Abstract
Seeing law as an artifact might raise concerns about a metaphysical clash between this view and one in which law is described as a practice. Many have argued that seeing law as an artifact is compatible with, or even demanded by, H.L.A. Hart’s legal positivism, in which law is based on a practice theory rule (and which this chapter shows to fit nicely with Raimo Tuomela’s understanding of social practices). However, Scott Shapiro has attacked Hart’s view for committing a category mistake, claiming rules and practices are ontologically distinct. Seeing law as a kind of artifact helps to show how practices can be normative in that artifacts come bundled with (weak) norms of usage and (stronger) norms of recognition. Lingering doubts about seeing law as a kind of artifact are addressed in this chapter by understanding its institutional nature.