There are two kinds of law. One is based on justice , the other one is based on control. The latter part is in use today. “Might is right” principle is followed. It is retribution instead of restoration which should be followed. A wonderful attempt at describing what law is, using the realm of rules so as to describe the legal phenomenon as a concatenation of primary (normative) and secondary rules (of recognition, of change, and of adjudication). I would say this is one of the few necessary legal philosophical readings for any lawyer and legal researcher. I would also recommend reading it with a broader circle of like-minded individuals, on a per-chapter basis, allowing for fruitful discussions on the material. Marshall, Richard (2012-07-06). "The Endless Search For Truth: Richard Marshall interviews Andrei Marmor". 3:AM Magazine. Archived from the original on 8 June 2019 . Retrieved 19 September 2013. As Christians, it was believed that the omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent loving God is the world’s Lawgiver (Psalm 127:1). He provides Himself as an absolute basis for law. The Christian system of law did not change according to the whims and remained static. In fact, laws are the rules that bind human together. Without laws, man can become worse than an animal. Law is a necessity for the nation to prosper. The rules are made by man, enforced by man, on the man.

Many centuries ago, it was believed that according to Christianity, God and Old Testaments created the law. Law was a set of rules written by God. People believed in Divine power. Also, it was believed that only if the laws are considered to be sacred then it will be followed. Also, keep the following in mind. Hart wrote it that way on purpose. In his odd structuring lies a hidden point. Law as a bundle of words pretends to be perfectly structured, yet often isn't, and that is where the function of the lawyer lies. And perhaps even the function of the legal philosopher.Even in ancient times there were certain customs which acted as laws. In other words, it can be said that law can be called as the supreme force which acts as a catalyst between society and illegal practices. There are no legal systems that can be classified as pareto optimal. The next best thing is to make sure that the system does not remain at a static quality but instead is dynamic and progressive. The remedy for the static quality of the regime of primary rules are rules of change. [20] Generally, rules of change confer and prohibit power of the creation, extinction and alteration of primary and secondary rules. Rules of change range in complexity: “the powers conferred may be unrestricted or limited in various ways: and the rules may, besides specifying the persons who are to legislate, define in more or less rigid terms the procedure to be followed in legislation.” As mentioned earlier, rules of change are interdependent with the other rules. Hart emphasizes the “close connection between the rules of change and the rules of recognition.” Where rules of change exist, rules of recognition "ʺwill necessarily incorporate a reference to legislation as an identifying feature of the rules, though it need not refer to all the details of procedure involved in legislation.” [21] Rules of adjudication [ edit ] Hart, HLA (1988). "Answers to Eight Questions". In Duarte d'Almeida, Luis; Edwards, James; Dolcetti, Andrea (eds.). Reading HLA Hart's The Concept of Law. Oxford: Hart Publishing (published 2013). ISBN 1782252169. OCLC 884479238.

Law is the product of social consciousness.” This social consciousness started even before sovereignty. It started from the very beginning of the society. Sir Henry Maine, Edmund Burke are the renowned jurists. Uno de los debates centrales en "El Concepto de Derecho" es la relación entre derecho y moral. Aunque Hart mantiene una distinción clara entre ambos, reconoce que la moral puede influir en la formación del derecho. A diferencia de Kelsen, que buscaba aislar al derecho de otras influencias, Hart admite que la moral puede ser una fuente de derecho, aunque no necesariamente la única o la principal. Hart believed law is the union of primary rules (rules of conduct) and secondary rules (empowering rules). [12] [13] Primary rules [ edit ] The main aim of Philosophical school or Natural school is to elevate humans from evil and raise them to do good. Academy and Foreign Honorary Member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and has published a number of books including Between Authority and Interpretation (OUP, 2009) and The Authority of Law (OUP, 2009).Allen observed that “fermentation is necessary in legal chemistry for without it the liquor of” the law becomes sour and stale. This takes into account the customary practices and circumstances for providing with a new law. The theory can be understood with descriptive way or prescriptive way or both. This school emerged as a synthesis of many jurist’s thoughts. This school of thought lay emphasis on functional part of law rather than the abstract part of law.

Primary rules are rules, or laws, that govern general societal conduct. Thus, primary rules construct legal obligations and consequences when they are disobeyed. A good example of primary rule is the law against murder; it prohibits a person from killing and attaches consequences for committing, attempting to commit, and conspiring to commit the crime. [14] Secondary rules [ edit ] A distinction between primary and secondary legal rules, where a primary rule governs conduct and a secondary rule allows the creation, alteration, or extinction of primary rules. In this valuable and long-awaited new edition Hart presents an Epilogue in which he answers Dworkin and some of his other most influential critics including Fuller and Finnis. Written with the same clarity and candor for which the first edition is famous, the Epilogue offers a sharperAmbos juristas, con sus respectivas obras, nos invitan a una travesía por el intrincado laberinto del pensamiento jurídico, cuestionando las premisas tradicionales y desafiando al lector a ver el derecho bajo una luz renovada. Juntos, Kelsen y Hart representan dos pilares fundamentales en la filosofía del derecho del siglo XX, y su legado sigue inspirando debates y reflexiones en la era contemporánea. Law is defined as, “a set of special legal rules, enforceable by the courts, regulating the government of the state, relationship between the organs of the state and relationship or conducts subjects towards each other.” It is a body of rules made by the legislature. Law in the modern times is influenced by time and places. A crime in one place may be an ordinary act of another. Thus, nothing is wrong or right, it is now the law of the state which governs the act. It is customs, practices and habits that become law.

This school is the only school of jurisprudence which has a definite program which the other schools do not have. They placed a lot of emphasis on the concept of justice. The Concept of Law emerged from Hart's initial lectures as Oxford Professor of Jurisprudence following Arthur Goodhart's retirement, in 1952. [7] [8] Among Hart's early lectures on law that are expanded in the book is his 1953 essay titled, "Definition and Theory in Jurisprudence." [9] Hart's discussion of Austin's legal positivism, the separation of law and morality, and the open-texture of legal rules can be seen in his April 1957 presentation of the Oliver Wendell Holmes Lecture at Harvard Law School titled, "Positivism and the Separation of Law and Morals ." [10] The book developed a sophisticated view of legal positivism.As a result, the definition changed over time. Later people started believing more in themselves than in the supreme commander. The meaning of law became closer to humans. The definition shifted its emphasis from God to lawmakers. According to John Chipman Gray, “the Law of the State or of any organised body of men is composed of the rules which the courts, that is judicial organ of the body lays down for the determination of legal rights and duties.” His definition also received criticism that his definition focused neither on nature of law nor on statute laws.