Austin's Theory of Law as Commands of the Sovereign
Introduction
John Austin’s analytical approach to law laid the foundation for what is now known as the Analytical School, or Positivism. His theory, also referred to as Command Theory, is a cornerstone of legal positivism. Austin focused exclusively on positive law—laws as they are, rather than as they ought to be. This method distinguishes his approach from other schools of jurisprudence that consider moral or ethical dimensions of law. Legal scholars like Roscoe Pound have called Austin’s theory the "Threat Theory," while Prof. Allen referred to it as the "Imperative School."
This article delves into Austin’s Command Theory, examines its foundational concepts, evaluates its utility in understanding modern law, and discusses its criticisms in contemporary contexts.
Who is John Austin?
John Austin, often hailed as the father of English Jurisprudence, was born in 1790. Although initially unsuccessful in his law practice (1818–25), his analytical mind and intellectual honesty impressed colleagues, and he was named the first professor of jurisprudence at University College, London (1826). Distinguished men attended his lectures, but he failed to attract students, and he resigned his chair in 1832. His writings, especially The Province of Jurisprudence Determined (1832), sought to distinguish law from morality. He also helped to define jurisprudence as the analysis of fundamental legal concepts, as distinct from the criticism of legal institutions, which he called the “science of legislation.”
His work, largely unrecognized in his lifetime, influenced later jurists, including Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
Austin’s Definition of Law
Austin defined law as “a rule laid down for the guidance of intelligent beings by an intelligent being having power over him.” This definition underscores the hierarchical nature of law and emphasizes the role of authority in its creation and enforcement. For Austin, law derives its legitimacy from the sovereign's ability to issue commands backed by sanctions.
Kinds of Law
Austin categorized laws into two primary types:
Divine Law (Law of God):- These are moral principles or divine commands considered to be the ultimate standard of justice. Austin, however, dismissed their practical relevance in jurisprudence, arguing that legal studies should remain separate from morality.
- Laws Properly So-Called (Positive Laws): These are commands issued by a political superior, such as statutes or regulations. These laws form the core subject matter of jurisprudence.
- Laws Improperly So-Called: These include social rules or customs, such as the "laws of fashion" or rules of voluntary associations, which lack enforcement by a political superior.
Core Elements of Command Theory
Law as a Command
At the heart of Austin’s theory is the concept of law as a command issued by a sovereign to a subject. Commands are directives backed by the threat of sanctions in case of non-compliance. Austin distinguished between general commands, which apply universally to societal behavior, and specific commands, which are temporary or targeted.
The Sovereign
The sovereign, in Austin’s framework, is the ultimate authority in a political community. This entity issues commands that must be obeyed by subjects. The sovereign itself is not bound by these commands, highlighting its supreme status. For Austin, the sovereign could be an individual or a body of individuals, such as a legislature or a monarch.
General and Specific Laws
Not all commands qualify as laws under Austin’s definition. Only general commands that regulate conduct consistently and universally can be categorized as laws. This distinction separates laws from one-off orders or directives.
Utility of Austin’s Theory in Modern Law
Foundation of Legal Positivism: Austin’s analytical focus on the structure and nature of laws as commands provided the foundation for modern legal positivism. By separating law from morality, he encouraged a scientific and objective approach to legal studies.Criticisms of Austin’s Command Theory
While Austin’s theory marked a significant development in legal philosophy, it has faced extensive criticism for its limitations and rigidity:
Oversimplification of Law
Critics argue that Austin’s theory overly simplifies the nature of law by reducing it to mere commands backed by threats. This overlooks the complexity and multifaceted nature of legal systems, which include principles, norms, and customs.
Customary Law Ignored
Austin’s theory does not adequately account for customary law, which exists independently of sovereign commands. Customary laws are norms and practices that have gained legal significance over time, yet they are not commands issued by a sovereign authority.
Role of Judicial Precedent
The theory does not address the role of judicial decisions in shaping the law. Courts often make law through their rulings and interpretations, which are not commands but still hold legal authority.
Sovereignty and Modern States
Austin's concept of a sovereign being an absolute authority who is habitually obeyed by the people and does not obey anyone is criticized as unrealistic in modern democratic states. In contemporary democracies, power is often distributed among various branches of government, and no single entity holds absolute power.
Inadequacy in Explaining International Law
Austin’s theory struggles to explain international law, where there is no single sovereign authority commanding all nations. International law is based on treaties, customs, and mutual agreements, which do not fit neatly into the command theory framework.
Legal Sanctions and Social Obligations
Austin’s focus on sanctions and coercion as the basis of law is seen as inadequate. Many laws are obeyed not because of fear of sanctions but because of a sense of duty, moral obligation, or social acceptance.
Evolution of Legal Positivism
Legal positivism, the school of thought that Austin's theory belongs to, has evolved significantly. Later positivists like H.L.A. Hart has provided more nuanced theories that address some of the shortcomings in Austin's approach, such as incorporating the role of secondary rules and the internal perspective of law.
Democratic Participation
Austin's theory does not account for the participatory role of citizens in the creation of laws through democratic processes. In modern democracies, laws are often created through the collective will of the people, reflected in legislative processes rather than commands from a single sovereign.
Modern Perspectives on Command Theory
Legal scholars have expanded and refined Austin’s ideas to address its shortcomings. For example:
H.L.A. Hart: Hart introduced the concept of a "rule of recognition" to address the limitations of Austin’s sovereignty-based model. Hart’s work shifted focus from commands to the systemic rules that define legal validity.Conclusion
John Austin’s Command Theory of Law remains a pivotal contribution to legal philosophy, offering a clear and structured approach to understanding the nature of law. However, its limitations—such as neglect of customs, judicial creativity, and the complexity of modern governance—underscore the need for more dynamic and inclusive legal theories.
For law students and professionals, Austin’s work serves as a foundational reference for exploring the evolution of legal thought. Understanding its utility and criticisms provides valuable insights into the dynamic interplay between law, society, and governance.
John Austin the Province of Jurisprudence Determined, 1832 (Book): https://amzn.to/3Da0wb4