Prof. Roversi started with his main thesis as a critique of legal positivism by pointing out that designating a legal institution does not depend solely on the practices and declarative speech acts of officials. Therefore, even if P1 and P2 have the same constitutive rules and there is a corresponding rule-following practice, P1 and P2 can be different institutions, because elements such as the so-called background and systematic fallouts influence the ontology of a legal institution. Prof. Roversi then outlined the meaning of the concept of background, saying that it is some sort of “grammar” that exists before the behavior-according-to-the-rules, or a deeper network of desires and beliefs that emerge as a response to basic social needs. On the other hand, systematic fallouts encompass rules, goals and phenomena that are not visible within the deontic powers of an institution.