1
Politics and International Relations - LibGuides at University of Exeter. http://libguides.exeter.ac.uk/PoliticsHomePage
2
Hart HLA. The Concept of Law. Third edition. Oxford, United Kingdom: : Oxford University Press 2012.
3
Dworkin R. Law’s Empire. Oxford: : Hart 1998.
4
Fuller LL. ‘The Case of the Speluncean Explorers’ [in] Harvard Law Review. Harvard Law Review 1949;62:616–45.https://uoelibrary.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/1336025
5
King ML. Letter from a Birmingham Jail. 1963.http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html
6
Exodus 19-24. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+19-24
7
King LW. The Code of Hammurabi. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/ancient/hamframe.asp
8
Chan W. ‘The Natural Way of Lao Tzu’ [in] A Source Book in Chinese Philosophy. In: A Source Book in Chinese Philosophy. Princeton, N.J.: : Princeton University Press 1963. 136–51.https://contentstore.cla.co.uk/secure/link?id=b4953ab4-24be-e711-80cb-005056af4099
9
Hoff B. The Tao of Pooh: The Principles of Taoism Demonstrated by Winnie-the-Pooh. Egmont 2015.
10
Weinrib EJ. ‘Legal Formalism: On the Immanent Rationality of Law’ [in] Yale Law Journal. Yale Law Journal 1988;97.https://uoelibrary.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/796339
11
Llewellyn KN. ‘A Realistic Jurisprudence: The Next Step’ [in] Columbia Law Review. Columbia Law Review 1930;30:431–65.https://uoelibrary.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/1114548
12
Hart HLA. Chapter 1: ‘Persistent Questions’ [in] The Concept of Law. In: The Concept of Law. Oxford, United Kingdom: : Oxford University Press 2012. 1–17.https://contentstore.cla.co.uk/secure/link?id=eef320da-3fbe-e711-80cb-005056af4099
13
Hart HLA. Chapter V: ‘Law as the Union of Primary and Secondary Roles’ [in] The Concept of Law. In: The Concept of Law. Oxford, United Kingdom: : Oxford University Press 2012. 79–99.https://contentstore.cla.co.uk/secure/link?id=5a467892-40be-e711-80cb-005056af4099
14
Hart HLA. Chapter VI: ‘The Foundations of a Legal System’ [in] The Concept of Law. In: The Concept of Law. Oxford, United Kingdom: : Oxford University Press 2012. 100–23.
15
Hart HLA. Chapter VII: ‘Formalism and Rule-Scepticism’ [in] The Concept of Law. In: The Concept of Law. Oxford, United Kingdom: : Oxford University Press 2012. 124–54.
16
Dworkin R. Chapter 1: ‘What is Law?’ [in] Law’s Empire. In: Law’s Empire. Oxford: : Hart 1998. 1–44.
17
Dworkin R. Chapter 2: ‘Interpretive Concepts’ [in] Law’s Empire. In: Law’s Empire. Oxford: : Hart 1998. 45–86.
18
Dworkin R. Chapter 3: ‘Jurisprudence Revisited’ [in] Law’s Empire. In: Law’s Empire. Oxford: : Hart 1998. 87–113.
19
Dworkin R. Chapter 4: ‘Conventionalism’ [in] Law’s Empire. In: Law’s Empire. Oxford: : Hart 1998. 114–50.
20
Hart HLA. ‘Postscript’ [in] The Concept of Law. In: The Concept of Law. Oxford, United Kingdom: : Oxford University Press 2012. 238–76.
21
Dennett DC. Chapter 1: ‘Natural Freedom’ [in] Freedom Evolves. In: Freedom Evolves. London: : Penguin books 2004. 1–23.
22
Dennett DD. Chapter 2: ‘A Tool for Thinking about Determinism’ [in] Freedom Evolves. In: Freedom Evolves. London: : Penguin books 2004. 25–62.https://contentstore.cla.co.uk/secure/link?id=b31cecd2-49be-e711-80cb-005056af4099
23
Rosen J. ‘The Brain on the Stand: How Neuroscience is Transforming the Legal System’ [in] New York Times. New York Times  (1923-Current file) Published Online First: 2007.https://uoelibrary.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/hnpnewyorktimes/docview/848120400/fulltextPDF/567B0DF6A7E64C8APQ/2?accountid=10792
24
Kelkar K. ‘Can a Brain Scan Uncover your Morals?’ [in] The Guardian. Published Online First: 2016.https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/jan/17/can-a-brain-scan-uncover-your-morals
25
Gazzaniga MS, Steven MS. ‘Free Will in the Twenty-First Century’ [in] Neuroscience and the Law: Brain, Mind, and the Scales of Justice. In: Neuroscience and the Law: Brain, Mind, and the Scales of Justice. New York: : Dana Press 2004. 51–70.
26
Fugelsang J, Dunbar K. ‘A Cognitive Neuroscience Framework for Understanding Causal Reasoning and the Law’ [in] Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 2004;359:1749–54.https://uoelibrary.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/359/1451/1749
27
Vilares I, Wesley MJ, Ahn W-Y, et al. ‘Predicting the Knowledge–Recklessness Distinction in the Human Brain’ [in] Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2017;114:3222–7.https://uoelibrary.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://www.pnas.org/content/114/12/3222
28
Hoffman MB. ‘The Neuroeconomic Path of the Law’ [in] Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 2004;359:1667–76.https://uoelibrary.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/359/1451/1667
29
Aharoni E, Vincent GM, Harenski CL, et al. ‘Neuroprediction of Future Rearrest’ [in] Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2013;110:6223–8.https://uoelibrary.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://www.pnas.org/content/110/15/6223
30
Jones OD. ‘Law and Neuroscience’ [in] Journal of Neuroscience. Journal of Neuroscience 2013;33:17624–30.https://uoelibrary.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://www.jneurosci.org/content/33/45/17624
31
Churchland PS. ‘Reviewed Work: The Ethical Brain by Michael S. Gazzaniga’ [in] American Scientist. American Scientist 2005;93:356–9.https://uoelibrary.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/27858612
32
Churchland PS. ‘Moral Decision-Making and the Brain’ [in] Neuroethics. In: Neuroethics. Oxford: : Oxford University Press 2004. 3–16.https://uoelibrary.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198567219.001.0001/acprof-9780198567219-chapter-1
33
Goodenough OR, Prehn K. ‘A Neuroscientific Approach to Normative Judgment in Law and Justice’ [in] Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences. Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences 2004;359:1709–26.https://uoelibrary.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/4142156
34
Goodenough OR. ‘Responsibility and Punishment: Whose Mind? A Response’ [in] Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences. Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences 2004;359:1805–9.https://uoelibrary.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/4142165
35
Greene J, Cohen J. ‘For the Law, Neuroscience Changes Nothing and Everything’ [in] Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences. Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences 2004;359:1775–85.https://uoelibrary.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/4142162
36
Morse SJ. ‘New Neuroscience, Old Problems: Legal Implications of Brain Science’ [in] Cerebrum. Published Online First: 2004.http://www.dana.org/Cerebrum/Default.aspx?id=39169