  Interpretivism begins at the question how institutional practice bears on rights and obligations. For hybrid interpretivism, this question is, at least in part, pre-empted by the orthodox view on which it builds. Recall that according to the orthodox view, the practice itself (and ultimately the very idea of law as that is commonly understood; cf. Raz 1986: 1114, 1994: 235 ff.) determines how the practice bears on rights and obligations. This is so because the practice consists in communication or tacit endorsement of norms which is meant to place subjects under obligations just by virtue of communicating or endorsing the norms. By taking all this as given, hybrid interpretivism begs in some considerable part the fundamental question at which interpretivism says one must begin.