1.

INTRODUCTION
 The view of John Austin's complete command has no merit. His work an indelible impression ”in
legal research, introducing the legal belief that
they regard the law as morally independent. Austin's influence in the field is evident, with many
regard him as "the parent of analytical jurisprudence". He issued a statement which continues to
maintain the position of educational value as a pioneer of good things thought. However, the
greatness of his teaching does not contradict the majority of arguments that can be found within
its content. This paper will serve as an analysis for the essence of Austin's vision. It will be
introduced, from paragraph onwards, that Austin's work does not do well in the works of the
legal profession.

2. THE FUNCTION OF A LEGAL THEORY

The main function of the legal perspective is to provide an answer to the Daedalean question:
“What is the law?” HLA Hart begins his seminary work, The Concept of Law, with
thism"Persistent question", which goes on to give an answer to young Jeremy Bentham to ask
“what is the law?” Both Bentham and Hart, more than others Ronald Dworkin, Lon Fuller, and
Joseph Raz all tried their best to “explain the nature of the law at its general level ” and“ to see
what is important and important
rather common or unimportant. Therefore, in the legal proceedings
both philosophers who preceded and succeeded Austin, the work of legal theorycertified as
defined by law. This work, as Raz said, “is successful if
meets two conditions: first, it contains proposals regarding the law
they are not really true, and, secondly, they explain what the law is. ”

A.
Therefore, legal opinions should aim to provide clarity on what is legal and what is not. They
must “point to the essentials of the legal system laid down ”, usually by including a series of a
technical process and a process by which you can measure such a system the law. Austin himself
lists the purpose of his work “as a matter of division legal judgments arising from those various
related matters. ”

B.
Austin however was unsuccessful in his attempt to explain the law. His view says it is so
congested with uncertainty that it fails to provide “a broad definition of law ” he himself admits
that“ his meaning is incomplete. ” Elements that containing the law within his view is also
ineffective or outdated, as it cannot be it meets directly with many of the most well-known
modern legal conditions.

C.

This decrease in the rate of

the law does not satisfy the requirement that legal opinions be “the definition of policies,
opinions, and common divisions in legal systems. ” Finally,
some aspects of Austin's concept, when analyzed, have shown that they have anti-democratic
stance. This, as will be presented, is contrary to “the nature of the law.” These it is a
fundamental criticism of Austin's theory used within this paper.

3. THE SOVEREIGN COMMAND THEORY

Austin emphasizes that there is a difference between what is legal and what is real no, but it's just
like it. It refers to the earlier “so-called law,” and including the scope of man-made law, or "law
established by… independently a political community, is a clear or intellectual authority for its
state or supreme authority the government. ”His superior view of justice is to support this
division of law so-called illegitimate law and uses it to gain effect on the law: the law of the king is
the law of the land, which does not exist the law incorrectly called so. There are two important
aspects of this view that need to be considered: ruler and commander. It will be discussed in the
order below.

A.THE SOVEREIGN

The first requirement of good law in Austin's mind is the presence of a king:
“All the laws that are acceptable or all that are simple and clear, are set by the king a person,
or body of persons, to a member or members of an independent body a political society in
which that person or body rules or is supreme. ”The idea of the monarchy can be divided
into three categories: monism, public obedience,
and greatness / dictatorship.

1.Monism

In developing his view of legal matters, Austin tried to escape one of the greatest the
complexity of the theory of natural law: to identify the unmistakable truth of what law is
probably found. However, Austin himself has been a victim obstacle. The first thread of
royalty in his mind is monism: that king or The upper body should, as Cotterrell noted, be
“clear.” For Austin, the only law it is aptly named when it “flows [from] a fixed source, the
fixed mind, or a fixed body or a number of sensible objects. "Even though Hart allows that

"In any society where there is a law, there is actually a ruler," Austin said The emperor is
vague and "his interpretation is questionable". You give no the identified way to identify one
true king, keep the king's size and publicity in it (two conditions to be analyzed below as
insufficient). The problem of identifying one king is one of the “most significant and frequent
focus on his critics. ”It reveals one of his many precautions, as his own the thesis of monism
ignores two possible scenarios. The first is the situation, as in Spain, where there are
competing competitors (Spanish and Catalan). Where does the empire fall into the Austin
category? The The only solution is to define Spanish law as it is incorrectly called, as they do
not 'walk from a fixed source' but have two conflicting sources. This unacceptable, as it
would describe Spain as a country without ‘appropriate’ laws, although it is currently
recognized as a legal entity. Thus, Austin's definition of royalty so small that it includes very
simple systems; those that are easy to do point to one ruler. Complex systems, such as Spain,
were thus reduced non-legal sectors without Austin's view. This is a simplification of the law.
A second state that can be controlled by the Austin king who rules the existence of a separate
legal force. This is the case in the United States of America, when the legislative power is
dispersed between each province as a junior ruler.

