Abstract

The aim of this comment is to discuss tentatively one way of understanding, for the study of legal phenomena, some of the implications of recognising the existence of peculiar entities which Celano calls pre-conventions. This comment speculates that, if Celano is right, then so-called paradigm cases of law lose some of their philosophical centrality. To study pre-conventions, one needs to collect accounts of situations in which relevant agents use criteria for identifying legal phenomena that only approximate valid sources of law. To provide such accounts, the traditional informational focus of a philosophical analysis of law also needs, this comment further speculates, substantial broadening: if pre-conventions are in the body, then that is where we need to look if we want to study them.