Theory of Legal Positivism
Theory of Legal Positivism
Theory of Legal Positivism
Austin's view of 'a sovereign' was challenged by Henry Maine in "Early Institutions"
where he argues that in some Empires of the Orient there is nothing to correspond with
"determinate superior" or sovereign.[4]
Austin was greatly influenced in his utilitarian approach to law by Jeremy Bentham.
The theory of legal realism, like positivism, looks on law as the expression of the will of
the state but sees it as made through the medium of Courts. Law no doubt is the
command of the sovereign, but the sovereign to the realist is not the Parliament but the
Court.
1. IMPERATIVE OR AUSTIN'S THEORY OF LAW:
Austin says that law is a command which obliges a person or persons to a course of
conduct. It is laid down by a political sovereign and enforceable by a sanction.
2. FEATURES OF IMPERATIVE THEORY:
According to Austin, positive law has three main features:
A. Command.
B. Sovereign.
C. Sanction.
A. COMMAND: According to Austin: Commands are expressions of desire given by
superiors to inferiors.
(i) Laws are general commands: There are commands which are laws and which is not,
Austin distinguishes law from other commands by their generality. Laws are general
commands, unlike commands given on parade grounds and obeyed there then by the
troops.
B. SOVEREIGN: According to Austin, a sovereign is any person or body of persons,
whom the bulk of a political society habitually obeys and who does not himself habitually
obeys, some other persons or persons.
Characteristics of Sovereign:
(i) Source of Laws: Sovereign is the source of law. Every law is set, by a sovereign
persons or body of persons.
(ii) Source of Power: Prof. Laski says that there are three implications of the definition
of sovereignty given by Austin. The state is a legal order in which there is a determinate
authority acting as the ultimate source of power.
7. Refusal of Precedents as Laws: The bulk of the English law has been created by the
decisions of the Court. To describe the judges as delegates by the positivists is
misleading.
8. Sanction: The concept of sanction is also misleading as in modern democratic country,
the sanction behind law is not the force of the state but the willingness of the people to
obey the same.
9. Sanction is not essential elements: Sanction is not an essential element of law, as in
civil law no such sanction is to be found.
10. Disregard of ethical elements: According to salmond, Austin's theory of law is onesided and inadequatic. It disregards the moral or ethical elements in law.
11. Not applicable to International Law: Austin's definition of law cannot be applied to
International law that is to say that International Law is not an imperative law. The
International law is not the command of any sovereign, yet it is considered to be law by
all concerned. (xii) Not Applicable to constitutional law: Austin's definition of law does
not apply to constitutional law which cannot to called commands of any sovereign.
Constitutional law of a country defines the powers of various organs of the state.
4. IS MORAL LAW IMPERATIVE: Moral law has also been called the divine law, the
law of reason, the universal or common law or eternal law. It is called the command of
God imposed upon men. Natural law appeals to the reason of men. It does not possess
physical compulsion. It embodies the principles of morality. Natural or moral law exists
only in an ideal state and differs from positive law of state. In Austin view of law
morality altogether ignores therefore moral law is not an imperative law.
CONCLUSION:
To conclude, I can say, that inspite of criticism of Austin's theory of law, it cannot be
denied that Austin rendered a great service by giving a clear and simple definition of law.
He makes a distinction between what law is and what it ought to be. It seeks to define law
not be reference to its contents but according to the formed criteria which differentiate
legal rules from other rules such as those of morals, etiquette etc.