Austin's theory is therefore lacking in application to both established world models

provincial and political and "undeveloped non-Western societies". Therefore, in seeking
created a legal concept that was simpler than natural law, Austin did little rather than
creating a simple legal concept that can only work within the period in which it was created.
The limitation of ideas does not end there.
B.Obedience from Society

Austin 's reign requires that his subjects be “in subjection” to him: “in abundance of the
given community have a habit of obedience or submission is also limited the usual high.
”Two aspects of this definition need to be clarified: quantity and practice. Austin's view
could have been saved from criticism if he had explained the term
‘By the majority’ by managing the part of the community that needed to listen to
royalty, but there is no such definition. Similarly, he does not provide a detailed
explanation
'practice' which goes beyond the definition that "obedience cannot be uncommon or
fleeting." This the explanation is confusing: is it a habit to listen for one month? End of
listening for
two weeks is enough to make listening pass? Viewed intelligibly, more
questions arise: what if 55% of people have a habit of listening for twenty years and
then, with the change of circumstances, that percentage dropped to 40%? That's it the
habit of listening to the emperor who is in power today? Given the nature of obedience,
one cannot say with certainty that
any society that exists or has existed or is in a position to submit to its master or not.
Austin's view fails to set the record straight
enough clarity. As Hart notes, “the whole idea of 'normal'
‘… listening’ is always hidden ”, the result being Austin’s view
it will not be used to measure the effectiveness of the legal system as the principles
contained therein is obscured. Therefore, the ambiguity and uncertainty that covers this
aspect of Austin's view makes it deliberately inappropriate. Austin's response to this is
about equality his ambiguity. When asked questions, such as the one above, Austin he
answers that “these questions cannot be answered in the right way, which is a clear
indication that
monarchy and the independent political community are a mysterious or certain
mysterious test charges. It will not allow us to decide with all independent communities,
whether they are
political or environmental. ”However, the purpose is to call it his own, as well as legal
theory, setting rules of requirements that allow a person to decide whether a law exists
works or not. In his admission, Austin has failed to do this, and therefore, his view is
revealed as inadequate.
In addition, Hart is a scepticalof theory that explains the law of
obedience, whether the practice is well defined or not. His criticism is well-founded. In to
create a moral-based perspective, Austin transforms law into social status; the
relationship between domination and sovereignty becomes
doctrinal focus. This comes at the cost of real gravity and the considerations offered the
contents of the law.
The obvious clarity that the law ceases to apply to
justice and becomes one in human behavior. So the law is not in itself, but it does so in
relation to human nature and morals. This includes the law on sociology and contradicts
one of the pillars of legal positivism; mutual the issuance of legislation in some schools.

C. Supremacy/Despotism

An additional weakness in Austin's thinking is highlighted in the latter's need monarchy:

