John Austin

Who was John Austin?

John Austin, born in 1790 and passed away in 1859, was an influential English legal theorist who left a lasting impact on the British and American legal systems. He was named the first professor of jurisprudence at body, which is now University College London when it was established in 1826. At the time, legal education was almost completely practical, and obtaining a university degree in English law was not an option. William Blackstone's extensive Commentaries on the Law of England were based on his lectures at Oxford on the common law, yet even as late as 1874, Dicey could deliver his inaugural address on the topic of "was English law a fit subject for University education". Austin spent time in Germany studying Roman law and the works of German authorities on contemporary civil law, whose concepts of categorisation and methodical analysis had an impact on him second only to that of Bentham, in order to prepare for the courses. Austin did not have much success in his lifetime; recognition came much later. This is because in large part to his wife Sarah, who offered him tremendous mental and financial support (during their final years of marriage, they were mostly supported by her work as a translator and reviewer). She revised his notes in order to produce a more comprehensive collection of his Jurisprudence Lectures (Austin, 1873).

Analytical jurisprudence

Austin's analytical approach involved breaking down legal principles into smaller, more manageable parts for analysis, which helped lay the groundwork for modern positivist legal philosophy. His legal positivism theory asserted that laws are created by humans and are not derived from any sort of divine authority. This viewpoint led to significant changes in both legal education and legal practice, making John Austin a vital figure in the history of law. The investigation of important terms, such as "law," "(legal) right," "(legal) duty," and "legal validity," is emphasised in analytical jurisprudence. In order to analyse the nature of law, analytical jurisprudence has taken the lead. However, it's vital to recognise that in Austin's hands, analytical jurisprudence was simply one component of an entire effort (and this is key to knowing what his mission was to rectify the misinterpretation of many critics). Many subsequent authors have conflated the goal of analysis with the assumption that this is all there is to say about law and that it can be reduced to technically (this view is also referred to as "legal formalism," a limited perspective on the function of law).

Legal positivism

Austin's analysis was based on legal positivism. Legal positivism has always been resisted by natural law theory. Austin also removed dated sources and other mystifications from the common law research, making it more transparent. The majority of the significant theoretical work on law prior to Austin had treated jurisprudence as merely a branch of moral theory or political theory, asking how the state should govern, including when governments were legitimate and under what circumstances. As we saw in Hobbes, Austin was not the first to say that the law within the legal system of a nation state should be seen as something "posited" by human judgements or processes. Austin and legal positivism, on the other hand, believed that morality should be treated as a distinct issue and that law should be a subject of "scientific" research.

utilitarianism and Austin

The utilitarian philosophy is a recurring theme in the work for which Austin is best known today, even though Austin was a devout Christian who used utility as a measure of God's will or plan for creation while Bentham was a secular philosopher. Although John Stuart Mill made a point of stating that Austin's work reflected the application of utilitarianism to law and mainly neglected the religious parts, this utilitarian interpretation of utilitarianism has had little lasting impact.

The Landsacpe

Austin was born in an era where modern ideas such as individual rights and constitutionalism were not yet conceived. This historical period was characterized by the reign of monarchies and dictatorships. During this time, those who held state power had unquestionable authority, and their position was for life. The rule of law and governmental accountability were nonexistent. It was a world where supremacy and absolute power dictated the way of life. It was in this environment that Austin was raised, and despite the oppressive regime, he remained resolute in his beliefs that the rule of law was fundamental in any society. His unwavering commitment to advocating for the rule of law and individual rights has contributed significantly to the modern concept of democracy.

Austin’s Definition of Law

John Austin, an English legal philosopher, defined law as a set of rules enforced by a sovereign power which is backed up by sanctions. He believed that law is a command issued by a political superior to his inferiors, to which force is applied in case of disobedience. According to Austin, law is not based on morality or reason, rather it is subjective and depends upon the will of the commanding authority. He categorized laws into two types: "positive laws" or "laws posited" by a political superior and "positive morality" which are guidelines established by societal customs and norms. Austin's definition of law received considerable criticism as it failed to take into account the social and moral aspects of laws and portrayed it as a causal effect of mere power.

Features of a Sovereign

According to Austin, a sovereign power is defined by its supreme and unlimited authority over a particular territory or jurisdiction. The first feature of a sovereign is that it must possess the capacity to make and enforce laws. Secondly, it must hold a monopoly on the use of force within the territory it governs. Thirdly, it must be able to make decisions independently of all external authorities. Finally, a sovereign must have the ability to maintain its authority over time and accommodate the changing needs of the society it governs. These characteristics remain relevant in modern times as a measure of a government's legitimacy and power.

Nature of Imperative Law

The Imperative Theory of Law is a legal philosophy that posits that the law is a set of commands issued by the sovereign authority. This theory holds three core tenets. Firstly, it contends that law is a command, issued by the sovereign to its subjects. This means that the law is not a set of abstract principles or values, but rather a set of rules that carry a mandate. Secondly, the theory asserts that the source of law is the sovereign, who has the power to dictate commands to their subjects. The commands must be clear and unambiguous, and they must be meant to be obeyed. Finally, the imperative theory of law suggests that the law’s legitimacy or de-legitimacy is tied to the authority of the sovereign. In other words, the law is only valid if it emanates from a legitimate source of authority.

