Scribd Logo
Încărcați

Bine ați venit la Scribd!

  • Law and Morality: The Nuremberg Trials

    Încărcat de

    Emman Cariño
    153 vizualizări38 pagini
    The Nuremberg Trials were conducted by the Allied powers after WWII to prosecute top Nazi officials for war crimes, crimes against peace, crimes against humanity, and conspiracy. The defendants included high-ranking Nazi leaders such as Goering, Ribbentrop, and Speer. While many felt the defendants deserved summary execution, the Allies argued for a trial to establish their legal guilt under international law, which prohibits such crimes as genocide even absent specific statutes. The trial thus examined whether acts can be considered illegal under natural law regardless of positive law.

    Descriere originală:

    law and morality

    Titlu original

    Law and Morality, Arguing About the Law

    Drepturi de autor

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Formate disponibile

    PDF, TXT sau citiți online pe Scribd

    Vi se pare util acest document?

    Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

    Raportați acest document
    The Nuremberg Trials were conducted by the Allied powers after WWII to prosecute top Nazi officials for war crimes, crimes against peace, crimes against humanity, and conspiracy. The defendants included high-ranking Nazi leaders such as Goering, Ribbentrop, and Speer. While many felt the defendants deserved summary execution, the Allies argued for a trial to establish their legal guilt under international law, which prohibits such crimes as genocide even absent specific statutes. The trial thus examined whether acts can be considered illegal under natural law regardless of positive law.

    Drepturi de autor:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Descărcați ca PDF, TXT sau citiți online pe Scribd
    Indicator pentru conținut neadecvat
    153 vizualizări38 pagini

    Law and Morality: The Nuremberg Trials

    Încărcat de

    Emman Cariño
    The Nuremberg Trials were conducted by the Allied powers after WWII to prosecute top Nazi officials for war crimes, crimes against peace, crimes against humanity, and conspiracy. The defendants included high-ranking Nazi leaders such as Goering, Ribbentrop, and Speer. While many felt the defendants deserved summary execution, the Allies argued for a trial to establish their legal guilt under international law, which prohibits such crimes as genocide even absent specific statutes. The trial thus examined whether acts can be considered illegal under natural law regardless of positive law.

    Drepturi de autor:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Descărcați ca PDF, TXT sau citiți online pe Scribd
    Indicator pentru conținut neadecvat
    din 38

    2

    Law and Morality

    A COMMON SAYING
    tt ou ceatlegrlare moraliryt'So goes thc conmon r3vi Bui shrr
    I epe, thcft, and othei imrnoral acnoro. Such laws:re nor..h-
    pletelyrtre.tne bur rhey do, leron,bty goodjob in keephs rne ure. ofmur
    d€r ud othd itrmonl conauct mrch io.le thqr tr,o.. .ti
    r" ;o tr_
    3bscnce of any ]egal prohibicions. Ur ess the common saying -o,ra
    is palp:bly fati,
    thcn. it cl.not mcan tegislarins 3sain.r ,nmo,J ."";,., i. ;^p;,,;,..
    'hrr
    impractical, or undesiBbte.
    Pcrh:pr we cm mrle some headrry ir undersunding r}le s,y,nB if wc
    dr.
    unguish among four djfferenr .lemen6 of monlrv. Fint arc rhe mo.l ."r".
    th:t obligzt. wys ro kcep *, p-;*,, ,"C,i" t"-
    comitting iurdca and so on.Thete_r,jes concern the wav we- are to act t"t
    not the morlvabehind (hc Ke;pins, prcni*p,,ai r".,",-..",iJi.
    FJurr s 'crions.
    much in Jc.ardrn,. wllh rhe monl ,ulcot pronLj.e.k".frnt
    'ntercsr
    as is ke€piDg the promise our cfa con.ern for rhe pcson
    ro whon rhe prcmi

    lhgieqg!!4p"!t sfraorrliry concernr conJuci thar is':.bo./e aDd bevon,l


    the call ofdury.'Such conducr tnic.Iy requi.es a coisid€nble sacriticc
    bi rhe
    :gent or I subsrerial risk ro her we being. Indecd, rhe s:crj(ce or
    r;k L jo
    LrSc thrt ir seem urueaonlble ro ret,rue rh. rgem to underL{kc
    rhe co,rd,,!,
    I hos. indiv'duaL \ho go.herd de3p,{e rhe s:(ri6ce
    or rnk hrvr r, rcd in rn
    espec'ally prrileworrhy wry.
    41

    Cod.idc. r.tions thrt ire:bovc lnd beyo.d the crl ofdury. ! I


    worihy calh for a d.grcc ofslcrificc, o! potenriil s.crjficc;
    $hat soci.q on rc:sorrrbly demrnd ofan individual. So
    increfe the lumber of poiscwonhy r.oo$ in socicty by
    them, it would rcem unfri. to do so.
    Now consider drc rnorires &om which individu,ls act. It
    for laws ro nnke individu"l, fronr -o..xy con-endai,iii
    ".r
    insucnccs zcrion mainlv by m.ting it i" r pc.sont intcicsllt
    way: you rvill get punidr<d or orhcrunc fril to gct
    do not do .s thc law requires. So low or.s orr ne(qEl r.
    levcr to rllcct our .undrr(, Bur sef-,nr.,esr is not, motl
    high. Altruisn nther llun ief-intcrcsr is thc motive:
    comenJabl..And rt sccns rhr! thcrc is no *y, at llast no
    hrv could us .c! lion such mcrajly comEnd4bb.4
    Now co 'mke
    ride. rhc rnorll virtucs. Again, it sccrns it-rtp
    ! pe(on vtrrL,ous.l hc li* rppdls ro qur precxirti.Bg:ricll
    w. aie and se.ks ro chan el our bchavior.Thc l.w slernin
    a2

