John Austin and Hans Kelsen
The differences between John Austin and Hans Kelsen, two prominent legal theorists, center on their views of the nature and structure of law. Here are the key distinctions:
1. Nature of Law:
- John Austin (1790–1859): Austin is known for his command theory of law. He argued that law is a set of commands issued by a sovereign, backed by the threat of sanction. In his view, law is a command from a political superior to a political inferior, and compliance is ensured through punishment. He focused on the idea that law is a system of rules derived from the will of the sovereign.
- Key Point: For Austin, law is primarily imperative—it is something imposed by authority and enforced through penalties.
- Hans Kelsen (1881–1973): Kelsen developed the Pure Theory of Law. His approach was to separate law from morality, politics, or sociology, arguing that law should be studied as a normative science. He believed that law is a system of norms and focused on the structure and hierarchy of legal systems, culminating in the concept of the “Grundnorm” or basic norm, which serves as the ultimate source of legal validity.
- Key Point: For Kelsen, law is normative—it is a system of norms existing in a hierarchical structure, separate from political authority or moral considerations.
2. Concept of Sovereignty:
- Austin: The sovereign is central to Austin’s theory. He believed that law is the command of the sovereign, and the power of law derives from the power of the sovereign to enforce it. Sovereignty, in his view, is indivisible and absolute.
- Key Point: Law is the command of the sovereign, and obedience to the sovereign is what makes something a law.
- Kelsen: Kelsen rejects the traditional concept of sovereignty. He argues that the validity of legal norms does not depend on the will of a sovereign but rather on the position of a norm within a hierarchical legal system. The Grundnorm gives validity to all other legal norms, and law is a system of norms rather than commands.
- Key Point: Law’s validity comes from its position within a hierarchy of norms, not from a sovereign’s command.
3. Relation to Morality:
- Austin: Austin made a distinction between law and morality, but he did not completely separate them. He acknowledged that legal systems often incorporate moral principles but maintained that the sovereign could also impose laws that are not morally just.
- Key Point: Law can overlap with morality, but its authority comes from the sovereign, not from moral principles.
- Kelsen: Kelsen’s theory insists on a strict separation between law and morality. He argued that law should be studied scientifically, as a system of norms, and morality should be excluded from this analysis.
- Key Point: Law and morality are entirely separate domains in Kelsen’s theory.
4. Focus and Approach:
Austin: His approach is more empirical and focused on the practical aspects of law as it is enforced by the sovereign. His theory is rooted in legal positivism, meaning law is what is enacted by a legitimate authority, regardless of whether it is just or moral.
Kelsen: Kelsen’s theory is more abstract and theoretical. His focus is on the structure of law as a normative system, independent of enforcement, politics, or morality. His Pure Theory of Law aimed to create a science of law free from external influences like ethics or politics.
Summary of Key Differences:
Differences Between John Austin and Hans Kelsen
Aspect | John Austin | Hans Kelsen |
---|---|---|
Nature of Law | Law is a command backed by sanctions | Law is a system of norms with a hierarchical structure |
Sovereignty | Sovereign is the source of law | Validity of law comes from the Grundnorm |
Relation to Morality | Law can overlap with morality, but is not based on it | Law is separate from morality |
Focus | Practical, command-based legal theory | Abstract, normative theory of law |
You May Also Like:
You May Also Like:
Indian Penal Code MCQs Quiz: Section 1 to 5
Indian Panel Code MCQs Quiz on Section 511 and Attempt
IPC MCQs Quiz on Sec. 76 and Sec. 79 | Quiz on Mistake
Practice IPC MCQs online for free (Section 78)
Practice IPC MCQs Quiz for free | Section 81 MCQs | Necessity
Practice IPC MCQs online for free : Infancy (section 82-83)
Practice IPC MCQs Quiz for free | Section 81 MCQs | Necessity
Practice IPC MCQs Quiz for free | Section 84 MCQs | Insanity
Practice IPC MCQs Quiz for free | IPC Section 85 MCQs | Intoxication
Difference between tort and crime | Previous Notes
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AS TORT | APPLICATION OF TORT LAW
Economic Tort | Business Tort: Application of Tort Law
Difference between intention and motive | In Tabular Format
Bolam Test | Bolam V. Friern Hospital Committee | Medical Negligence
Jacob Mathew V. State of Punjab Case Law | Medical Negligence
Medical Negligence in tort | Case Laws
Contributory Negligence | Law of Tort | Case Laws
Essential conditions of liability for negligence | Negligence in torts
Specific Principles of Criminal Law | LLM Previous Year Paper 2024 | CCSU
Specific Torts | LLM 4th Semester Previous Year Paper 2024 | CCSU
History and Basic Principles of Criminal Law | Previous Paper 2023
LLM Previous Year Paper 2023 | PRIVILEGED CLASS DEVIANCE
PENOLOGY PREVIOUS YEAR PAPER | LLM | CCSU
LL.M Previous Year Paper 2023: Legal Education & Research Methodology
LL.M Previous Year Paper 2023: Jurisprudence-I Download Now!
LL.M Previous Year Paper 2023: Indian Constitution! Download Now!
LLB Previous Year Paper 2023 | Constitutional Law II | CCSU
LLB Previous Year Paper 2023 | Legal and Constitutional History | CCSU
LLB Previous Year Paper 2023 | Jurisprudence II | CCSU
LLB Hindu Law Previous Year Paper 2023 | CCSU
LLB Hindu Law Previous Year Paper 2024| CCSU
Relationship between Law and Morals
Euthanasia in India, Right to die with Dignity
Right to Privacy Case Law Mr. X vs. Hospital Z
Federal Constitution Definition and key points
University of Madras vs. Shantabai,1954: Article 12 Case Law
Article 20 Fundamental Right with Case Laws
Article 19 Fundamental Right of Indian Constitution with 10 Case Laws
Article 358, 359 Fundamental rights during emergency
Parliamentary Privileges and Fundamental Rights with Case Laws
Article 14 Fundamental Right with Case Laws
Article 15 Fundamental Right with Case Laws
Article 12 Fundamental Right with Case Laws
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AS TORT | APPLICATION OF TORT LAW
Crimes without Mens Rea? Statute without Mens Rea.
Definition of crime by various jurists, Criminology
Methods of Studying Criminology
All about Capital Punishment with Case Laws
IMPOSSIBLE ATTEMPT | ATTEMPT VS IMPOSSIBLE ATTEMPT
Difference between Preparation and Attempt
Tests to Determine Attempt and preparation | With Case Laws
Difference between intention and motive | In Tabular Format
Forms of Judicial Process: Adversarial & Inquisitorial
Crimes without Mens Rea? Statute without Mens Rea.
Leave a Reply Cancel reply