RONALD DWORKIN's 'LAW AS INTEGRITY' theory (Law's Empire, 1986) argues that:

1. RONALD DWORKIN (1931-2013) developed an interpretivist theory critical of legal positivism. 2. KEY ARGUMENTS: 3. (i) LAW INCLUDES PRINCIPLES — not just rules. Principles have weight, not all-or-nothing application. 4. (ii) RIGHTS AS TRUMPS — individual rights trump majoritarian preferences. 5. (iii) HARD CASES — judges must find the RIGHT ANSWER through interpretation, not exercise positivist discretion. 6. (iv) LAW AS INTEGRITY — judges must construct the BEST CONSTRUCTIVE INTERPRETATION of legal materials, fitting past decisions and morally justifying them. 7. (v) CHAIN NOVEL ANALOGY — each judge writes a new chapter, fitting prior chapters and developing the story coherently. 8. (vi) HERCULES — the ideal judge with infinite knowledge and analytical skill. 9. CONTRAST with Hart's positivism: law contains both rules and principles; principles connect law to morality. 10. Hence option B is correct. _Source: Legal Research Methodology + Jurisprudence — Ronald Dworkin, 'Taking Rights Seriously' (1977); 'Law's Empire' (1986)_