    For cxamplc,l,w! might promote good ch cter by h.lpnrg to teach tcofle


    *rc difcrcnce b.tween righc and wrong.The ancient Grcck philosopher s ofrcn
    look.d upoD the hw es i potentid morxl teachcr in ihar rcspect.
    Yct, cv€n iforc accepts thrt "you cant legrslite monliryl' inpo(rnr qu.5-
    tions rcmain .bour thc re)ation oflau' to noraliry For cx,mple:Asuni.g tllar
    norality requires people to help those jrl Dced, should the law requirc us to
    give such help? In Chapter 4, lve will exrnine arglm.nts over rh. c\r(nt ,o
    $'hjch thc law should requirc us to aid others.
    In this chaptcr, our matu concern rviil bc or mother lsp.ct oftl). ftilation
    of law to morrlity The focus rvill be on drc part of moraliry that cvcryonc
    agreer can be l.gislated:the muol iules d',t imporc obligations on !s.Thit p:r.t
    ofmonlity is sometimes czllcd natural lawbcczl.'se it is sometimcs considcrcd
    tc constitute a tyltem oflaq in its olvn ri8ht, cotuisting of rules thir can be
    knowD by our nrtural power ofrosornng.
    Nrtlnl law is disringuishcd from porni,e lda which refcrs to rny s_r.tcn, of
    larvs creatcd by humans and enforccd \vnhin a gilcn rerritory Vhrl. nrtulal
    brv cleims to be universally v,l;d. inrfosjng oblig,tions oa clery indi!!lurl in
    el.cry country and historic,l era, positilr liw only clairns uliditv o\.r r |xr
    ticular teiritory rnd its inhabrBnts.
    Thc distincrion bcrween n.trral 3nd positive law raises r nurnbc. ofqLrer

    . *€€rc€Cp{liriaL] a1orte-e!
    (b) the lule of naturil law and of psirive law ontt i;;f;- i!-;sii= --:--]::- - -::
    tent with n ur.l law?
    2. Is lny rulc ofpositiv€ brv r1lat is in conflict..i/ith nlrural l.w inv,lid and
    incrprble ofimposing.r)y obligatton on us?
    3. Arc icts co .Gry to natuol law comes wen iftherc ir no specific tcs;
    tive l,w that makes them crimin.l?
    Such qucstions .r€ often suffarizcd by tskiDg, "Is there 3 ne.errdry con-
    ncctior, b+wcen law and morrliry?" Ir:e her. cfcrs ro posirivc I.w. whilc
    noraliry <lcnorcs rhe narunl blv p..r of norality. Thc fact rhat posirire lervs
    :gain$ murdcr and rrpc shor d and do exirc shovs thlt there arc some con
    ncctions be($een positive anJ natunl llw: i! is potsible for positivc hw to
    enfurce the obiigations ofnatural larv, and in manT c,rcs posidve hN ought ro
    cnforce thosc obligrtions and docs so h tr rcasombly .fecdve way.
    So thcte irno disrgrcglrc4 ov$ Nhe$er the.c ar. cert in important con-
    n.ctions berwecn law xnd nroraliry. Howevii,rh;rc is.oosid.rrbtc di+ure over
    the kindr of€onnections ar issue in tl'e rhrec qu€srions cnuner.ted ca.[.iAnd
    rhose connecrions inv.lve ,D elemrnt of necessity. To bring out tlrrt element,
    tlrc questions can bc repbrased:
    L Dces thc co .epr oftlre
    'ulc
    of lew necessarily in€lude th€ idei oanaturrl

    2. Are poritivc hws ncc.$rrjly l.cknlg in validiiy whencver drey corflict


    wnh n urxl liw?
    4l

    3. Arc ,, Ls rl.rr v:ohr. rl,( obligarions ofnatunl llw ncccsrriity (rini.!,


    reg?rdlcss of hoN the poslrirr hrv rcgz.ds tham? , ,: ,i
    : -.
    'llrc tcrm ndr"dl kw theory is urcd to rcfci tc
    drese questions io (hc afirnurivc: they assc* ihit a
    doc' cxist betNccn (r,osirivc) lalv rnd moratity. Thc te!_i!l
    rcfcrs to thosc $eories rlur answ€r rhcsc qucstioro in tiii
    dcny any such n.ces*ry .ounccrions between law anrt moi
    thir bodr nriurrl law drco.y iDd lcgel positivim 6nc i;'
    and thar borh rvtcs oftheories have chenged:nd developcj
    Duc before qe exanine rbese phjlosophic.l disputes rn4,dq
    us exrrnine i triil rhrt brought the philosophicd nsuc' d
    dranratic '\,ay. ft Nr perhaps tbe molt ihporrant tr:al of rh€
    iury and it took place trr Nurcmbcrg, cermany, shordy :&di ti
    World Wrr ll.

    The Nurenlbers Trirl rvrs conCucted by the victorious AUi--c4.P,Ol


    Unitrd Stats, Cr.I Ulitiin, F.rDce,.nd th€ S@ict UD'on) .ft.! ilii
    sion ofwo.ld Wir ll.'thc ground rulcs lor the ftjrl sere set dut in
    .sr.ed ro by rhe Allici ,t thc conclusion ofthc war ttr

    l,l.q ind govern$cnt, as rvell a, Gernan mni


    ci.ls in thc Na,j
    iU, (hercw.rc nvexo one defendr nrs. lncludcd 2mons rh.m $1
    Gocring,sccond-in .om.nd to Adolf Hider and comandcr
    Ar Forcc; Al&ed Rotcnb€rg chicf ideologist of thc Nfli Prr
    mcnc Ministcri Albert Sp€cr, MiDjstcr of War Prcductioni.H
    Minist.r for Economics; Rudoif H.s, dcputy to Hitlcr; and
    comm:ndcr-in chief of thc Ne!y.
    Thc mcn wcrc charged with crihcs against pecc,
    : wt of:ssrcssion; szt crimel including thc murdcr of
    civilians; rnd .rinlcs lFiinst hunDnit_v. iD€ludins scnocid€ ead
    .ddition, thc d.fcnd3't! $er. cha.scd with .ontpilaq to c(
    IA

