Law According to John Austin
John Austin’s Theory of Law:
1. Who was John Austin?
John Austin (1790–1859) was a legal philosopher known for developing the Command Theory of Law.
He is considered one of the earliest and most influential thinkers in analytical jurisprudence.
His ideas laid the groundwork for understanding law as a system of rules backed by sanctions.
2. Basic Idea: Law as Commands
Austin defined law as commands issued by a sovereign, backed by the threat of sanctions in case of disobedience.
According to him, law is a command given by a political superior to political inferiors.
This command is enforced by a sanction — a threat of punishment or penalty.
3. Key Elements of Law According to Austin
| Element | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Command | An expression of desire backed by a threat; a directive to do or not do something. |
| Sovereign | A person or body whom the majority habitually obey and who does not habitually obey any other earthly authority. |
| Sanction | The consequence or punishment imposed for disobedience of the command. |
| Obedience | Law exists because people habitually obey the sovereign’s commands. |
4. Detailed Explanation
Law is a command: For Austin, laws are not suggestions, morals, or customs but are orders given by someone in authority.
Sovereign: The sovereign is the ultimate authority in a society whose commands are followed by the majority.
Habitual obedience: The power of the sovereign rests on the general obedience by the people.
Sanctions: Every law is backed by a sanction, meaning if someone disobeys the law, there is a penalty or punishment.
5. Types of Laws According to Austin
Laws Proper: Commands backed by threats or sanctions (i.e., what we generally call “law”).
Laws Imperfect: Rules or moral commands not backed by sanctions (e.g., ethical rules).
6. Limitations in Austin’s Theory
Austin’s theory applies best to positive law (law made by humans) but excludes customary law, moral law, or divine law.
It focuses on law as it is, not as it ought to be.
It assumes a single sovereign, which may not fit modern states with complex governance.
Relevant Case Law Illustrating Austin’s Theory
1. R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Simms (1999)
Context: The court considered whether laws restricting prisoners’ rights could be valid.
Connection: Shows the sovereign (the state) issues commands (laws) that citizens (or prisoners) must obey, under threat of sanction.
Principle: Laws backed by sanctions are authoritative, reflecting Austin’s idea of sovereign commands.
2. Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. (1893)
Facts: The company promised to pay £100 to anyone who used their product and still got sick.
Held: The court treated this promise as a binding legal command with consequences.
Connection: The case illustrates how certain statements or promises backed by consequences can be considered commands enforceable by law, resonating with Austin’s command theory.
3. The State as Sovereign (General Concept)
In many cases, the courts recognize the state’s authority to enforce laws and impose sanctions on citizens who disobey.
This is consistent with Austin’s idea of a sovereign whose commands are backed by sanctions.
Summary
| Aspect | Austin’s Explanation |
|---|---|
| Law | Command given by a sovereign |
| Sovereign | Authority habitually obeyed by majority |
| Sanction | Penalty for disobedience |
| Obedience | Habitual obedience by people legitimizes sovereign power |
| Focus | Positive law, enforceable commands |
| Example | State laws enforced by courts and police |
Conclusion
John Austin’s theory views law as a system of commands from a sovereign authority backed by sanctions. His analytical approach helps us understand law as rules that must be obeyed, enforced by punishments for non-compliance. While modern legal systems may be more complex, Austin’s theory remains a foundational concept in jurisprudence.
RELATED Blog
0 comments