Hart's Theory When Hart began to formulate his legal theory, a dominant view in the legal theory literature was that law was best understood as the command of a sovereign over his subjects. The “command” theory most actively proposed and identified with Austin explained law as a matter of commands given by a sovereign who others habitually obey, but who does not habitually obey others. There are regular patterns of obedience to these commands, and legal obligations exist to the extent that failure to obey is regularly followed by the application of sanctions. Hart attacks this theory at almost every point. Crucially, he argues that taking the perspective that legal systems consist of commands backed by threats does not distinguish the orders of a terrorist or gangster from those of a legal system. The likelihood of being penalized might force me to behave in a certain way, but it would not impose an obligation on me. “The law is definitely not the issue of guns in the broadest sense,” Hart points out in his essay “The Separation of Law and Morality.” A legal system must surely be somehow better than the rule of gangsters over a petrified public, where the general population acts out of pure fear of the consequences. You act within a valid regulatory system because you believe you should do so and not simply because you fear the consequences of doing otherwise. For Hart, the fundamental flaw in Austin's approach is that it fails to consider the concept of rules. The elements of Austin's theory «do not and cannot, by their combination, provide the idea of ​​a rule, without which we cannot hope to elucidate even the most element... ]Bibliography: HLA Hart The concept of law Davies and Holdcroft JurisprudenceBixTheory and context of jurisprudenceNE Simmonds Central issues in jurisprudenceRay Davern's lecture was also quite useful.----------------------- ----- ------------------------------------------------[1 ] The Concept of Law p78[2] MacCormick's Legal Reasoning and Legal Theory p.279-86[3] See The Concept of Law p.204.[4] Named so because Hart's account equates the existence of rules with a certain type of social practice.[5] Raz Practical Reasons and Norms p.56[6] To be honest, I didn't quite understand that Kelsen could develop this argument further. But I hope to show you such a conclusion when I finally get to grips with all this material. Sorry, but I hope I'm going in the right direction with this!!