    proied.t rhe rrid could doubt thrt nl:Dy,ifnordl,oflhe def€'dants borc a s!rg-
    - gcringd.gree ofmoral guilt.
    'Maly peirylc belicved thrt, aftcr the rv:r, thc top Nrzi ogicirs Nho Ncrc
    captured should h.vc been sumrrily execuied, t*.n our and dro! on rhc
    spoi. Aftcr dl, tlut ws a tnDc-honored Nav aor vic.on to trcat thei! defeatcd
    encmyt leaders.The Brit;sh, in f!ct, inidaly Gvorcd such sumDra" cxcculnrn
    oftop Nazi ofiicials, br.rt the Anericans vigoiously for a frixl,,nd the
    "rgued
    British cvcntualy asrccd.
    A trial is a lcga.l proceedi,rg, drd dre itnplicetion ofholdirg onc N thrt rhc
    accused:te not mercly mordir suiity but legaly glilty sell.This entailcd
    "s
    thrt thc prcsecurorr needed sone legal b$n fo. th€ proscu(ion. It was not
    enough to declare rhrt thc dcfendants s'cre evil tnen who coniDitted evil
    dccds. It had to be argucd rlnt they violatcd rhc lasr
    Th€ Alies a.gued thar it vrs international l:w that rhe Nazi lcrdcrs had
    violrted. Intern ionrl l,s :s Dot enacred by ,ny lesislative bo(ly.Ir.rrhel n i:
    defincd by thc trclties anrl custorns rcctptcd by tbe inrunalionrl conrmu',r'\
    'lhc Alicr chargcd rlut thojc treaties and custotE nadc .r;nhtrl tl,( r"tio'a
    with lvhich rhc Nurembcrs dcfendents $ere charged.
    Thc legal prosecution ol rhe dcfcndrnts also presuppored th,! th. Judicial
    tribln l hcarirg de crses n'd rhe lcgal rurbority to do ro. Notjun rny group
    of persons is legally authorized to hea. c:ses and mete out Pumshm.n!. Th.
    Allies .grced to do€u:aenB est'blishing the tribund tnd .uthoririne n ro
    :::::--eaid-e=FE=uilc-orft lla.?n*taryqrre:r,*ciga-4,doI+b!_.idatrh " A rn
    powers rnd who rvrs chlgcd w h thr (flm.s asrct percc, sJ, crimcs, o.
    crihes agaisr huruni+

    Critidsms o{ the Trial


    A.lthough it ; nolv videl-v celcbratcd as a great rchievcmert, the Nuremberg
    Trial was coo&oversie.l in it' time. Criiicism c.rlc no! only ftom thore
    Gcrrnins who bclievcd thar piacing th.n loders on trial humiliated thc rvhole
    nrtion. It also came from legal thinkers whosa criticisrns rested on philosoph-
    i.al rhcoric' oflarq
    Thcre arc F{o Jistinct lnrcs oferguntcnt egeinst thc prosc.uti;n ard con-
    viction ofthe Nurembe(s dcfcndants.The fust rctLs on the contcnlnD thrt dnl
    trial should rollow rhc tule ofl:rv buc drat thc Nurelrb.rs proc.edn,ss seri
    olsly violat€d it.Thc s€cold revolves around dre view drat law consirts ofthe
    conun4drf a sot'€.cign strie and thar thc only l.''s.tphcable to t[c Germ]'
    defendan$ werc thc rormDnd' of the Gcrman sov€rcign;AdolfHnler. Le! ur
    examinc erch line of argumcot, beginning with the rrgunent bascd on thc

    Many .ritics of th. rnl argued thdt, )ike .ny another tri: , the les'timac-y
    ofthc Nutcmberg proceedn'gs shoutd bcJudged in ttrI$ ol Lhc p,lr.iplcs oi
    the ruI. oflaw and drat, oD such a basis, dre trial should bc decmcd ilegiti
    mate.In thc eycs of these critics, summrry execution would have bccn prcfc,-
    able.Attho{gh $,m!Iiry c\ccutioD 9o!l.l heve viol'ted the rule ofliw rs !\'cll,
    45

    the porrt is tha! a nirl is i |rocecdnrg purpo(ring ro.onform ro thc rule ol


    law, whilc aommary .xecuti(J'l nrlolves no such pr€rense.
    Thc crilicr poin(cJ to scvcnl vays in *hich lhe Nurcmberg prcc.cdiD8s
    violated rhc rule ofla\\l Fnsr, they chimcd th.r rhcre werc no valid lcgal dtcs
    ;n etrcct at the rirDe ofthe defcndrnLs' actions thrt oudawcd "dimcs aga;rr
    humrnrry. Wnh r pc,t to rh ,ounr oftle indrchenr. rhc princ,pl€ of ,ro
    cflme wirhour ! lis \r$ vtohred.
    Thc Nurembcrg Chrrr.r did oudaw crimcs rgaisr hurunir./, but rl,!!
    chartcr wx adoptcil rftcr thc allcged crimes rook place. Prosccurions blsed on
    that provision of drc ch,ncr thus viohrcd as weU !h€ principle agrinsr rhe
    rctror.tivc applicrtion ofth. hnl
    lnrcflEtional trcalies tht prcexistcd World War II did outhw wxrs of
    Jgerers'on, bur (h() r,rd Dcvcr Lrcn cnforccd. tlrur cr.rinS scrrous doubt on
    thcir conrinu.d lesrl !1]ld'ry'11,e rule ofl,w .onrrtcnr cnfa:(en.nt
    'cquires

