Harts rule of recognition and american

hart rule of recognition criticism

To this end, as explained by Hart, the rule has three functions: To establish a test for valid law in the applicable legal system To confer validity to everything else in the applicable legal system To unify the laws in the applicable legal system [3] The validity of a legal system is independent from its efficacy.

It would also be conceptually wrong to presuppose their precedence in respect of the rule of recognition since what according to the rules of change and adjudication legislators and judges do is introduce changes to and adjudicate upon the rules identified as the rules of a system, which cannot be done unless a rule of recognition setting out the criteria of validity already exists.

Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 67 3.

hart practice theory of rules

This, however, is a first-level stipulation only. This, no doubt, requires that the relevant community have at least some however general concept of what the legal system is. However, despite the fact that the said rule is constitutive of all legal rules of a system, it is constitutive of individual legal rules and not of the legal system as such.

hart rule of change

Yet Hart made no mention of the chronological order in which any of the secondary rules are introduced into the system. But to be a valid rule, the legal system of which the rule is a component must, as a whole, be effective.

Rated 9/10 based on 108 review
Rule of recognition