SUMMARY TEXTS
CONCEPT OF LAW – H.L.A
CHAPTER 1: PERSISTENT QUESTIONS
1.1 Why is the question "What is law?" so difficult to answer?
The question "What is law?" involves not just recognizing laws (e.g., laws against
murder or tax evasion) but understanding their deeper theoretical nature and
function.
Unlike disciplines such as chemistry or medicine, where foundational questions
like "What is chemistry?" are rarely debated, legal philosophy has produced a wide
range of conflicting and paradoxical answers.
Example of confusion: Some theorists claim laws are mere predictions of how judges
will act, while others see them as expressions of moral obligations.
1.2 The core of the problem
Hart emphasizes that the difficulty of the question "What is law?" arises not from
ignorance about laws but from challenges in understanding their fundamental nature and
purpose.
1.2.1 Examples of foundational questions
What makes laws different from commands issued by criminals, like a robber with
a gun?
How does law relate to moral rules, such as "You must not steal" or "Be honest"?
1.3 Three recurring problems in debates about law
Hart identifies three key issues that repeatedly appear in discussions about the nature of
law:
1. The difference between laws and commands backed by threats
o In simple scenarios, such as a robber demanding money at gunpoint, we
refer to this as coercion.
Coercion: The use of threats to compel someone to act.
o Some theorists (like John Austin) compare laws to such commands, but
Hart argues that laws involve much more than coercion.
2. The difference between legal obligations and moral obligations
o Legal rules and moral rules share overlapping features:
, They often use similar language, such as "duty," "right," and
"obligation."
Both prohibit similar behaviors, such as murder and theft.
o Key question: Is law merely a branch of morality, or do laws function
independently?
3. What are rules, and how do they operate in a legal system?
o Rules: Commonly accepted behavioral norms that dictate what people
may or may not do.
o Legal rules are unique because:
They are often formally codified.
They are binding for a broad group of people.
o Hart examines whether laws consist of clear, fixed rules or whether
lawmakers and judges interpret them flexibly.
1.4 Why do definitions of law often fail?
Traditional definitions, such as "law is a command backed by threats," fail
because:
o They do not distinguish laws from other social norms.
o They do not account for the complexity of legal systems, such as courts
and legislatures.
Hart advocates for a detailed analysis of legal systems rather than simple definitions.
CHAPTER 2: LAWS, COMMANDS, AND ORDERS
2.1 Different types of commands
Commands are expressions of desires or instructions, often in the form of orders
or prohibitions.
Not all commands are the same. Hart categorizes them:
o Requests: Polite calls for action, e.g., "Can you pass the salt?"
o Pleadings: Desperate calls for help, e.g., "Help me!"
o Coercive commands: Orders backed by threats, e.g., "Give me your
money, or I’ll shoot."
2.2 What makes legal commands different from ordinary commands?
,Hart compares laws to coercive commands but highlights key differences:
1. Generality:
o Laws are not directed at specific individuals, like a robber’s order, but apply
to broad groups of people.
Example: A law against theft applies to all citizens in a legal
jurisdiction, not just to a single person.
2. Durability:
o A robber’s commands are temporary and only apply in the moment.
Laws, by contrast, remain in force until explicitly repealed or
amended.
3. Obedience:
o Laws are typically followed not just out of fear of punishment but also
because they are seen as legitimate and binding.
Legitimacy: The idea that laws are lawful and acceptable within
society.
2.3 The idea of sovereignty
Hart introduces sovereignty as a feature of legal systems:
Sovereign: The highest authority within a legal system (e.g., the Parliament in
Belgium).
Internal supremacy: The sovereign is the ultimate source of law within a
country.
External independence: A sovereign does not answer to external powers or
states.
2.4 How does law differ from pure coercion?
Hart emphasizes that law is more than just threats and obedience:
1. Complexity of rules: Legal systems include diverse types of rules, such as
criminal laws, procedural rules, and rules for creating contracts.