greatness / dictatorship. Austin states that “all high governments
 you were legally oppressive. ”He says that a king named after him has no legal limit nor
is it bound by constructive laws, only by a moral obligation to follow it rules. This view is
supported by both Blackstone, who states that “in every law there is a great deal of legal
power, complete and unlimited, with ThomasHobbes, who similarly believes that “in the
laws of the king,
the king is not ruled ... ”Blackstone, Hobbes, and Austin are all mistaken, either in
practice, in which are antiquated, or ideologically, then opposed to democracy.
In practice, kings are limited to both national and international levels.
At the national level, masters are often referred to as lateral checks and individual
balances institutions. A prime example is the United States government, where “power
[its] legislature… is subject to legal obligations. ”This prevents you from being present
is really an ancestor in the Austinian sense. This is true of many other modern laws
programs. All over the world, kings can also be punished under international law
Therefore, as Dicey noted, Austin's theory does not work outside the context of
The English Parliament, and “his monarchy may have been a source of controversy
English law. ”
If Austin's theory has not been applied, but it is only analyzed in theory, it still is there is
a problem. Although Cotterrell defends "Austin's talks are closely related to conditions
for independent democracy ”Austin's insistence that the king be the so-called
dictatorship should not be equated with the law which clearly promotes dictatorship,
exposing it his anti-democratic vision. The effects of this are obvious. Checking
independent powers by the division of power and legal restrictions only allow
democracy to prosper but also support the rule that everything means they are equal
before the law. Austin's view would elevate the emperor to a higher position than the
general rule of law. Icon
It is difficult to deny that this is the meaning of any legal theory. Instead, it can be seen
as the negative effects of a distorted, and inconsistent view modern political views. The
modern world holds "democratic vision" its various forms, to be the most desirable
management system. Austin's view is difficult
reconciliation with this idea, therefore its use is not possible in the present tense.
Criticism of the Austin dynasty's closure is raised by Hart in terms of "scope and the
persistence of the rules ”. Austin clarifies very little about the concept of sequence. As as
a result, many questions are left unanswered. Questions such as “how do we know when
and where does a new king appear when he is present dying or being destroyed? Why he
did The laws that were enacted a hundred years ago are still surviving today, given a
series of changes who is the ruler "Austin's view cannot address these questions enough.
"Contains unresolved disputes" and as a result is unsatisfactory the clarification
methods described in section 2 of this paper. Therefore, the first requirement for
majesty is the victim of all the criticism presented earlier: uncertainty, the art of
creativity, and anti-democracy. Its failure to properly perform the functions of the legal
profession it is very clear as the following sections are analyzed.

a. THE COMMAND

A second requirement for the view of Austin's command to have a file for command.
This is a decree, issued by a dictator who is violent and dictatorial obedience is given, it
becomes law. Austin sees the law as a form of command. He explains an order such as “a
desire received by another, and expressed or told to another and the evils that must be
done if the desire is ignored. ”There are two elements to this this definition: evil (or
sanctions) and expression (or address).

1. Sanctions & Obligations

First, Austin argues that the basic requirement of command, hence the law to be fined:
"unless the motivation to follow the law is violent or serious, speech or intimacy of desire
is not a command. ”This way of thinking leads to to the simple reduction that if no
sanctions or "evils will occur" there it is not the law. In this controversy, Austin made a
mistake and linguistic fraud.His disability implies that not all laws are accepted as
compelling laws
sanctions. These laws are relaxed laws or empowering laws, such as contract rules.
Austin fails to identify this as ‘well-called’ rules.

This is a the decline of various laws also created “a simple model of law such as
oppression orders ”. It simplifies the law by creating a small outline where the rules
should fit
to ‘be so named’. There is a consequence of ignoring what it is
legal rules. This weight loss analysis can be transferred to Austin language the
construction of penalties. Hart says Austin is failing to make a significant difference,
which leads to misconceptions about the punishments and obligations they place. Austin,
Hart’s observation, does not distinguish between the state “responsibility - where there
is the standard that a person is aware of to be followed ”and that he is“ obliged – to the
feeling that you have to do something ‘or not’ ”. This failure to distinguish, as Hart
notes, means that under Austin's view man would have no difference of obligation
between a tax collector and a shooter. This misunderstands the concept of legal
obligation. If someone is he said he had an equal responsibility to the gunman and the
tax collector, the power of the law it would be an invisible thing. As a result, the law will
lose its legitimacy coercive force. Therefore, in an effort to gain legal control, Austin
unintentionally legislates and empowers a criminal. This is too far away from the
intentions of any legal opinion and shows the inconsistency of Austin's concept.

2. The Addressed

An additional requirement for the view of Austin's mandate is that the orders should be
the same
"Appointed by political leaders to political subordinates." This also provides oversight
asthere is a serious case where laws can be imposed by political leaders on political
subordinates
and apparently still in operation; international law. Austin says international law is not
like that
the law is aptly named as “not set forth by its author on political grounds it is high.
”Believing that“ there is no superior government in which to submit to one another ”and
thus the laws imposed among them are not favorable, he is able
"They deny the legitimacy of international law technology." This denial is incorrect.
Austin is possible be honest when you say that international law is set by tradition. Their
acceptance by the provinces is, as evidenced by the popularity of Oppenheim and Anghie
based on the license. That being said,
Austin is incorrect in defending the obligations imposed by these laws. You say that
International law is simply a moral code, so kings have no morals the legal obligation to
comply with these laws and the penalties imposed on them are unethical
legal sanctions. However, jus cogens, or ethics, are international law masters under the
obligation to receive. The result of rejection is not so, as Austin will argue, moral
punishment as international condemnation. It's legal to punish with a kind of conflicting
law caught in vain and a guilty country punishment. Austin's refusal to accept
international law leaves a huge gap for him
, and Westlake argued that Austin "had greatly reduced his investigation ..." Many
critics also express a different view of the international source legal authority. Professor
of law Antony Anghie notes that “society, rather than
sovereignty, a key concept used to form the international legal system. ” This could be
Austin's preferred method, as is his idea of royalty it has already been rebuilt and shown
to be inadequate.

