Discuss the relationship between 'sanction' and 'command' theories of law, with reference to the work of Austin and Kelsen
Share
In examining the relationship between the command and sanction theories of law as articulated by Austin and Kelsen respectively, it becomes evident that while both theories fall under the umbrella of sanction theories, they diverge significantly in their conceptualisation of the nature of law and its enforcement.
John Austin's command theory posits that law is fundamentally a command issued by a sovereign backed by the threat of sanction. In other words, according to Austin, a law is essentially a command that obliges obedience, and failure to comply with this command results in the imposition of sanctions by the sovereign authority. This perspective emphasises the coercive aspect of law and underscores the importance of enforcement mechanisms in maintaining social order.
On the other hand, Hans Kelsen's theory presents a more subtle understanding of law. Kelsen argues that a legal norm is not merely a command but rather a normative structure that authorises or empowers officials to apply sanctions in specific circumstances. In Kelsen's view, a legal system consists of a hierarchy of norms, with each norm deriving its validity from a higher norm, ultimately culminating in a basic norm or Grundnorm. This hierarchical structure emphasises the autonomy of legal norms and their inherent authority to regulate behaviour within a given legal system.
While both Austin and Kelsen advocate for sanction-based theories of law, their conceptualisations differ in significant ways. Austin focuses on the coercive nature of law, viewing it primarily as a command backed by the threat of sanction. In contrast, Kelsen emphasises the normative structure of law, wherein legal norms authorise the application of sanctions but are not reducible to mere commands.
However, it is important to note that both theories have faced criticism, particularly from HLA Hart who argues that sanction theories fail to capture the diverse ways in which the law guides behaviour. He highlights the importance of legal rules not only in deterring undesirable conduct through sanctions but also in providing guidance and coordination for individuals within a legal system.
In conclusion, while both Austin's command theory and Kelsen's normative theory fall under the category of sanction theories, they differ in their conceptualisations of the nature of law and its enforcement mechanisms. Despite criticisms, both theories contribute valuable insights into the complex relationship between law, authority, and social order.
John Austin's command theory posits that law is fundamentally a command issued by a sovereign backed by the threat of sanction. In other words, according to Austin, a law is essentially a command that obliges obedience, and failure to comply with this command results in the imposition of sanctions by the sovereign authority. This perspective emphasises the coercive aspect of law and underscores the importance of enforcement mechanisms in maintaining social order.
On the other hand, Hans Kelsen's theory presents a more subtle understanding of law. Kelsen argues that a legal norm is not merely a command but rather a normative structure that authorises or empowers officials to apply sanctions in specific circumstances. In Kelsen's view, a legal system consists of a hierarchy of norms, with each norm deriving its validity from a higher norm, ultimately culminating in a basic norm or Grundnorm. This hierarchical structure emphasises the autonomy of legal norms and their inherent authority to regulate behaviour within a given legal system.
While both Austin and Kelsen advocate for sanction-based theories of law, their conceptualisations differ in significant ways. Austin focuses on the coercive nature of law, viewing it primarily as a command backed by the threat of sanction. In contrast, Kelsen emphasises the normative structure of law, wherein legal norms authorise the application of sanctions but are not reducible to mere commands.
However, it is important to note that both theories have faced criticism, particularly from HLA Hart who argues that sanction theories fail to capture the diverse ways in which the law guides behaviour. He highlights the importance of legal rules not only in deterring undesirable conduct through sanctions but also in providing guidance and coordination for individuals within a legal system.
In conclusion, while both Austin's command theory and Kelsen's normative theory fall under the category of sanction theories, they differ in their conceptualisations of the nature of law and its enforcement mechanisms. Despite criticisms, both theories contribute valuable insights into the complex relationship between law, authority, and social order.
