Interpretivism is famously associated with Ronald Dworkin, who developed the position in a number of

publications spanning 45 years. Dworkin's writings have stimulated a great deal of debate. His work
ranged from political and legal theory, to commentary on major political issues such as the appointment
supreme court justices. He is a critic of positivism and even tho he once appeared to identify with
natural law, he should not be put specifically in a particular category.

The critic of positivism

Dawkin in his earliest writings challenged the most influential model of contemporary positivism which
saw law as having holes, which the judiciary should fill with their discretion. Dawkin argued law was
more complicated as there were rules but other standards, principles and policies. Eg," no man shall
profit from his own wrong" as a principle, policies in contrast would set out a goal to be reached,
generally in favour of the community. So if a principle says don't offend people with your words, a policy
might be contrasting n go something like, one must be gentle in their words to show mutual respect in
the society. When it came to rules and principles, Dawkin might have perceived in exaggeration. But
even Hart admitted the role in legal reasoning played by none conclusive principles. Dawkin argued that
in a standard positivist account of a judicial process such as Hart's, principles couldn't be accomodated
and hence the resort to discretion. Basically, at this point of his writings, he didn't separate law and
morality,not clearly at least. No man shall profit from his own wrong may have its origins from morality
but judicial pronouncements gave it status. But at the same time, he wasn't saying one was found from
the other