2. Institutionalization: Legal systems have specialized institutions like courts and
legislatures to enforce and adapt laws.
3. Faith in the system: Citizens and officials often trust in the stability and
legitimacy of the legal system.
2.5 Why is Austin’s theory of commands insufficient?
, Hart critiques John Austin’s theory, which likens laws to commands backed by threats:
Limitation: Austin’s model ignores non-criminal laws, like inheritance or contract
law, which empower rather than coerce individuals.
Complex structures: Modern legal systems are far more intricate than simple
relationships of command and obedience.
KAFKA'S "BEFORE THE LAW" AND INTERPRETATIONS BY AGAMBEN
KAFKA’S ALLEGORY: "BEFORE THE LAW"
Kafka’s parable describes a man from the countryside seeking access to "the law"
through a gate guarded by a gatekeeper.
Story Overview
1. The encounter with the gatekeeper:
o The man asks for entry into the law but is denied by the gatekeeper, who
vaguely promises future access.
2. The open but inaccessible gate:
o The gate stands open, yet the man is forbidden to pass.
o The gatekeeper warns of increasingly powerful gatekeepers beyond.
3. Years of waiting:
o The man waits for years, attempting to persuade the gatekeeper with gifts,
which are accepted but do not grant access.
o He grows old, loses his strength and vision, and dies, having never entered.
4. The revelation upon death:
o Before dying, the man asks why no one else has sought entry.
o The gatekeeper reveals that this gate was meant only for him and that it
will now be closed.
INTERPRETATIONS BY GIORGIO AGAMBEN AND OTHERS
1. The gate as a symbol of the law
Kafka’s gate symbolizes the law and its inaccessibility. Agamben and other philosophers
interpret this story in terms of power and the ambiguity of the law:
1. Law as "force without significance" (Agamben):
o The gate represents a law that is present yet unreachable.
o Force without significance: The law has authority but lacks concrete
demands or justification.
CONCEPT OF LAW – H.L.A
CHAPTER 1: PERSISTENT QUESTIONS
1.1 Why is the question "What is law?" so difficult to answer?
The question "What is law?" involves not just recognizing laws (e.g., laws against
murder or tax evasion) but understanding their deeper theoretical nature and
function.
Unlike disciplines such as chemistry or medicine, where foundational questions
like "What is chemistry?" are rarely debated, legal philosophy has produced a wide
range of conflicting and paradoxical answers.
Example of confusion: Some theorists claim laws are mere predictions of how judges
will act, while others see them as expressions of moral obligations.
1.2 The core of the problem
Hart emphasizes that the difficulty of the question "What is law?" arises not from
ignorance about laws but from challenges in understanding their fundamental nature and
purpose.
1.2.1 Examples of foundational questions
What makes laws different from commands issued by criminals, like a robber with
a gun?
How does law relate to moral rules, such as "You must not steal" or "Be honest"?
1.3 Three recurring problems in debates about law
Hart identifies three key issues that repeatedly appear in discussions about the nature of
law:
1. The difference between laws and commands backed by threats
o In simple scenarios, such as a robber demanding money at gunpoint, we
refer to this as coercion.
Coercion: The use of threats to compel someone to act.
o Some theorists (like John Austin) compare laws to such commands, but
Hart argues that laws involve much more than coercion.
2. The difference between legal obligations and moral obligations
o Legal rules and moral rules share overlapping features:
, They often use similar language, such as "duty," "right," and
"obligation."
Both prohibit similar behaviors, such as murder and theft.
o Key question: Is law merely a branch of morality, or do laws function
independently?
3. What are rules, and how do they operate in a legal system?
o Rules: Commonly accepted behavioral norms that dictate what people
may or may not do.
o Legal rules are unique because:
They are often formally codified.
They are binding for a broad group of people.
o Hart examines whether laws consist of clear, fixed rules or whether
lawmakers and judges interpret them flexibly.