    Morcover, rhc ffnics poir)red out, dre internltional rreaties in qucstion did
    nor makc individuals crr:rrdl! lirtllc for their conduct end prouded no spe-
    cific punishments fo. vlolldors. Ahhough (h.sc rreades dccbred or implied
    ther aggrcssive w:r wrs a cri'nc, drey did not go on to say that individual polir
    ical lcadcF vould be hcld Icgrilv rcsponsible or to indicite the saoctions that
    rvould bc:pplicd.At best,thc inrenltionel corununiry could punish the guJq
    nition drrough econonnc atrd diplom:tic me.surcs, ev€n though thet too Nr5
    problcmatic withou! .ny trior ruthoritalive specificarion of lanctions. And
    punishing natioos diplom.licall-! or economic y is a Gr cry ftom cxecutinS
    or imprloning political and milihry lcaders.
    46

    Allicd firebombing thrt dcstroyed Drcsdcn vcrc vicwcd thrr lLey bv nrr!
    people, cvcn among the Alies thcnsclvcs- And rhe Sovi.t Ution, one of rhe
    Alicd porvcr ruking up the rribund, Eas iBelfclody elilry of aggr€sioD, ,(i r
    cffiple, in its skeorer of thc Bdtic sutes.Yet, no onc among the Allicr Nij
    bcing prosccuted for aoy oftherc crirnes,2nd th. chartet thrr estabkhcd tirc
    ground rulcs at Nurernbcrg did not even allow drc tribunal to considcr c r-
    inal charges .gai6t an'.1e on the Allicd side.
    Finalnsomc .ritjcs llgued thrt thc concept of. war ofrggresion trs rot
    dclincd vith sufiicient l.gd precision, and they doubtcd ther ir eler coul,l b,,.
    The chrrrcr that established the Nuremberg tribunal m:de it a crure to *:t..
    or conspir. to w:gc,2 war of aggrcssion, but it did oot definc whrt such r rv.tr
    comirted ot ln addirion, any.dcqu,te dcanidon would hale to nuke
    th. history thrt lay b.bind a given tbcjuticc oftlrc hinoricrl'.l.3Dr
    wr and cltr;hs
    that difercnt groups hrve m2d..This would bog:ny court down in r lnonss
    of historical dd mord qucsdonr tbat could not bc asrvered with thc oblcc-
    tiviry requned for rhc rule ofh*:
    In sum, this fi6t lin€ of lrglmenr contendr that the Piocecdus\ n)oul,i
    have complicd wlth the rule ofhrv bur fliled to do so.The rirl did nor :.1::u-
    ister legaljusticc, as it claimed to do,bur rathcr"victor!lusicc."Though t r:s
    prescntcd ls r lcgel pro.€eding, Nu.cmbcrg lvs in f:.ta polr;cd t.iJ in \lri.h
    the victoc used tireir superior power to gc. rcvcdgc against dteit eneriic'.

    cornmand ofthc sovcreign po'ver who rules overa given tcrritorynd thlt rhc
    sov..cign powcr c!)nor be leg ly limited by dy superior power, or elsc i(
    would not bc lruly sovercign.
    This underrr:uding oflaw lnd sovereignry crslt ooubr on thc verv idei of
    int.rd.tiont hw B.c2use therc ,s no elobal so!.cr.ign who enforccs nrte :!-
    ti-n,l trc.rics and agrcemenB, io-c.I.d "international law" crnnot reaily bc
    authorit2tiv. :nd binding l,\a ,t 2ll. Accordingly, .rguc thesc cridcs, jn!e.na-
    tional hw .rnnot sene ,s J leg,l b*is f-r prosccution
    With internarionil law out of dre pictote, dl thac is lcft rs rhe Iarv ofcrch
    coutrtryl,Jtd critics ofthe Nurcmbcrg prosccution3 ergued that under Gcrm,n
    law a it cnsrcd during rhe Nrzi iegime,.hc d.fendaos had not attcrt illcgal-
    Iy. Sovctcign porvet lry in thj handt ofHider, and thc defcndant! who illeged-
    ly co!)eined rhc .rimcs sn'pll carried our his comands-Accord!rgly, therr
    actions cannot bc co.sidered crimes.
    This rccond line ofargumcnt wrs rcflectid in rwo of rhe defcnics ofercd
    by thc lawycB for thc accused Germans: rcs ofstat. and 5uPcrior o.des. Acts
    ofst,t. ere ict! of thc sovereign. Defcnrc counscl rrp.d thrt such acrs c,n-
    not bc iltcgal bccausc rhe sovercign di.ttrtes wh,t n legai and nlegrl. Insoler
    rs thc Ccfcnd:rnir were govcrndcnt ofiicialt, thcir :cr5 $e(c a<t' of drc sovcr-
    cisn Germln srlte. And insofir as thc deferdm.s wer. subie€ts of thc sover
    .ign stat€. thcir actbds complicd N:tb orders coming fron thci' Politicll
    supcriors and tr[itDiieh fiom ]htler. Complyins wnh thc co,nr nds dEt
    41

    comc Eorn rhc lovcreign.rrnot bc, crinrc bccausc those conrmnds drcBrc
    Nhat courtts as a crinc

