely completed that you're thinking, is this merely
focusing on Dworkin, and analyzing the case by reference to his theory relating it to the
question. Yes, of course, if you think that it's relevant, bringing in other theorists, but don't spend
most of your essay on the other theorists. We don't want to see an essay or Marxism or an essay
wholly on Hart in answer to your question on Dworkin.
There were some questions that were asked on the forum that I didn't have time to deal with in
great detail in terms of the slides we prepared, but thank you all of you for sending in all of your
individual questions. I tried to knit them in a paraphrase way, but in relation to anything to do
with economic costs, it's not particularly covered in the study guide. You aren't expected to go
into that in any detail.
If it's something that you studied and you think it relates to an answer, you have to get it to the
theories that you've studied in the study guide. If it's on liberalism and the law, for example, do
make sure you've got the up-to-date study guide version, because that was changed a year or so
ago, and make sure that you focus on liberalism.
In terms of liberalism, if you maybe do want to do the Liberalism and the law question, think
about the autonomy of the individual, think about individual rights, think about the role of law,
as a structure, if you like, and also in terms of what judges do in adjudication, but if you're
focusing on liberalism a lot, obviously depends on the question asked. Think about Hart–
Dworkin debate, about utilitarianism, about justice and rules, and there's others mentioned in
that chapter as well. You may also think that some things to do with Raz or aspects of Dworkin
may be relevant too, but obviously make sure that you're not saying the same thing and answer
to the questions.
Yes, I suppose then also in relation to this question, is it necessary to quote articles detailing the
cost of end of life treatments? That's when they talk about economic cost. Only in very general
terms to relate it to the question and to relate it to the study guide. If you've read end of life
treatment costs and articles on that, then find that that is not required and it's not set out in the
reading materials for this course.
How do you relate other theorists such as Dworkin and Raz to feminism? You only need to do
that if you wish to do that, if it's a required question, but if you look at past papers, that's not
normally required. I think maybe if you have studied Raz and wish to do something on him and
mention him in the feminist legal theory question, then you could maybe talk about autonomy
relink it to liberal feminism. I think maybe the same with Dworkin, leading to liberal feminism, or
freedom, an individual freedom to do what you wish with your own life, and that our legal
system has to be in place to enable that to happen, in some sense.
I just want approach questions pertaining to feminism and Marxism.
Is an integration of intersectional theorists required, critical race theory, critical theory, identity
formation theories in nationhood, medical legal studies with regard to contract law education
required for these topics, or is taking into the good-- I believe someone said this through over
the weekend as well. I think that that is not something which is covered in great detail by the
study guide. We don't have a chapter on critical race theory in the up-to-date study guide. You
might be looking at a past study guide. The current study guide does not have a chapter on
critical race theory. You're being examined on the current study guide.

Page 9 of 11
To the extent that intersectionality is related to feminism and brought into the feminist legal
theories that are set out in the current version of study guide, then yes, bring those in by all
means. There's no harm in bringing in these things that you've mentioned, but that is not really
the subject matter of this particular or jurisprudence course. Also then in relation to feminism
and Marxism, just as I've said already for all of the other things and I've referred to Marxism and
feminism a little bit already, set out in your introduction how are you going to answer the
question, and then answer it by reference to the materials and the study guide and the extra
readings that you may have looked at.
If it's something about liberal feminism, or if it's something about feminisms redundant,
whatever the question might be, you set out in your introduction how you're going to answer
the question. You're going to agree or disagree with the statement. You'll explain why you set
out them in the main body of your essay, trying to write it in your own voice that I agree with
this or I disagree with that. You can make the first person or the third person, depending on
whatever you wish and you feel most comfortable with.
There's not really a formula for saying you answer those questions in any particular way. You
make sure that you always relate it to the question. You focus on making sure that you've
conveyed to the examiner the basics of the theories. You could maybe highlight what they all
share in common, and then maybe go into more detail about what is different.
Try and avoid any sort of lists if you're doing feminism as well so that you don't have a heading,
liberal feminists, and then another heading, radical feminists, et cetera. It's better to try and think
of things. You can think of freedom of women, gender equality, fairness, whatever the themes
you think are particularly about power, oppression, et cetera.
There's lots of questions coming through. We might not get through all of them, I'm afraid. Are
we going to have hybrid questions for Part B as in Natural law and Kelsen put in one question?
The answer to that specific second part of that question is no, you won't. You will not have
Natural law and Kelsen mixed up. That's because Natural law is one of the topics in Part A. The
topics in Part A are discrete in terms of question one, question two, question three, and then
question four, question five and question six
But, you may, in Part B, have a combination of different theorists. There might be a question on
Kelsen and Hart together, or there might be a question on Kelsen and Hart together, for
example, but there might not. Look back at past papers are a good reflection. It's more likely that
you get specific questions on different theorists, but you may then also get a general question,
at least one, that they may be able to be related to different theorists depending on your
interpretation of it.
Let me see what else is here. Hart's criticism of Austin is primarily based upon the coercive
aspect of Austin's theory. Do you think that Hart's theory itself has a coercive dimension to it?
Yes, I think it does, but what you need to do, really, in terms of answering any question, is
thinking, what do you think Hart says about the coercive dimensions, and cite out both Austin's
and Hart's, depending on the question. Then explain why you think that's important. If coercion
means we're supposed to be acting in a certain way and the law is telling us, it's commanding us
to act in a certain way, then that does have an element of coercion, doesn't it? Because we're
being forced in certain ways to act, or we're being coerced into doing it.
It's not like gentle persuasion, it's not saying, "If you feel like it, you can do it." That idea is built-
in. Also, I think Hart's theory is more nuanced, obviously, in terms of thinking about obligations
and being obliged and forming our own habits of obedience in that sense. You want to use
Austin's physiology.

Page 10 of 11
In terms of Raz, there's a very big question about Raz, do look at the study guide, and, obviously,
like a lot of these theorists, Raz has written a lot. Focus on what is the focus of the study guide's
chapter, and look at Raz in relation to that. You can link that into autonomy and individual
autonomy and freedom, and think about the differences through yourselves, really, by looking
at the materials between John Stuart Mill, Hart, Raz and individual freedom in that regard. That
sounds like a really intelligent way to look at this. I would just encourage you to focus on that in
your revision, because time is running late.
In terms of Kelsen, how far can we discuss Kelsen when the examiners would give some
examples of cases which you know in the guide?
I think most of the examples of the cases that are given in the examiner's reports are in the
guides, but you can also just randomly choose your own examples of cases. I would say this very
generally as a parting shot, because time's run out, that you do need to think about this course
in the rind in general terms of, what is the purpose of law? What is law for? Think of those
general themes, and try and draw them in somewhere into your essay answers. If you do run out
of time, you can put bullet points. Someone asked me about that. Obviously, try and write it in
essay prose, but if you run out of time, you just have to put your best effort into it. Don't forget
to read the updated information about what is going to be in the exam in terms of the
requirements to answer a certain number of questions, et cetera, which Simon Askey has put in
his video that is available on the VLE.
If you want to, then draw on current events, on current themes in the world. You can do that and
relate those to the questions as well.
All right. I haven't been able to get through every single question, but I hope that you have been
able to get if you've got a very specific question, that you get the gist of what is required, and
then think about your own specific question in relation to what I've already said. Look back at
the recording, if you find that useful, and slides.
Thank you so much for joining. I'm sure you're from all over the globe, so it's wonderful to be
able to have this technology to connect, and I hope you find it useful. Good luck with everything
that you're doing and all the exams. I'm going to sign off now. All right. Thanks very much. Bye-
bye

Page 11 of 11