Law has nothing to do with Morality

According to this theory, the law and morality are distinct concepts that should not intersect. In other words, just because something is considered morally right or wrong does not necessarily make it legally binding. The law, instead, is formed by a society's customs, traditions, and practices, and its primary goal is to maintain order and enforce rules that are widely accepted by society. Thus, Austin Law does not require legal decisions to align with moral values and can provide guidance on how to deal with difficult legal issues that may not have a clear moral position.

Legacy of Imperative Theory of Law

Austin's legacy of Imperative theory of law postulates that a law is a command of a sovereign backed by sanctions. Austin believed that law is not a moral concept, but it is solely concerned with the command of a political superior. By doing so, he framed the law in a way that separated it from the morality of the society in which it was practiced. This separation helped to provide a neutral and objective approach to the study of law. His theory has had a significant impact on legal philosophy, it allowed for a clear distinction between legal and non-legal norms and helped to promote the idea of a legal system as an authoritative source of governance.

Criticisms of Imperative Theory of Law

One of the main criticisms of the Imperative Theory of Law is that it tends to overlook the role of customary law in legal systems. This theory asserts that law is a set of rules issued by sovereign authorities. But in many societies, customary law that has been developed over generations plays a crucial role in regulating behavior. Critics of the Imperative Theory argue that this narrow definition of law ignores the reality of how law operates in many communities. By limiting the concept of law to only those rules created by the state, Imperative Theory fails to account for the complex and diverse legal systems that exist in different cultures around the world. This oversight can lead to misinterpretations of legal practices and inhibit efforts to promote cross-cultural understanding.

No single commander

However, this theory faces criticism in modern states where there is no one single commander. Instead, laws are created through complex processes involving legislatures, courts, and administrative agencies. This means that the source of legal rules is not always clear, which raises questions about the legitimacy of the commands the imperative theory purports to identify. Critics of the theory also argue that it fails to account for the fact that individuals may have other reasons for obeying laws besides the fact that they are commands, such as moral or practical considerations.

Criticisms of the Imperative Theory of Law argue that sanction is not the primary purpose of law. This theory views law as a command given by a sovereign, which empowers those who enforce it to punish those who break it. However, critics argue that this narrow understanding fails to capture the broader aims of law, such as justice, morality, and social order. Institutions enforcing the law may not always be motivated by sanction alone, but rather by the preservation of social coherence, protection of human rights, and the promotion of social welfare.

It has flaws in reasoning

John Austin’s assertion that a Sovereign is a person or group that has the power to impose their will upon others through force alone lacks a clear foundation in moral or ethical principles. This leaves a significant gap in Austin's theory, as it does not provide a satisfactory explanation for why individuals and societies should recognize and obey the Sovereign's commands.

Austin's argument is circular since he posits that the law is the command of the sovereign, and the sovereign is the one who issues legal commands. The problem with his theory is that the concept of sovereignty itself is missing a proper foundation and justification. Therefore, using sovereignty as the basis of law ends up being a flawed and incomplete justifying principle for legal authority, leaving many gaps both in theory and its practical application.

According to Austin's theory of legal positivism, the authority of a legal system is derived from its sovereign, who has the power to command and enforce its laws. Therefore, a legal system is considered sovereign because its laws are commanded by the sovereign. This symbiotic relationship between the sovereign and the law is essential to understanding the power dynamics inherent in legal systems, where the authority of the legal rules is derived from the sovereign's power to enforce them.

Pros and Cons of John Austin's Theory of Law

Pros

• Clear Definition of Law: One of the most significant advantages of John Austin's theory of law is that it provides a clear and precise definition of law. According to Austin, law is a command given by a sovereign to its subjects.

• Importance of Sovereignty: Austin's theory underscored the importance of sovereignty in the legal system. He maintained that the sovereign had complete and unrestricted authority over the subjects.

• Legal Positivism: Austin's theory was one of the main proponents of legal positivism- the belief that the law exists separately and independently from moral considerations.

• Distinguished Law from Morality: Austin's theory made a clear distinction between law and morality, asserting that one could exist without the other.

• Influential on Legal Scholarship: Austin's theory of law has had a significant influence on legal scholarship and has played a prominent role in shaping legal discussions.

cons

• Overemphasis On Sovereignty: Austin's overemphasis on sovereignty could lead to abuse of power, where the sovereign exercises arbitrary authority over its subjects, leading to the violation of individual rights.

• Restrictive Definition of Law: Austin's definition of law as a command of the sovereign has been criticized for being too narrow, as not all laws fit the definition of a direct command.

• Overlooks Historical Development of Law: Critics argue that Austin's theory overlooks the historical development of law, as it focuses solely on the origin and structure of law without paying attention to its historical context.

• Questionable Separation of Law and Morality: Some critics assert that the separation of law and morality is questionable since the law's legitimacy is often linked to its moral grounding.

• Lack of Universal Applicability of Positivism: Critics argue that legal positivism has limited universality and applicability, as it fails to recognize cultural, religious, and historical differences in the legal systems of various societies.

LAW BOOKS

The Core Series books will help you understand the complexities of legal topics. Candidates for the LLB, SQE, PGDL, GDL, CILEX Qualification. With our Q&A Series books providing model answers, you can easily prepare for exams.