    Justitinq the Trial


    The :rgomcD!\ ofrhe cntics \trc countercd by those vho contended rhat the
    trial aDd coovicrions !vcr. fully justified. The'..i.lrntcrargamen$ cmPhasi?ed
    rha! seveGl i.tc.lltionil trc.trict and agrccnrc;r. re'ounccd war ind
    'ggr'ssi!'e agrcc-
    declrred ir to b. crinnDt Gorrnnv u,s iself parry to some ot these
    menls.Thc chartd thai .sc,,b1islrcd dre tribunrl did nqt create ncw cnmer xr
    rhis r.grd but sirrply dechlcd what the htetnni6rEl tga,rnunity l)rd Prcvi-
    ously rgrced rverc cr rrr,r
    Proponents ofthe trtl rlso Pointed out thet ili..htclfiltioqzl communiq-
    hd loog recogazcd usr trinxs :s a viotrtion oiiiiq&di&iJ t"* tn r.t,',t''
    N"..muc.g -l'".ie. b.sed ilr definirion of ra.r-.ir-[l'Ci. on thc Haguc
    Co .ention of1907 arJ rhe Gcne$ Conveniion of 1921 ', : .
    The chrrgc of crrucs rqainst hu'rrury was dmiitcit:tb b: sdlnelFlC of
    r" ;r.o",""" . in(c'r. . : {, 'l lasi l,rt d(f.ndcn of rhc alil ergued ih:t su' h
    rrrmes could be lcgrrrrr''r,lr por.ur"d to thc ertcnt thn thev wee frn rnd
    ortcel ofthc Nrzi pl"r" r' r:dc:g6r< rv. war rnd comrnit w:' crimcs The
    ff;;,;;';i;i ,''e"i,. ili *r'.' -und*inbr.'" * inci,';crutv
    liolcd to conduct iechte.t critrinai bv iiternationd l'wand vjt tharcbv sob-
    ject to prclecution as.well
    as ior rhc rncged p*udiry of thc tribund' rl)e t'i'h ProPonen6-a'glcd
    .

    *f-' -" -," t: "'.; wlur counta iudgc coh€s from but lus ;nd€Pcnd
    '
    ."c. his *ili"gncs
    I"-GteF id botli-idcrnd-rcnd'F1*{ar4t'suFForlls
    "i'd
    by thc hw rnd thc evi,lencc The Nu.enbcrgjudges were dednated md,inde-
    ;:;;:;;1";;;;."", p,onc (o ,ubb., '".p it'. p-*.*;.* ose. rnd th<v
    i*a Uy lhcir k,d,ct' Thec of the defendntr !vcr' rcquitr'd on -ll
    '"0""6. 'fu
    ..d !;i; ;'hq. dcfendants wcrc dccia!€d inno'cnt on sone of drc
    counir. And tha judgir:did n9t imPorc $c hfshcst P.naltv on 3U thc convict-
    giving
    cd dcfcndans, rciirving theitrr-qh $"t"nc" for tl'o'e most culPable and

    :fi,'"";:"',;; ;;;: ;:'gi'i"i'. *...i;' "u*''il' ly "::,*.t.:1yff3


    ,on:r raw oblgat'd rnd therr rbleurs
    il;;J;:,;;;;ii;;''r-,n(c,n 't2tes
    4A

    ro {€Gad tom eggrcssior), genocidc, aDd the orher conduct enumeratcd nr rhc
    four couna of rhc indictment.
    For its advocates, then, the trial rvs an example ofthe ruI. ofhv in acl'on.
    While thc rule oflarvhad existed within certaid natiod, Nuremberg extcDded
    ir ro the inrernationrl communily rnd relations among natiors. For its critic5,
    though, the tri.l violat.dbasic prnlciples thir de6re dre rule oflarv.Let us tunr
    to the que.uon ofrvhr

    Assessinq the Trial


    Dcspite the besr eforts ofits advocates,it is ditlicult to tlrink that rhe trDl nlet
    aI ofthe requiremenh ofdle rulc ofhq It sectu morc thao a mild ,tretch ro
    algue, for exaDple, th.t thc tribunil ofJudges w3s ! truly imparrial one.Th.
    Soviet judge \ws sclectcd by the tot,ljtarian dichtoaJoseph Stalin, \'ho vas
    determined tbar eve.v defendant be found guilty aud sentenced !o d.arh.hdd
    it is psychologicaly imphusible ro drnrk drat . ), ofthejudges colld put sid.
    tleir n,tional sentimentj rg:inst Gcrnrny and render an inpairid judgmcDr
    Moreovcr prior to tl,. NurcmtrclC Charr.r, dtre simply *as no nttrLr
    rional egreemenr drar ortlarved crim.s against hudrtury lha! count ol thc
    indic&nent ccrtainly alter6 to be r liohtion ofthe principle lSrinst rettorc
    tive application ol crioliDal ltws. And the tr.ltier rhrt did outlaw srrs oi
    aggression lvere not eni-orced dcspite acrs ofaggrelsion by other nations befo(
    Germany embarked on rr camprign sgainst its neighborr. Nor sere dt.
    h.fi.. .nf6r.ed ielins rhe soviet tjnion! , ss re$ion after the outbrc:k ofdrc
    w;lii;oieasy t ee liow tE sfof conssrent effi@an-s dP..ibl.
    with the requiremcnts of the rule ofhlv
    Defendecs ofthe rrirl night.oncedc that it hrd seriods impefections frolrl
    the pdspective ofleg3lity but atgue thrr, nonethele$,the trial did a betterJob ol
    prcmorirgLheruleor Llvov.r th' longrun th,r rnvof'he frrstb'e JFtn'rtr.
    would have donc.One aiternative, sll]1fury execution,would nothave allowc.l
    the ;ccused their day i,r court-Another Jrernative, letting the accused go lrre
    without any trjal, may we havc lcd !o widcspreed, viol€nt vigilanre acrion
    Holding the ttial shoucd rhat in a conrext where the desire rbr vengeance run'
    high,legal prccedures cu both re"rain and sa*fy that desire, while givins thc
    accu3ed:, /./,riatl fair chance to defcdd themselves.This ws rn important lcssor
    to teach for Cre creation of an etrcitilrc nne.nrtion.l rulc oflarv ud fJr rh.
    restoration ofrhe rulc ofli-x to Germrnliafte( a dcclde ofarbnr.ry governnrcnt
    Howeve', many cr G ofthc triir will ins;t thar the prosccution ottlrc
    German dcfendants resicd on . fundamentiuy nistaken conceptiod of thc
    {at'riie oflalv ai1d ciirne. Only a hw can make ar act . crime,,!d law cDnsi"ts
    ofth€ conm,nds isslcd and cnlcrced by l sovereign state in the territo.y ir
    controls. Nazi Germity lvas such . state. lts lxw may have been grosslv
    iin noral, bui it wls dre law noretlrel.ss. Law derives from the Powe. of rhe
    sovercigD, not trom thc so\rcreign's horrl vith,e And N,,i l,w did not nrrk.
    ihe actions ofthe defendinLs cri'res.Thc trial end conviction of the defendrnts
    simply obscDrcd the trnc nrture olhw.nd criNe
    This conceprion ofthe nature oflaN,nd crimc t. form ofiegal Posriili'!
    that unde.st,nds law in ternls ofthe PoNer ofa sovereign to i5sue and enforce
    corlmandr. fhere are orher foriB ofpotitivism o.es that can be used to argue
    for the rri,i ind the convicdo ofrhc defendanrs lndeed' the argument based
    on inre.nliond l,w is consistent $'irh the Positivist idea that there is no nec-
    csrary connccrion beRvecn law a.d monlit): international laN can be secn as
    a ford of posr e law havnrg no necesrry connection to basic Principles of

