  A related point concerns the structure of the explanation. On the orthodox explanation of law, institutions issue directives each of which conveys and thereby creates a valid norm.  The impact of each individual institutional action is therefore distinct: it is the addition of a valid norm to the law. Norms so constituted are then weaved together to form the complete content of the law. (This is not to deny that, on this view, some of the norms may concern precisely how to weave norms together, for example by stipulating that lex posterior derogat legi priori.) The explanation is in that sense atomistic (Greenberg 2007). Nonhybrid interpretivism is not so committed. Since it holds that morality determines how institutional practice affects rights and obligations, it inherits the holistic structure of morality: the whole of morality confronts the whole of institutional practice and determines its effect, which interpretation purports to identify. Particular episodes of institutional practice, say the enactment of a new statute, change rights and obligations by changing the content of the practice and therefore its moral effect (Greenberg 2007, 2011a).