A copy of this work was available on the public web and has been preserved in the Wayback Machine. The capture dates from 2020; you can also visit the original URL.
The file type is
This paper aims to explore two objections raised against Bulygin's second approach to the definition of the nature of legal power-conferring rules. According to the first objection, such an account is vague about what is defined by legal powerconferring rules qua constitutive rules. I maintain that this vagueness is rooted in the lack of a suitable definition of legal power. I shall be arguing for the reduction of the complexity of the definientia by defining legal power as a species ofdoi:10.22201/iifs.18704905e.2017.182 fatcat:koturooupbhy7jjghvi6hxorma