[
Adams, Nathan P [2020]. “In defence of exclusionary reasons”. Philosophical Studies. Accessed online (April 2020). https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11098-020-01429-8
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Alexander, Larry [1990]. “Law and exclusionary reasons”. Philosophical Topics 18: 5–22.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Berlin, Isaiah [1958]. “Two concepts of liberty”. In Liberty. Henry Hardy (ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press (2004): 166–217
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Berlin, Isaiah & Williams, Bernard [1994]. “Pluralism and Liberalism: A reply”. Political Studies XLI: 306–9.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Buchanan, Allen [2011]. “Reciprocal legitimation: Reframing the problem of legitimacy”. Philosophy, Politics & Economics 10: 5–19.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Clarke, D. S., Jr [1977]. “Exclusionary reasons”. Mind 86: 252–5.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Crowder, George [1998]. “From value pluralism to liberalism”. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 1: 2–17.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Edmundson, William A [1993]. “Review: Rethinking exclusionary reasons: A second edition of Joseph Raz’s Practical Reason and Norms”. Law and Philosophy 12: 329–43.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Essert, Christopher [2012]. “A dilemma for protected reasons”. Law and Philosophy 31: 49–75.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Fives, Allyn [2021a]. “The freedom to do as we please: A strong value pluralist conceptualization of negative freedom”. The Journal of Value Inquiry. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10790-021-09854-6
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Fives, Allyn [2021b]. “A value pluralist defense of toleration”. Philosophia 49: 235–54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11406-020-00217-2
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Fives, Allyn [2022]. “Edmund Burke’s value pluralism”. The European Legacy 27: 27 pp. https://doi.org/10.1080/10848770.2022.2041287
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Gans, Chaim [1986]. “Mandatory rules and exclusionary reasons”. Philosophia 15: 373–94.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Green, Leslie [2005]. “Three themes from Raz”. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 25: 503–23.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Gur, Noam [2007]. “Legal directives in the realm of practical reason: A challenge to the pre-emption thesis”. American Journal of Jurisprudence 52: 159–228.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Horty, John F [2012]. Reasons as Defaults. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Klosko, George [2004]. “Multiple principles of political obligation”. Political Theory 32: 801–24.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Marcus, Ruth Barcan [1980]. “Moral dilemmas and consistency”. The Journal of Philosophy 77: 121–36.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Mason, Elinor [2018]. “Value pluralism”. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2018 Edition), edited by Edward N. Zalta. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2018/entries/value-pluralism/.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
McCabe, David [2001]. “Joseph Raz and the contextual argument for liberal perfectionism”. Ethics 111: 493–522.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Mian, Emran [2002]. “The curious case of exclusionary reasons”. Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence 15: 99–124.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Moore, Michael S [1989]. “Authority, law, and Razian reasons”. Southern California Law Review 62: 827–96.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Perry, Stephen R [1989]. “Second-order reasons, uncertainty and legal theory”. Southern California Law Review 62: 913–94.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Raz, Joseph [1975]. Practical Reason and Norms, second edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press (2009).
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Raz, Joseph [1979]. The Authority of Law 2nd Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press (2009).
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Raz, Joseph [1985a]. “The obligation to obey: Revision and tradition”. Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics & Public Policy 1: 139–55.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Raz, Joseph [1985b]. “Authority and justification”. Philosophy & Public Affairs 14: 3–29.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Raz, Joseph [1986]. The Morality of Freedom. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Raz, Joseph [1989]. “Facing up: A reply”. Southern California Law Review 62: 1153–235.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Raz, Joseph [1990]. “Introduction”. In Authority, edited by Joseph Raz. New York: New York University Press: 1–19.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Raz, Joseph [2001]. Reasoning With Rules. In Between Authority and Interpretation. Oxford: Oxford University Press (2009): 203–19.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Raz, Joseph [2006]. “The problem of authority: Revisiting the service conception”. Minnesota Law Review 90: 1003–44.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Raz, Joseph [2011]. From Normativity to Responsibility. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Regan, Donald H [1989]. “Authority in value: Reflections on Raz’s The Morality of Freedom”. S. Cal. L. Rev. 62: 995–1096.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques [1762]. The Social Contract, translated by Maurice Cranston. London: Penguin (1968).
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Whiting, Daniel [2017]. “Against second-order reasons”. Noûs 51: 398–420
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Williams, Bernard [1965]. “Ethical consistency”. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 39: 103–24.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Williams, Bernard [1985]. Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy. London: Fontana Press.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Wolff, Jonathan [1995]. “Pluralistic models of political obligation”. Philosophica 56: 7–27.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Wolff, Robert Paul [1970]. In Defense of Anarchism. 2nd Edition. Berkley: University of California Press (1998).
]Search in Google Scholar
