Hart's Theory Of International Law

997 Words4 Pages
International Law is defined by the United Nations to be the legal responsibilities of States in their conduct with each other, and their treatment of individuals within State boundaries. There has been significant discussion by all theories of jurisprudence as regards the character of international law, and whether or not it is consider to be true law. Most positivist theory were confined by the principle of sovereignty for their interpretation of international law however Hart provides two key points of analysis into international law. Firstly Hart’s critique of Austin’s command theory, to which law has to be understood as a set of rules issued by a sovereign. Hart rejects both Austin's theory of rules as well as his theory of sovereignty. And Secondly, his analysis of international law focusing on three main areas, sources of doubt, interaction between international law and morality and the form of international law.

Hart’s critique of Austin’s
…show more content…
Hart rejects Austin’s theory in two ways firstly, as regards his theory of rules, Hart argues that not all legal rules can be understood as coercive orders, as not all laws establish duties. He sights the example of power-conferring rules which rather than establish duties confer public power on judicial, legislative and administrative officers. And emphasizes that customary law cannot be defined as an order by the sovereign thus refuting Austin’s theory of rules. Secondly, Hart rejects Austin’s theory of sovereignty, by highlighting that when a “sovereign” changes Austin’s theory cannot explain the new sovereign's lawmaking power; If the law

More about Hart's Theory Of International Law

Open Document