Band 4, Heft 2 - Special Issue: Legitimate Expectations

Recent scholarly attention to ‘legitimate expectations’ and their role in legal transitions has yielded widely varying principles for distinguishing between legitimate and non-legitimate expectations. This article suggests that methodological reflection may facilitate substantive progress in the debate. Specifically, it proposes and defends the use of a wide reflective equilibrium methodology for constructing, justifying and critiquing theories of legitimate expectations and other kinds of normative theories about legal transitions. The methodology involves three levels of analysis — normative principles, their theoretical antecedents, and considered judgements about their implications in specific cases — and iteration between these three levels in an effort to ensure coherence. The payoffs from applying this methodology to the legitimate expectations debate are illustrated through a discussion of examples from the existing literature. Some proposed innovations to the methodology, including the incorporation of insights from the ideal/non-ideal theory debate, are likely to be of wider interest to political theorists.

This article argues against privileging the expectations of settlers over those of dispossessed peoples. I assume in this article that historical rights to occupancy do not persist through all changes in circumstances, but a theory of justice should reduce perverse incentives to unjustly settle on land in hopes of legitimating occupancy. Margaret Moore, in her 2015 book, A Political Theory of Territory , tries to balance these intuitions through an argument based on legitimate expectations. I argue that Moore’s attempt to reduce perverse incentives (through expectation-altering institutional design) fails. Moore unduly privileges settler expectations, especially over those of indigenous peoples. I criticize United States court decisions resurrecting the expectations of past settlers in the allotment era (which share structural features with Moore’s arguments). Lastly, distinguishing between ‘final’ supersession of historical injustice through changing circumstances, and ‘dormant’ supersession, shows how indigenous claims to land and jurisdiction may revive.

This paper focuses on land as a domain in which legitimate expectations can give rise to entitlements. The central argument is that people are connected to other people and to projects, which are symbolically and materially rooted in particular places. This gives rise to an interest – an interest that is sufficiently weighty that it imposes obligations on other people – to protect stability of place. There are two ways in which legitimate expectations structure argument about land. It justifies liberty rights to remain in a place, and not be removed or expelled from it, independently of the coercion that often accompanies forcible expulsion, and argue for rights of return as a second-order right when this right has been violated. I also argue that passage of time in a changed context can affect people’s legitimate expectations, and so their entitlements.

This essay argues that one structural feature of the law is its working as an expectations machinery that generates and protects legitimate expectations at the same time. The vindication of expectations becomes apparent when we focus on the ex post -dimension of legal norms. In their ex post -dimension, legal norms vindicate legitimate expectations, in their ex ante -dimension, they generate them. This paper identifies three categories of expectations: Mere hopes, legitimate expectations and vindicated (legitimate) expectations. In the practice of legal discourse, this categorisation is of crucial importance and decisive for our legal rights. This will be illustrated with examples concerning contract and property. The essay further shows that the classification of expectations faces an uncertainty problem. Building on Brandom, the essay argues that the rationality of the law’s classification of expectations can be ensured through the practice of legal discourse. Brandom’s theory of mutual recognition as a normative social structure must be supplemented by justice as a virtue (JAV), however. It will be argued that JAV strengthens the mutual recognition of the players of the law in their permanent reconstruction of legal content. JAV must be included in legal discourse to ensure the rationality of the law’s quest for the classification of expectations.

In this paper, I propose a framework to analyse the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations. It focuses on two main issues: the existence of a legitimate expectation and the protection that such an expectation deserves. On the first issue, I define the expectations, outline the internalist approach to legitimacy that I endorse in this context and explain two elements that make the legitimacy of the expectation vary (i.e. the passage of time and the type of law). On the second issue, I first address the question of competing interests in general and the principle of equality in particular. Paying attention to the principle of equality implies we should look at the relative situation, after the change, of the persons that lose from the change and of the rest of the population. I then approach the balance of interests.

This paper is concerned with how we ought to think about legitimate expectations in the non-ideal, ‘real’ world. In one (dominant) strand of contemporary theories of justice, justice requires not that each gets what she deserves, but that each gets that to which she is entitled in accordance with what Rawls calls ‘the public rules that specify the scheme of cooperation’. However, that is true only if those public rules are part of a fully just scheme and it is plausibly the case that no such scheme obtains in the real world. Given that, and given the centrality of legitimate expectations to theories of justice, it is vital to think about the status of such expectations in non-ideal circumstances. Having explained the sense in which legitimate expectations have come to play a role often previously associated with desert, a brief argument in favour of an ‘expectations’ view of punishment is considered to show that the system to public rules that generates expectations must itself be (in some sense) just. This argument is illustrated by appeal to just punishment and the relevance of thinking about punishment and not merely distributive justice is defended. In the absence of justice, one possibility would be simply to declare that there are no legitimate expectations and so theories of justice provide no guidance as to who should get what in non-ideal conditions. However, this would be to render such theories more-or-less useless in practice. Through discussion of a series of vignettes, the paper offers an account of how we might think about the demands such expectations place on the systems that give rise to them even in cases where the system is unjust.

Many people feel that respecting a person’s autonomy is not sufficiently important to obligate us to stay out of their affairs in all cases; but the ground for interference may often turn out to be a hunch that the agent cannot really be competent, or cannot really know what her decision implies; for if she were both of these things, surely she would not make such a foolish decision. This paper suggests a justification of paternalism that does not rely on such appeals. I argue that in cases where an agent will undergo a significant alteration in their evaluative outlook – ‘evaluative shift’ – three central, persuasive objections to paternalism lose their force, and offer a prima facie case for paternalism in some of these cases. I then suggest that we can extend this argument to some cases where evaluative alteration is not predictable, but where the risk and harm are both significant. In such cases, paternalism may be justified.