Algemene rechtsleer

Hoorcollege 2
20 februari 2023

1
Programma:
1. TERUGBLIK Twee antwoorden op de vraag waarom
gehoorzamen wij de wetgever? Hobbes & Rousseau
2. STAP 1 WAT IS RECHT? Het ‘simpele model van recht’
als eerste stap in Harts verduidelijking van ‘wat is
recht’.
3. STAP 2 DE REX-DYNAYSTIE Waarom het simpele
‘model’ van de ‘gunman’ ‘recht’ onvoldoende
verklaart.
2
 Methode van onderzoek Hobbes & Rousseau
• Type vraag: normatief
• Namelijk een vraag naar de normatieve legitimatie van de wetgever; waarom zouden (dienen
we/behoren we) de wetgever moeten gehoorzamen?

• Hoe zo’n vraag te beantwoorden?

• Hobbes …
• Rousseau … 3
 1. TERUGBLIK: WAAROM GEHOORZAMEN WIJ DE WETGEVER?
Jean-
Jacques
Rousseau

Thomas Hobbes

4
Rousseau - Boek 1, Hoofdstuk 3
Het recht van de sterkste

5
• Antwoord op de vraag waarom dienen wij de wetgever te
gehoorzamen?
• Het filosofisch gedachte-experiment
• De situatie van de struikrover 6
?

7
?

8
Harts methode: de conceptuele analyse

9
Herbert Lionel Adolphus Hart 1907 – 1992

1932 - 1940 Barrister

1940 - 1945 MI-5
1945 Teaching fellowship in philosophy at
New College, Oxford
1952 - 1969 Professor of Jurisprudence at Oxford
- student en opvolger: Ronald
Dworkin

1961 The Concept of Law

- ontstaan uit collegedictaten 10
Is ‘gehoorzaamheid’ een kwestie van dwang/gedwongen
zijn of iets anders (en zo ja, wat dan?)
Harts taalfilosofische methode:
“a sharpened awareness of
words to sharpen our perception
of the phenomena”
Citaat J.L. Austin in Hart 2012, preface vi

Let op: John Austin (rechtsfilosoof)

en John Langshaw Austin

(taalfilosoof)
11
Stappenplan

1. De ‘aangeklede
overvaller’
2. De Rex dynastie
3. A Fresh Start

Acceptance of the rule

12
Stap 1 – De ‘aangeklede overvaller’
 Bevelstheorie

• Hobbes 2005 (1651), p. 183 • J. Austin 1995 (1832), p. 21

14
Rousseau - Boek 1, Hoofdstuk 3
Het recht van de sterkste

15
 Harts weergave van J. Austins bevelstheorie
(Hart 2012, p. 18-25)
Austins bevelstheorie 
- Gebruik van de imperatief (bevel):
‘doe dit’ of ‘laat dat’
Of Harts eigen voorbeelden:
‘Go home!’ ‘Come here!’ ‘Stop!’
(Hart 2012, p. 18)
- Met ‘autoriteit’
(Hart 2012, p. 19 – 20)
- Er zijn ‘geadresseerden’
(Hart 2012, p. 21 – 22) 16
 Austins bevelstheorie ‘gestript’
 het gunman model

‘Hand over the money or I will

shoot!’ (Hart 2012, p. 19)

- ‘ordering’, not ‘asking’

- ‘order backed by threats’
- ‘coercive orders’

17
 Commands –> Orders (Hart 2012, p. 19-20)

‘The notion of a command…’ ‘connection with authority’

18
Het gunman model ‘aangekleed’

Features:
- ‘general’ orders (Hart 2012, p. 21-22)
- ‘standing orders’ (Hart 2012, p. 23)
- ‘a general habit of obedience’ (Hart 2012, p. 24)
- ‘supremacy’ and ‘independence’;
‘the sovereign’ (Hart 2012, p. 25)

- Dit is de ‘gunman situation writ large’ (Hart 2012, p. 7, 82)

19
I. Austin II. Austin ‘gestript’ III. Gunman model bevelstheorie tot
Gunman model ‘aangekleed’
‘commands’ ‘orders backed by threats’ ‘general orders’
‘to address’ ‘to address’ ‘standing orders’
‘authority’ ‘coercive orders’ ‘general habit of obedience’
‘independence and
supremacy’
--------------------------
‘gunman situation writ large’
‘coercive orders’

20
Stappenplan

1. De ‘aangeklede
overvaller’
2. De Rex dynastie
3. A Fresh Start

Acceptance of the rule

21
Stap 2 – De Rex dynastie
22
 Hart 2012, p. 50
- ’sovereign’
- general orders
- …backed by threats

- habit of obedience
- position above the law
- “this general theory concerning the
foundations of all legal systems”

- continuity & persistence

23
Rex I → Rex II → ?……….
↔

24
Rex I → Rex II → ?……….
↔

25
Rex I → Rex II → Opvolgingsregel

The Queen Is Dead,

Long Live The King !
↔

?
 ‘In fact, the idea of habitual obedience fails, in two different
though related ways, to account for the continuity [of law-
making power]’ (Hart 2012, p. 54)

↓
1. ‘mere habits of obedience to orders given by one legislator cannot confer
on the new legislator any right to succeed the old and give orders in his
place’ (Hart 2012, p. 54-55)

2. ‘habitual obedience to the old lawgiver cannot by itself render probable,

or found any presumption, that the new legislator’s orders will be
obeyed.’ (Hart 2012, p. 55)
↑
27
‘acceptance of the rule’ (Hart 2012, p. 55)

28
 Regel Bijv. art. 25
Grondwet: ‘Het
koningschap wordt
Rex I → Rex II → ………. erfelijk vervuld door
de wettige opvolgers

→
van Koning Willem I,
‘(…) but will have the Prins van Oranje-
right to do this; and not Nassau.’
only will there be
general obedience to his
orders, but it will be
generally accepted that ‘(…) and there is no reason,
it is right to obey him. since we are now concerned
Rex will in fact be a with standards, not ‘orders’,
legislator with the why he should not be bound
authority to legislate, by his own legislation.’
(…)’ (Hart 2012, p. 58) (Hart 2012, p. 58)

29
 No habit of obedience but ‘acceptance of the rule’
(Hart 2012, p. 55-56)

1. ‘deviations are generally regarded as lapses or faults open to

criticism […] and […] pressure for conformity’
2. ‘Secondly, where there are such rules, not only is such
criticism in fact made but deviation from the standard is
generally accepted as a good reason for making it.’
3. Internal aspect of a rule: ‘some at least must look upon the
behaviour in question as a general standard to be followed by the
group as a whole.’ (Hart 2012, p. 56) -‘there should
be a critical reflective attitude’ - normative language

30
31
32
 No habit of obedience but ‘acceptance of the rule’
(Hart 2012, p. 55-56)

1. ‘deviations are generally regarded as lapses or faults open to

criticism […] and […] pressure for conformity’
2. ‘Secondly, where there are such rules, not only is such
criticism in fact made but deviation from the standard is
generally accepted as a good reason for making it.’
3. Internal aspect of a rule: ‘some at least must look upon the
behaviour in question as a general standard to be followed by the
group as a whole.’ (Hart 2012, p. 56) -‘there should
be a critical reflective attitude’ - normative language

33
 Volgende week:
Stap 3 - A Fresh Start
34