1.4 Why do definitions of law often fail?
Traditional definitions, such as "law is a command backed by threats," fail
because:
o They do not distinguish laws from other social norms.
o They do not account for the complexity of legal systems, such as courts
and legislatures.
Hart advocates for a detailed analysis of legal systems rather than simple definitions.
CHAPTER 2: LAWS, COMMANDS, AND ORDERS
2.1 Different types of commands
Commands are expressions of desires or instructions, often in the form of orders
or prohibitions.
Not all commands are the same. Hart categorizes them:
o Requests: Polite calls for action, e.g., "Can you pass the salt?"
o Pleadings: Desperate calls for help, e.g., "Help me!"
o Coercive commands: Orders backed by threats, e.g., "Give me your
money, or I’ll shoot."
2.2 What makes legal commands different from ordinary commands?
,Hart compares laws to coercive commands but highlights key differences:
1. Generality:
o Laws are not directed at specific individuals, like a robber’s order, but apply
to broad groups of people.
Example: A law against theft applies to all citizens in a legal
jurisdiction, not just to a single person.
2. Durability:
o A robber’s commands are temporary and only apply in the moment.
Laws, by contrast, remain in force until explicitly repealed or
amended.
3. Obedience:
o Laws are typically followed not just out of fear of punishment but also
because they are seen as legitimate and binding.
Legitimacy: The idea that laws are lawful and acceptable within
society.
2.3 The idea of sovereignty
Hart introduces sovereignty as a feature of legal systems:
Sovereign: The highest authority within a legal system (e.g., the Parliament in
Belgium).
Internal supremacy: The sovereign is the ultimate source of law within a
country.
External independence: A sovereign does not answer to external powers or
states.
2.4 How does law differ from pure coercion?
Hart emphasizes that law is more than just threats and obedience:
1. Complexity of rules: Legal systems include diverse types of rules, such as
criminal laws, procedural rules, and rules for creating contracts.
2. Institutionalization: Legal systems have specialized institutions like courts and
legislatures to enforce and adapt laws.
3. Faith in the system: Citizens and officials often trust in the stability and
legitimacy of the legal system.
2.5 Why is Austin’s theory of commands insufficient?
, Hart critiques John Austin’s theory, which likens laws to commands backed by threats:
Limitation: Austin’s model ignores non-criminal laws, like inheritance or contract
law, which empower rather than coerce individuals.
Complex structures: Modern legal systems are far more intricate than simple
relationships of command and obedience.
KAFKA'S "BEFORE THE LAW" AND INTERPRETATIONS BY AGAMBEN
KAFKA’S ALLEGORY: "BEFORE THE LAW"
Kafka’s parable describes a man from the countryside seeking access to "the law"
through a gate guarded by a gatekeeper.
Story Overview
1. The encounter with the gatekeeper:
o The man asks for entry into the law but is denied by the gatekeeper, who
vaguely promises future access.
2. The open but inaccessible gate:
o The gate stands open, yet the man is forbidden to pass.
o The gatekeeper warns of increasingly powerful gatekeepers beyond.
3. Years of waiting:
o The man waits for years, attempting to persuade the gatekeeper with gifts,
which are accepted but do not grant access.
o He grows old, loses his strength and vision, and dies, having never entered.
4. The revelation upon death:
o Before dying, the man asks why no one else has sought entry.
o The gatekeeper reveals that this gate was meant only for him and that it
will now be closed.
INTERPRETATIONS BY GIORGIO AGAMBEN AND OTHERS
1. The gate as a symbol of the law
Kafka’s gate symbolizes the law and its inaccessibility. Agamben and other philosophers
interpret this story in terms of power and the ambiguity of the law:
1. Law as "force without significance" (Agamben):
o The gate represents a law that is present yet unreachable.
o Force without significance: The law has authority but lacks concrete
demands or justification.
