Saturday, December 23, 2017 1 munim010@gmail.com John Austin • The Classical version of positive law theory is John Austin's (1797- 1859)"command theory." His model was that of a definition and his goal was to give a definition of law that removed all evaluative language. • Law, Austin reasons, has the status of command. Austin then defines 'command" as any signification of a desire by the sovereign. He then defines the sovereign as "the determinate rational being or body that the other rational beings are in the habit of obeying." • Austin's analysis of a law is different from a normal command in the sense that a law must be logically general. The court makes particular judgments, but the legislation is always general in form. A direct, one-time command to an official is not law. Law is a command to "forbear a whole class of acts."
Barrister MTH Munim @ 01943699187 &
Saturday, December 23, 2017 2 munim010@gmail.com Hart’s criticism of Austin • Hart’s major dissatisfaction of the Command theory model is that it is ubiquitous, in a sense that it ignores rule following and reduces the element of law to the legitimate use of coercion on the pretext of defiance. • Hart argues that Austin’s theory cannot explain the variety of different types of laws encompassed within a legal system. • Laws are not orders backed by threats. And if some laws do resemble orders backed by threats, for example criminal law, not all laws can be classified as such as there are many types of laws that don’t resemble orders backed by threats for example laws that prescribe the way in which valid contracts, wills or marriages are made, these laws do not compel people to behave in a certain way. Barrister MTH Munim @ 01943699187 & Saturday, December 23, 2017 3 munim010@gmail.com Hart’s criticism of Austin (Contd.)
Barrister MTH Munim @ 01943699187 &
Saturday, December 23, 2017 4 munim010@gmail.com • HART and Kelsen