It is a recurring idea in the history of political philosophy that concepts and doctrines of private law are illuminative of public law and political philosophy. Central among these are contract and the trust. In this paper, I consider the prospects of a third: estoppel. The public law context in which estoppel is most commonly invoked is criminal law, and there especially in the service of understanding the defenses of entrapment and what I call officially induced mistake of law. My (...) question is how well it serves this role – how well the structure of the self-disentitlement that provides the rationales for the defences of entrapment and OIML on the non-exculpatory approach to each is articulated on the model of state estoppel, as I call it. I will argue that it fares well, and so that estoppel merits inclusion on the list of concepts and doctrines of private law that are illuminative of public law and political philosophy. In conclusion I will ask what the moral-expressive content of its deployment in that context is, and argue that, while the doctrines of contract and trust work as means to articulate claims about the basis and limit of political authority, the claim that some cases of state self-disentitlement can be modelled on estoppel represents a commitment to some core principles of the rule of law. (shrink)

Philip Pettit has made central to modern republican theory a distinctive account of freedom—republican freedom. On this account, I am not free solely because I can make choices without interference. I am truly free, only if that non-interference does not itself depend on another’s forbearance. Pettit believes that the principal justification for the traditional focus of the criminal law is that it constitutes a bulwark against domination. I will, in part, be considering the merits of this claim. Is the importance (...) of the orthodox realm of the criminal law solely or mainly explained by the wish to protect people from domination? In short, the answer is that it is not. Across the board, the criminal law rightly protects us equally from threats to what Pettit calls ‘effective,’ as opposed to formal, republican freedom. I will develop my critique of Pettit’s account of criminal law, in part to raise questions about the role of ‘domination’ in political theory, and about whether it poses a significant challenge to liberal accounts of criminal law. (shrink)

Journal of Political Philosophy, EarlyView.