·
Hart primarily deals with the following:-
o
Law and coercion
o
Law and morality
o
Nature of rules (Primary & Secondary)
·
He criticizes Austin’s command theory for being an
external viewed imperative model of law disregarding the internal element of obedience
·
He also criticizes Austin’s theory for limiting
laws to be consisted of commands backed by sanction. He talks about power
conferring laws such as laws of contract which do not fit in Austin’s theory.
·
He makes a case that people do not obey law
because of threat of sanction but because of people’s acceptance of it being binding
in nature. Eg:- A gunman who robs a banker by giving him threat of shooting in
case of noncompliance is not making law despite it being a command backed by
sanction. It is in such situation the Austin’s theory fails.
Rules and
Obligations
·
Hart’s theory is different from that of Austin
as it distinguishes the different kind of obligations.
·
He uses linguistic phrases ‘under an obligation’
and being obliged to explain the difference. In the gunman example, when the
gunman ask banker to give away the money to the gunman, the banker is not under
an obligation to give the money but is being obliged to do so.
·
Similarly, if one jumps red light even if
knowing the fact that he won’t be fined the obligation to stop won’t go away
despite the absence of sanction and the person will remain under an obligation
to follow traffic rules. (The obligation to follow rules persists even in
absence of sanction)
·
Thus, in Hart’s model rules are followed not
because of a sanction but because of society’s acceptance of the rule being
binding.
·
The idea of a rule implies an obligation.
·
Hart distinguished rules of law other
miscellaneous rules such as rules of grammar and rules of social etiquette. Eg:
People attending church on Sunday is a habit and cannot be considered as a law.
·
He considers rules which generate pressure but
short fall of physical sanctions as moral obligations but if they do exert
physical sanctions, they can be considered primitive or rudimentary kind of law
imposing legal obligations.
External and
internal aspects
·
External Aspect of a rule is statement of
observed fact.
·
Internal Aspect of a rule is a sense of
obligation to follow the rule.
·
For example, an alien on earth might simply stop
at red light without having a sense of obligation to follow the rules but a person who follows traffic rule in his
country follows them because he understand the need of traffic safety and thus
has an obligation to follow the same.
Primary and
secondary rules of obligation
·
Primary rules are those rules of law which impose
basic duty on individuals. They determine what people ought and ought not to do
and thereby create obligations which people of a society need to follow. Eg:-
Penal Code, Family Code
·
Secondary rules are those rules of law which
governing the creation and operation of the primary rules.
·
Secondary rules are power conferring rules in a
way that they check the validity of primary rules. These rules lead to
establishment of judiciary, executive and legislature.
·
As per Hart, a developed legal system must have
both primary and secondary rules.
·
In absence of secondary rules, legal system will
be a primitive one and suffer from the following:-
o
Absence of authoritative means to remove
ambiguity in meaning and application of laws
o
Primary rules of obligation are relatively
static
o
No authority for dispute resolution
Rule of
Recognition
·
Rule of recognition is the ultimate criterion
for verifying the validity of both primary and secondary rules.
·
In most of the countries’ constitution is the
ultimate rule of recognition.
·
Hart’s theory of a developed legal system
demands the following:-
o
primary rules that are considered valid by the
rule of recognition are generally obeyed by citizens
o
rule of recognition is accepted by officials as
the standard of official behaviour
·
Rule of recognition can change through peaceful
or violent means.
·
Change in rule of recognition need not
necessarily affect primary rules. Eg:- When India gained independence from
Britain, British laws found to be consistent with constitution remained in
power.
Hart on
International Law
·
Despite absence of authoritative rule of
recognition in international law Hart considers it to be law properly so
called.
·
Hart justifies this claim on his belief that law
can exist without a legal system.
·
He also asserts this claim on the grounds that
International law rules resemble the primary rules of obligation in a primitive
society. They are law because sovereign states consider them as obligatory and
use them to press their claims and to evaluate and criticise the conduct of
other states.
Criticism of
Austin
·
Austin’s theory does not take into account power
conferring laws such as laws of contract.
·
Austin’s theory does not differentiate rules from
habits. Rule requires internal acceptance for obedience of rile unlike a habit.
·
Austin theory does not take into consideration
the secondary rules.
·
Austin theory considers the sovereign’s power to
be unlimited while Hart’s theory does not require the same. Sovereign’s power
could be limited to certain areas and if sovereign exercises its power outside
its power then that is not law as sovereign did not had the power itself to go
beyond its scope.
liposYti-sa Judy Reuland https://wakelet.com/wake/I1G7u73gXVdPSZnJ0G9K3
ReplyDeleteteaupetifens
lustteximya Andrew Allen Adobe Lightroom
ReplyDeleteExpress VPN
Corel VideoStudio Pro
meconrappwadd