    Buri! is aLo possible r.r hike 2 n.tunllas arg rent in favor ofthe rrixl,nd
    coovicrionj. such .n :rrglr'rcnt does nor iirrply cbim that the defcndan$ com-
    mirted crimcs under interntrrio,ral law It contends that thev committed crihes
    under nxluollrv by violating fundamenral moral obligations.And ir rejectr dre
    defenses oi rct ofsarc ,nd superior ordcrs: no act ofstate o. comand of,o)
    sqvereign can have legal validit-v ifit ; i'coosittent with natunl la\s
    The NurcmbergTrial thus presented a dramaric exenple inrvhich opposing
    iheories ofrhc natur-oflaw came inlo colii'ion Both natural laN tbeorv and
    legal posirjrisn Nere ptr( ofrhc <i€b,t. over NuEmberg.We will now turn to a
    .l;s.; !heory.nd i!s dilierenr versions Md then con-
    ""."".t,o" "f*rurillxN
    sider lesst posrtivism.Th. a;n tr not to resolve the loog-standing philosophicat
    dis,green!:nt beNvccn rhe tlvo rheo.i.s. Radrer,nis to gain a clear unde'sta'd
    ing ofthe d:spute, ia pnct;cal imPli.r.ions, ind !h. argumenh on each side

    NATURAI LAW THEORY: OVERVIEW


    Nrtural lerv tbcory chms that a necessary connection cxists beNveen Po'rrivr
    lalv and moBlity.'rhis re.essary conn'cdon is s'id to exnt bv vn e ofthe verv
    concept of lxir: But lvhrt tr the Prccrre na$re of thlt connection? Therc arc
    diFerent vcnions ofnatulrl l3w theoql cach giling a different answer to thrr
    question.ln thi\ chaPte., Ne will examine three versions-
    Accordingto the firt"edicn,ruLes ofPositive lalv tha' conflici with prn-';
    ples of narural law are invrlid Srch rulcs fe legallv nlll nd void and imposc no
    obligations cnanyo"e.Tlte hisher obligations imposed bv natural larv crncel out
    any conttary obligation thet an immoFl pos;tive l:rv nlv seek to lmPose we
    ivil cal th; vesion oflrarural law thinking the "tncitional" vedion lls dost
    Aquinm
    Prominent proponent n .he nledie'al philosoPhe'Thomas
    The second venion oin:rtLrn! l:'1s $corv sees a ditrerent'"n]d ofnece"iar)
    cooncctioi bet\!.cn Poritile hs' and nloraliry li does not claiN rht each rule
    ofpositive h'" nust ic cols;sten! Nith l^w Principles in order to h3lt
    'atural meral prin'iPles fiat arc
    legtl.sldiry Rither' r claitDs rha! tirere are
    'er(ainrvnem ofhw must gcncr
    ap;LcAble sPeciticany ro h$ trrrd thrt Jn\ seDurne
    jry proPonenr of (his aPProach
    -'p"",ir'*. p.i".pl.' Thc Dlorr pronxnenr
    is ihe;mqicD legal th;nker I-on Fuler, who savs that the piincifl'( 'nounr
    to an "ilncr moralirv ofllv" aad argues rhat the law of regimes so'h as Nrzi
    Germany pcrvasivelv violires dis inDrr moralitv

    :].:'
    50

    ' The thjrd version reer yet a different [Jrm ofnecess,ry conic.rIon l,rnv.(:)
    posnivc lav add morati+ It does notchimth.ralegal rule musrbc consincd\'. rh
    n.tuid law cobe legdly valid. R,ther, it claim that thc pottulc law cannot I'c
    properly interpreted and applicd wirhout th. introduction of"roriljudglntns
    the"interpletir€"'rrsion ofnatunl law tbeory'l'hc m$t trorni
    We will €all this
    nent proponent ofthis dreory is thcAnlerican leg:l theornt S.onald Dwori:;:r,
    and hn viev wil bc rhe fin,l vcrsion ofnaturel lalv theory rvc c:tanrnc

