1.

The 3 types of legal authority in social groups, as expounded by Max Weber, are
charisma, traditional and rational respectively.
The first type of legal authority is charisma. This would mean that the leader of a
society, whether it be a president or a prime minister, or the highest position in a
certain society and has the power to create and control over legal rules, possess
charismatic attitudes. The leader is confident in leading and bringing their country to
“greater heights”, and they possess top-notch speaking and convincing skills. They
can persuade citizens to follow certain rules, even by means of promising a better
future, or even by forcing others to accept the rulings by means of force. Examples
of charismatic leaders are Napoleon and Hitler, who both were (regardless of the
horrific acts they committed) were great leaders who possessed the confidence and
power within themselves to lead a country, whether it be that their viewpoints
slightly differed from others.
The second type of legal authority is traditional. This form of legal authority prefers
to conform to what has always been done in a society and follows the rules as they
were set from the very beginning. They usually prefer not to accept new norms and
rulings, as they believe that their country should be able to progress as much with
old rules. They have the mindset of “it has always been this way, so there’s no point
of changing the rules,” or “My country has been governed perfectly fine with these
laws and rulings all these years, why should I change the rulings?” They refuse to
adjust their laws and rulings to accommodate with any changes or new norms, as
they feel like it may disrupt how their country runs.
The third and final type of legal authority is rational. Rational leaders usually make
decisions very carefully, and make sure not to omit any details. They follow any
existing legal and bureaucratic rules, and make sure the new rules and procedures
usually stay close to the original rules but are slightly edited and changed to suit new
norms and the new generations. They can usually accommodate with newer crimes,
like cybercrime, without straying too far from original rulings. Rational legal
authorities usually are very careful to not create any decisions that are out of the
box and not generally accepted by the public.

2. Ronald Dworkin’s perspective of law is that “all parts of law should contain
principles, as well as hard rules. This means that all laws should have a list of rules to
follow, and must follow a guideline of sorts, if they were to be put into use by
society.
He argues that Hart ignores the roles in the operation of law. Hart uses a system of
rules, which in the past have been criticized for not keeping account the various
normative descriptions in legal systems. Hart’s system of rules has a union of primary
and secondary rules. Dworkin argued that Hart’s ‘rules’ are not actual rules, and that
there is a clear difference between rules and principles.
Rules usually apply in a all-or-nothing matter, and they should be followed by every
single citizen. This is regardless of age, gender, ethnicity, or anything that makes
people different from each other. Rules are set in stone with some level of flexibility,
but at the end of the day, they should be followed. Any breaking of rules would then
result in the offender receiving a punishment for their specific wrongdoing.
Principles, on the other hand, are just guidelines, and they are reasons that argue in
a single direction. However, everyone’s principles may differ, due to a difference in
views and thoughts, as well as upbringings. This may cause a lot of arguments and
problems in a society, as not every person grew up in the same replicated
environment. Things that happened in a person’s childhood may have helped shaped
these judgements, but this does not mean everyone went through the same thing.
Everyone may have their own personal thoughts on these principles, as the
lawmaker is the one who decides which principles to implement in a society. If the
lawmaker’s own principles differ greatly from the ones of the society, it would be
very hard to implement and set these principles in stone.
As a conclusion, Dworkin felt that Hart’s “principles” weren’t realistic, as they did not
really take into account that as a country progresses into a new era, norms change
and mindsets change. Hart’s principles weren’t flexible enough to be used in ever-
changing societies, especially in this digital age where change is quick-paced and
almost inevitable.