Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Topic 3 (pt2) - The Concept of Law by Hart
Topic 3 (pt2) - The Concept of Law by Hart
Topic 3 (pt2) - The Concept of Law by Hart
OF LAW BY HART
Introduction
Hart’s Nature of Legal Theory
Hart on the Role of Language
Hart’s View on the Term ‘Law’
Hart’s Idea of Viewing ‘Law’ as a ‘RULE’
Primary & Secondary Rules
Criticisms on Hart’s Distinction of Primary and Secondary
Rules
Hart on Morality
Hart’s Descriptive Sociology
Conclusion
Introduction
• Hart (1907-1992), who was a Prof of Jurisprudence at Oxford
during 1952-68, was a leading figure in the post-war movement
for the revival of interest in the philosophy of law in relation to
the much wider field of general philosophical enquiry.
• He was interested particularly in the development of the doctrine
of legal positivism and set out his view of the fundamentals of a
legal system in ‘The Concept of Law’ (1961).
Cont…
• Prof. Hart in Chapters 8 and 9 of ‘The Concept of Law’
expounds his view of morality. He claims that there is no
necessary connection between law and morality. However, this
does not mean that he has no view on morality. In ‘Liberty, Law
and Morality’ Hart discusses the role of morality in law creation.
Hart subscribes to paternal morality (to save people from harm)
and does not approve conventional morality as propounded by
judges like Lord Devlin.
Cont…
• He favoured the wider way which would accept moral as well as immoral
rules if these had gone through the legal filter.
Hart’s View on the Term
Law
• Hart refused to use the word ‘law’ because jurists cannot agree on its
meaning. He wanted to avoid the danger of adopting a wrong definition of
any concept. He thus stated that although it is possible to define an elephant
as ‘quadruped with thick skin, tusks and trunks’ or a lemon as a ‘yellow
citrus fruit that taste sour’, it is not so for law. To him, it is impossible to
find a class or family of meaning (genus) to which law belonged.
• Hart stated that to define the term ‘what is law’, would be by way of
making reference to linguistic philosophy. To Hart this could be done by
comparing the possible usages of the word, placing them in different
contexts and different sentences i.e. observing the usage of ‘normative
language’ e.g. “But you promised”- which shows that a rule exists which
justifies keeping of promises. It is not merely predictive; “You better not
park your car near the yellow line” or “stop, on the light turning red”.
• All these according to Hart implies acceptance of certain correct standards
of behaviour (rules). These are not merely predictive but there is a
justification to obey. The maker of the statement could be said to have
received a signal (not a sign) to remove his car from the yellow line or stop.
Cont…
• Hart also tried to come up with a distinction which formulate the
cause of ‘nature and laws’ which governs the conduct of man.
• Hence, as a result of that distinction, Hart could perceive the
difference between ‘science and law’ through linguistic practices.
• For example, we find that we do not say that birds ‘break’ the law
if they do not fly south during winter but ‘reformulate’ our
understanding of the flight of birds.
• Furthermore, the same could not be said of a thief who ‘breaks’
the law when he steals. We find that ‘law’ is often associated with
‘law impregnated words’ such as ‘ought’, ‘would’ or ‘should’.
Hart’s Idea of Viewing ‘Law’
as a ‘RULE’
• According to Hart, the basic failure of the Austinian
model is its neglect of a concept of a rule. Hart
argued that to understand the foundations of a legal
system, rather than an account based on habitual
obedience to the commands of unlimited sovereign, a
necessary insight will be that laws are a specifies of
rules and ultimately the foundations of a legal system
will be based on the acceptance of a fundamental
rule.
• Hart posed a question in his understanding of the
‘law’ that is, to what extent is law an affair of rules.
• Hart argued that in every society there are certain matters that
influence human behaviour and this can be divided into:
• (i) Social habits
• (ii) Social rules
• Mere social conventions
• Rules constituting obligations
• Rules which form part of the moral code of the society
concerned
• Rules which take the form of law
Primary & Secondary Rules
• Primary rules are generally duty imposing. These resemble criminal law
which restricts acts of violence (murder, battery, rape etc), acts against
property (theft, robbery, criminal trespass etc).
• Hart argues that if a society is to operate solely on the basis of primary
rules, certain conditions arising from human nature and the very world
in which we live would have to be satisfied.
• For example, the rules would have to contain restrictions: ‘on free use
of violence, theft and deception to which human beings are tempted
which they must, in general repress, if they are to co-exist in close
proximity to each other’.
Cont…
• Hart argues that in such society (which operates solely on the
basis of primary rules), those who reject the rules ‘except where
fear of social pressure induces them to conform’ must be no more
than a small minority. Hart also make reference to a hypothetical
pre-legal society that lives by primary rules alone i.e. Where
legislature and court may be absent.
• Furthermore, Hart argues that there are certain defects of a system
solely based on ‘primary rules’ i.e. A pre-legal society.
• The defects are: The defect of uncertainty: the rules will not form
a system, but will simply be a set of separate standards, without
any identifying on common mark; except of course that they are
rules which a particular group of human beings accept.
• They will in this respect resemble our own rules of etiquette.
Cont…
• Defect of static rules: the community would remain static e.g. any
form of change is slow. This is as a result of a very slow process
of growth or by a gradual process of decay.
• Defect of inefficiency: which is considered as the most serious
defect of all. This would arise as a result of disputes as to whether
an admitted rule has or has not been violated. Thus, they would be
no means of settling disputes as to whether rules have been
broken.
Secondary rule