Another critic of Austin’s views on international law by Hart, which states that “to argue
that international law is not the obligation due to lack of scheduled penalties is a
willingness to accept… that law it is actually a matter of orders supported by threats.
”Penalties are not there is a need for legitimacy of the law, as outlined in the preceding
paragraph. conclusion
that cannot be proved by evidence of deep thinking.
A final analysis of the concept of Austin's mandate is its connection to royalty. This if the
monarchy, as described by Austin, exists, but the order does not exist? This is the line of
controversy raised by Sir Henry Maine. Maine used the example of Maharaja Ranjit , a
prominent Austrian philosopher, but “never once in his life issued an order that Austin
could call law… The laws that governed his life subjects were taken from their ancient
uses and these rules were observed
by local courts, families or rural communities. ”Maine's argument stands out the
complex nature of the law; it is more than just the decrees of the kings reaches across
cultural, cultural and general perspectives; things Austin can invent
to be so-called laws incorrectly. The consequences of this simplification of the law as we
are Some of Austin's disabilities are explored in the next section.

3.THE CONSEQUENCES OF AUSTIN’S THEORY

There are two possible outcomes of Austin's command line view. First reveals itself when
Austin's opinion is accepted, the second if rejected. If Austin's the definition of a law
accepted as correct would mean that there are a few rules, if any,
it is so called in today's world. His extremely simple vision failed to see the way to the
complex legal systems that exist today as governed by good law, leave many modern
legal systems without the will of the law where they would be seen works with some good
ideas. This decrease in the legal rate is opposed by members of the Austin camp itself.
Defender of official positivism, Matthew H Kramer, summoned "In order for the word
'law' to be used more broadly", emphasizes good legal hatred Austin's decline. While
students at the Austrian School of thought could look at his own
a simple belief like asking for modernization, its simplicity is not profitable. A the
complex legal system should prefer a simpler one than Austrian, as the latter cannot
imagine the difficulties of interpersonal relationships.
and the state. Austin's view looks at the world through the lens of society in particular,
failure to address many political and legal issues weighing on construction of a legal
system. The law is beyond the order of to rule influence another equally.
The second possible result is that Austin's view has failed, in itself, as legal belief
positivism. It does not examine “the [visible] way of governing system ”and“ does not
constitute useful concepts in practical analysis and understanding legal systems ”; its
purpose as described by Julius Stone, Robert N. Moles, and
Michael Lobban. This effect is very real, as many view his view that it does not "Some
internal value". It is no longer used as just a legal name, and the following ideas
contradict his views, removing his work.
5. CONCLUSION
In conclusion, Austin created a limited idea of performance;
features are too obvious to be used in making, or their old translation they are not
essential to today's legal system. He does little to clarify the elements of propaganda
actual legal frameworks. This, along with the theoretical arguments that have crept into
it content, casts doubt on its effectiveness as a respected legal theory.
legal philosophers are engaged in their efforts to articulate the meaning of the law. The
study of
Jurisprudence is by no means the only way to have clear questions and answers, as they
are
includes various schools of thought that philosophers may find difficult to adapt to one
integrated view. However, an investigation into the nature of the law is important.
Austin's work
it should not act as a barrier to future efforts, but be a challenge to do better.
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anghie A, Imperialism, Sovereignty and the Making of International Law (Cambridge

University Press 20015) 124, 127-131

Austin J, ‘The Province of Jurisprudence’ in Rumble W E (ed), The Province of

Jurisprudence Determined (Cambridge University Press, 1995) 18, 19

Bryce J, Studies in History and Jurisprudence (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1901) 538

Collins R, ‘Classical Legal Positivism in International Law Revisited’ in Kammerhofer J and

D’Aspremont J (eds)

International Legal Positivism in a Post-Modern World (Cambridge

University Press, 2014) 39, 41, 42