4 Criticism According to Friedmann, it suffers from two weaknesses: first, in an effort to mix materialism and idealism; Bentham underestimated the need for individual discretion and flexibility in the application of rights that overestimated the power of the legislature. Second, this theory fails to reconcile individual interests with community interests. The Concept of Law is a 1961 book by H.H. Hart. [1] The concept of law presents Hart`s theory of legal positivism—the idea that laws are rules established by humans and that there is no inherent or necessary connection between law and morality—within the framework of analytic philosophy. Hart tried to provide a theory of descriptive sociology and analytical jurisprudence. [2] The book covers a number of traditional jurisprudential topics such as the nature of law, whether laws are rules, and the relationship between law and morality. Hart responds by placing the law in a social context, while leaving the capacity for rigorous analysis of legal concepts that in fact „awakened English jurisprudence from its comfortable sleep.“ [3] 3 Bentham Bentham supported the economic principle of „laissez-faire,“ which meant minimal state interference in the economic activities of individuals. Bentham proposed the principle of utilitarianism. According to this theory, the correct purpose of legislation is to implement the principle of utility. Bentham defined utility as the quality or tendency of a thing to prevent evil or do something good. According to him, the consequences of good and evil are respectively „pleasure and pain“. 11 Kelson – Pure Legal Theory.Law is a normative science distinct from the natural sciences, which are based on cause and effect as the law of gravity.

The norm is a rule that prohibits a certain behavior. Kelson`s pure legal theory is based on a pyramidal structure of the hierarchy of norms, which derives its validity from what he calls the „basic norm.“ 6 Hart on the content of lawsHart argues that the theory of command cannot explain the diversity of laws in a legal system: – In particular, legal systems contain rules „conferring powers“ as well as „conscientious“ and „conferring freedom“ rules – He argues that the theory of command cannot explain these different rules conferring power. – And criticizes the arguments of Austin, Bentham and Kelsen, who try to assimilate them into the model of orders or coercive norms 7 criticisms often neglected. The permissive nature of the law is ignored. No place for judges has made law. Treat international law as morality. Command on underlined. The interrelationship between law and morality is completely ignored. Punishment alone is not the means to provoke obedience. The indivisibility of sovereignty criticized. Austin`s theory was improved by Holland, Salmond and Gray.

The starting point for the discussion is Hart`s dissatisfaction with John Austin`s „theory of command“: a jurisprudential concept that states that the law is supported by threat and should be pervasive in its application. Hart compares Austin`s theory to the role of a shooter in a bank and attempts to differentiate between the shooter`s orders and those of the law. (For example, Sagittarius forces us to obey, but we may not feel inclined to obey it.