THE HART-FULLER DEBATE, WHY DO THEY NOT AGREE?

The debate between H.L.A. Hart and Lon L. Fuller occupies an important place in the philosophy of law. The debate is generally known as the debate between Hart and Fuller in the Harvard Law Review in 1958. However, the debate continues until 1969 through the works of Hart and Fuller. In the tradition of legal philosophy, the debate has been read through the perspective of Hart. Today we can talk about a Fuller Renaissance, that is, a revival of interest in Fuller’s work. Fuller Renaissance gives us the opportunity to read the debate within the framework of Fuller’s thought. Therefore, in this article I will read the debate through the perspective of Fuller. Firstly, I will explore the points these two scholars cannot agree upon, and, secondly, I will consider the importance these issues hold for legal philosophy