I.

Persistent Questions
ii.

Rules requiring people to compensate those

whom they injure in certain ways;

iii.

Rules specifying what must be done to make

wills, contracts or other arrangements which
confer rights and create obligations;

iv.

Courts to determine what the rules are and

when they have been broken, and to fix the
punishment or compensation to be paid; and

v.

A legislature to make new rules and abolish old

ones.

Perplexities of Legal Theory

Despite the huge impact and social relevance to
which the answer to the question What is Law?1 would
amount to, a definite answer to the said question remains
elusive. Astounding efforts from exemplar legal minds
dwarf the efforts of other scholars in any other field in
arriving at a concrete definition of their respective disciplines.
Reflections about law of visionaries or philosophers
who were primarily lawyers provide us a glimpse of
understanding what law is during their time. However, such
understanding, though given weight, if understood based on
their context can be both illuminating and puzzling. As much
as it illuminates and provide us deeper understanding on
what the law hides, its light tends to blind us that we fail to
see the entirety of the beauty of law.
According to Hart,2 the legal system and its salient
features involve the following:
i.

Rules forbidding or enjoining certain types of

behavior under penalty;

1 According to John Austin, an English Jurist born in 1970, Law is a body

of rules fixed and enforced by a sovereign political authority.

2 Hart, Concept of Law (1994), p. 3

The notable roots of difficulty on answering the

question What is Law? lie on the existence of doubtful
cases that gives legal scholars second thoughts on a
concrete definition of law. Borderline cases3 are the
hardest as though they share some salient features; they
might also lack some of them which then makes them
inconclusive as to whether or not they are for or against their
classification as law.
Three Recurrent Issues

3 Hart presents the following questions as samples to show the

borderline cases and questions scholars face which prevents them to
produce a concrete definition of law:
a. Is flying boat a vessel? And
b. Is it still chess if the game is played without a queen?

The three principal recurring issues presented by Hart

as to why there is a need for a definition of law or an answer
to the question What is law? or What is the nature (or
essence) of law? includes the following:4
i.

The simplest sense in which conduct is no

longer optional, is when one man is forced to
do what another tells him, not because he is
physically compelled in the sense that his body
is pushed or pulled about, but because the
other threatens him with unpleasant
consequences if he refuses;

ii.

The second way in which conduct may be not

optional but obligatory by linking morality
with the law and morality with justice, and
justice with the law; and

iii.

The rules and to what extent law is an affair of

rules.

The first issue is what the book refers to as obliged

to do so. An example of said issue is when a rapist tells his
victim to take off her clothes, dont fight back and not to tell
anyone about the incident or he will kill her and her family. In
this example, though it is against the will of the victim to
perform sexual act with the rapist, she was obliged to do
so due to the fear of being harmed as threatened by the
suspect. She was obliged to do so due to fear of
repercussions.
4 Hart, Concept of Law (1994), p. 6

The second issue emphasizes morality and the

value and weight we give to good morals that guide our
actions. This is mostly based on how we were raised by our
parents and culture and tradition behind our foundation that
is our family. We are forced to blend in and not differ from
the conducts of our society as we are afraid to be considered
as an outcast or pariah. Because of the gravitas an
individual gives to these morals they believe in, it
deprives them of reason and choices to act freely based on
what they truly want.
The third issue deals with the rules of different kinds
and its relationship with the conduct to which they are
concerned. The book sets as example rules on language
etiquette. While some rules are mandatory (ex. Pay taxes),
some provides certain required actions before an individual
gets what he/she desires (ex. Getting married). The book
also discusses the difference between mere convergent
behavior and existence of a social rule. In the case of the
latter, words such as must, should, and ought to are often
use while the former is not considered as rule as it is not
required but merely a united common act of the populace.
Definition
Definition,5 as the word suggests, is primarily a
matter of drawing lines or distinguishing between one kind
5 Philosopher John Locke pointed out that the achievement of the full
potential of human knowledge faces the challenge of lack of fixed
meaning/signification of words. Definitions have interested philosophers
since ancient times. Platos early dialogues portray Socrates raising
questions about definitions.

of thing and another, which language marks off by a

separate word.6 Definition makes us understand each
other better and communicate with precision of words. A
square is defined as a regular quadrilateral, which means
that it has four equal sides and four equal angles while a
triangle is a polygon with three edges and three vertices.
Imagine the gigantic problem the society will face should
these two geometrical concepts have no precise definition,
our building wont stand our architecture would be
destructive.
A definition which tells as that something is a member
of a certain family is not very useful in helping us define law
as it only provide us vague or confused ideas as to the
character of the family but not the specific object we want to
objectify. Precision of words based on specific definition will
help us overcome our doubts and hesitations on border line
cases disused above. We will not confuse application of the
word healthy not only to a man but to his complexion and to
his morning exercise; the second being a sign and the third a
cause of the first central characteristic.
The chapter concludes by saying that the book does
not aim to give a definition of law but to advance legal
theory by providing an improved analysis of the distinctive
structure of a municipal legal system and a better
understanding of the resemblances and differences
between law, coercion, and morality as types of social
phenomena. Further, the book suggested digging deeper on
Austins belief that the key on understanding law can be
found on the simple notion of an order backed by threats,
6 Hart, Concept of Law (1994), p. 13

which Austin termed as command.