Julie Dickson (University of Oxford – Faculty of Law) has posted Why General Jurisprudence Is Interesting on SSRN. Here is the abstract:
In a recent article entitled, ‘Is General Jurisprudence Interesting?, David Enoch answers his own question resoundingly in the negative. This article critically examines the character of Enoch’s claim, the presuppositions it rests on, and the way in which he seeks to establish it. Having argued that many of Enoch’s views in this regard hinge on a narrow and idiosyncratic understanding of the questions that general jurisprudence addresses, and of the relations between those questions and many other inquiries concerning the character of law, the article concludes by offering its author’s own vision of what makes general jurisprudence engaging, intriguing, and … well … interesting.
Both Enoch and Dickson are recommended, although I might observe that the question whether general jurisprudence is interesting might itself be evaluated for interestingness. In particular, is Enoch's article interesting using Enoch's criteria for interestingness?