Michael S. Moore's “Fusion Strategy” and a Legal Ontology Creation Possibilities

The “fusion strategy” formulated by Michael S. Moore is a kind of a skeptical answer to the question of the ontology of law. From the point of view of Professor Moore, the theory of legal language by Herbert Hart is one of the variants of the “fusion”. On closer examination, we come to the conclusion that skepticism, which is a consequence of the “fusion” of the meaning of a word with a sentence, is relevant only when we insist on the variant of naturalistic legal ontology. For legally significant terms, it is impossible to determine the referent if they are excluded from the original sentence. The theory of the ascriptions of legal expression opens up new perspectives for the construction of a legal ontology. An example is the difference between the rule of law and law enforcement: if a rule of law is a rule that determines a certain course of action, then the specific situation of using the legal language allows establishing a connection between language and reality. Consequently, Hart's theory is wrong to qualify as skeptical.

Keywords

Authors

References