    TRADITIONAL NATURA{.
    LAW THEORYi BACKG ROUN D

    The idca th:t there are uni€rsai princiPies ofrisht and *long ther c,n ir. rln
    covered byhtm.n re,son goes blck to the d13 ofancient Grcc.e.Thcsc rrrulrl
    liwprinciples$ere seen asprovidingstandardsbywhich the rulcs ofpositnt I:.r
    could bejudged. Previorsly, it had bcen lcceptcd dogma lhrt th. l3wr ol.L I Lrt
    rvere saced and beyond rll .rjticisn, but the anclent Philosophes rc1 ccteJ $r. |r l
    dognrrndcliimedthitlherulesofPositivel'wscrcsubjec!.oevaluatr\,,,,ri,,
    '
    ba-sis ofthe principles ofnatutat law.Thcse principles rePresented, 'high.r irn
    by lvhich the goodnes! o.badnes ofPositive law could bc dere.n,jned
    These early ideas,bout natural law prcvidcdthe starting Points fron NhiJr
    tnditional natual l2w d::ory developed. During the Middle.{ges,sonc natu.rl
    r-i:
    - ofpositive hw musr be coosistent\\ith rhe obliSutions imposed on eleryone by
    natural larv h ordct to be legaly vehd.In this $ay. nttur.l lalv vas not lrercli tr
    set ofstlndards tojtrdge ihe goodnes or badnes ofthe ruleslaiddorvn bya stotc
    k w5 a system ofsupreme obligations thr! would cancel out rhe leg:l aulhori
    ty ofany incompatible rule ofpositive la\s Unless it was consistent with naturrl
    lew' a dle ofpositive law wx noll and void. Such a rule rvas like countedert
    mon€y-rhough it might appear on rhe sur!3ce to be a v2lid laq it lealiy wrr no
    lrw ar all.rThe mcd,eerl phrto,opher sr Aug!\une grve a su(. in. r .r,r"m"nr of
    rhe tradirional -iew:"a h.- thar is notjust is nc! e law."a
    k is important ro lccognize the digcrcnce bet$€en saying that nanrral law
    should be used to evaluate positive !e1v5 .r good or bad .nd eyine ihlt n'tu
    -fhc
    ral law should be useC to dcclare posirive lews a5 legaly valld or inv.l
    formor statemenr implics thlr even when positive laws are inconsistcnt $irh
    naturel hw, rhey can still be legally vatid.A bad law c!0 sti be 1 geruin. liN.
    onc dr?r pcoplc a(e lcAJly obligatcd to obscnc. In this vi.t, bcing b:d does
    -noc nnle i lirv nnll ind noia.
    ln contnst,whcn principl.s ofnaturallaw ate taken asstandard. ofleg v.l,d
    iry.nyincosistencywjth those pqinciplesmakes a rule legalv nuu and void Thc
    rul€ can no more irnpose an obligation than cen ? robberl threat to hir vi.tim,
    "Yourrnoney or your l-ife:'Tift is the vicw of t.adilioDal n,tu.al law thco.):
    Thc rncdie\d phnosopher St.Thomas Aquin.s is commonly legfdcd is
    the hon impodanr proponent of tnditional natural law rheory Ile gives dre
    most comprehensi\c and sysrcmir;c prcse'rlrion ofrhe traditionat versjon.We
    wil shorily bc examining Aquinai vicws jn morc de!ai]. Before wc do, ir rs
    import nr ro .ealize th.r the niditjon narur2l law view is by no merlll
    rcsEicrcd to the Middle Ages, dcspitc thc fad rhar Augustine end Aqurnr are
    tlvo of its main poPonenrr
    The mosr iDfuenrial Englsh leg?t rheorin of the eighteenrh cenrury
    \viIjam Blackstone, ,dvocared .tradinonal narural law rheory A.d
    Bhckrronet ideas ibout law had influence in rhe United Srater welt into th€
    nineteenth century even though his nlrual law approech was nevcr scncr-
    elly :cceptcd. ln addition, natur:l la*' theory was pelt of the movcsrenr to
    abolish slavery in the Unjted Sares. Leading abolitioniscs declared rhat the
    rules supporting slavery were uriLst and that what was unjust could not
    have reaf leg,l autbority 1nd so should rot be enfor.ed b) cou!!s. An
    unmistakabl. echo ; eppdent in abo[tionin tbtements ofAugustiiet rhe-
    sis thar d unjosr lalv is no larv rt eL
    And.s we have seen,in rhe.w.nrieth ce ntury trddirionrl mtunt lew theory
    llas invoked by some ro argue that the Na2i decrees leading to the perccutron
    and exterm;ation oinxtlions dd not hlvc tire stat$ oalaw and were l.g3ly
    inwr.lid due to theirinconsisrcrq sidr naturai hwThe Gcrnun legel philolophcr
    Gusrav Radbruch wr5 rludirg io Nlzi hws rvhen he wote,"iTlhere can be larvs
    that so unjuit,so socidly detrinentat th.r lheir very chancter s la*s, mut bc
    ''e
    denied.There a!e,rhcrefore,principles ofhw dDt are st(ongerthen any sbtrte,so
    thit e law cooniding rvith thcsc prin.iples is devoid ofvelidiry One call' th"\c
    printiples narunl law"5 Since the Nui dccree! were tegaly invalid, cour$ should
    hrve refirsed to e"forre tbcm .id r!!!trein]lotuedililnplel1rcdio
    trc tEnglawniny--if not rcil
    The trrditional version of natural law rheory is a}o endorsed by leg.l
    thit*ers who are witing tod.yThus,Michael Moore h* recendy claimed,"For
    somethilg ro be a hw ar all ir muir nec€ssanly nor b€ unjusr."6 And the legal
    theoristi Beyl.veid and Bromsvord have argued thr there is , fuDdament.l
    principle ofmonliry that renders ieg.lly inv.lid rny iule incocistent with it.7
    Let us now turn io one ofthe grert natural law thinken in the Wcsteto tra-
    dition,ThonDs Aquinas. His idex hrd a grel inRuence on narur.l lalv theory
    for hundrcds of)€a6 and continue to do so tod:y.

