Janus‐Faced Coherentism and the Forgotten Role of Formal Principles

Abstract

Coherentists fail to distinguish between the individual revision of a conviction and the intersubjective revision of a rule. This paper fills this gap. A conviction is a norm that, according to an individual, ought to be ascribed to a provision. By contrast, a rule is a judicially ascribed norm that controls a case and is protected by the formal principles of competence, certainty, and equality. A revision of a rule is the invalidation or modification such a judicially ascribed norm, provided that the judge meets the burden of argumentation of formal principles. Thus, judges can revise their convictions without changing the law.