    AQ UI N AS'S THEORY OF LAW

    Law and the Good


    i- -.' Aquin-t ieisiitn oftiidition.l nirur;il laN rlrcot lenDiff ona atftlle
    'nost
    sys-
    tematic .nd comprehensive legal philosophies cver developed. lt r.sts on his
    virion of ihc universe ,! governed by a single, seFcodstent, and overarching
    systcm of lawTh. entire system is under the direction and authoriry of the
    suprcmc lewgiver andjudge, cod. Hun.n IrN occupies thc lower tier ofthis
    system. Above i! are eteroal lr\\., nltunt lalv, and divine law
    Erernal law consrsts of &os. princtples of acrion and rllir Co.t
    imphnicd in things in ordc !o cnablc e,ch rhidg ro pcrforh'norion
    iri prop.r func,
    tio in the ovenu order ofthc unive c.Thc ploper furcdon ofa thing detcr
    mines whar I good a'rd b3d for it| the good cons;sts of peforming ns fulc-
    tion; the bad consxrs offaihng ro perform ir.
    N2tural law consists of rhos€ principles of cr.rn.t law rpecilic ro hurn
    bcings. Such principles ire l{no\nble by our naturai powers otrcason, and ,hcr
    guide us losa.d wher is good aor huma,)r.Thu!, u ir good lbr huDaDs to liv.
    peaceably wirh one alothtr in socicry and so mturll hw principlcs enrail rhL
    prohibrtion ofact;ons su.h $ hd'der and theft that harm $crcry ln gencral,
    otedience to natunl hw is oblig,tory for rny hu'nan being bcclusc rhar is hoN
    .re.chick tbc hurnin eood: disobedicnce is wrongbccause thrt is Lorv rve fa,l
    !o echieve n.
    ForAquinas, hum,ns siu nor reach rhe ultinate good simtlv by fo oNins
    natural law'Ihc prnrcides ofnarural hrv help us reach rhe good rhrr is,chi.!
    ,ble in rhn sorld.Ycr, bevodd rhs (orld ih.rc n the uldnirc humo cood
    cterml sihxtion A typ('ol lew e\isls orer,rd,borc nltural li\r guidrns ,,, o'
    tltet uhuratc so.l.That r divine hv
    Fiutrln law-Aquin.5\ rernr for posirivc LN-consis6 orrulcs flinr.,l t''-
    the he.d ofthc politicit .omnrunity for thc conmon good of ir Dr.n,brrs lI
    somc dses,'uch rul€s ar. logicaly d€duccd from naru.rl bs principl.l.
    For epmple, rhe posititt 'idply
    hw agrinst rnurder n iogically enurlcd b,r' the no,c
    :@fir+eleafrom \qongfuuy h tuns son,eon.
    clse.Once*e rgre< tlrar rnurde'iiI lorm-6flvtondul hmi, iFc Lw-rgrnst- - - r+
    murder logic.Iy fo[oss from rh. n,trr, Lw principlc.
    In othc..lser, thc rulcr of posirive lav m"ke more cooc.ete add ipcciilc
    the .elatively {ague piolisiont contained within natural l.!v For €xamplc,
    €riminal l.E speci& a p ricuhr puD mcm (or ranse of punlshmcnls) for
    each crime, while natural lav onl,v says ih,t criminal punislment shoutd be
    ploportiond to the s.tiousncss ofthc crimc.
    Wlut h.ppens if: rul. ofporitive law mand,rcs an aclion ihat is .ontiarv
    to natural l,w?Aquhas ci(es Augusrinel thcsis that an unjt15t law is no lasr lre
    . goes on to chim, "[E]very hunun Lw ha' jusr 50 much of the n,ture of la* :s
    it is deriv.d &om dre laN ofDaiure. But ifio any point i( d.8ec6 from the hw
    ofnature, tr is no lonser r hw bur tr perversion ofla$f'8 UnjrJt Nles a,e wrh-
    out legal authoriry".ct. ofviolence nther than lawsl'e Thcy arc dre rno.rl lnd
    lesal cquivrlent ofthc robberi drcat"Your money or yoitrlife.
    _ F9r Aquins, m u rlun rule as such cannor <r.are any obligation to obct ,tr
    tcrm. It m.y happen thra, in cdt?in circumst nccs, disobedicDce ro thc rule
    would proddcc'sc ldrl or dirtu$ance."r0 Aquims seerns to hrve id nxnd h$e
    cases in which disobedience would thrc.ten to cruse social disorder, and hc rs
    saying thrt vc arc obligited to fono\v 3n unjust rule in su.h cases in order to
    avoid the disorder. But n'ch 1n oblisation would not be b.red on any ,ud,or
    iry polsc$cd by thc i,l..ve Nould be obligitcd !o foUow ihc rule dcspirc thc
    fact that n w$ legr v nrvrlid.Thar oblig:tion would dcrive dirccdv from r nrt-
    ur.l l,w prmciple r.ohriJrtn)g trctions thlt thr€ircn scandil or drsturbuc(
    53

    Aquinas desdibes unlusr rlrles Grmed by rhe ruler as uqust Jrrvs.Why docs
    he do so, ifhe really believ$ lhar such rules e no! real iN' :!nd h.ve no lesal
    aurhoriry? He seer6 !o be usnrg &e tern !,i!Jt L!,r in a rvay that is analogous
    to rhc way ive use drc retn\ au efe;t naney.We call whar counterfexers rnake
    "noreyi wen drough rve recognize thai ir nor realy money but only prc-
    tends to be. In dre sarne rvat an unjusr rulc 'senacted by a ruler poses ls a re.l
    lrf in rhar rhe ruier wil clii'n rlrar tbe rule pro'notes rhe corturon good. In
    making such a ciaim, the unscrupulous ruler hopes ro fool people into going
    along with the role widrout prorcs!. But rhe claim docs nor make the rule
    legaly valjd; ar b.sr, jr onlv Drkes drc rule .pleer to be vatid. Like counrcrfe,r
    moDen dre rule $ pa$ed oII ar sonething n realy is not.
    Aqun,as: reasoDs for accepturg Augustinei' thesis drat unjust laws ale Do
    laws at .11 can bc coocireb s rcd as fololvs.The purpose ofhuman law is to
    promote the comrnon good ofde mernbers ofthe politicrl cornrnuniFjThe
    cohmon good is not prodoted, holvevea by rules that go cont.,ry to netur.l
    lawAlter ell, i: is rlie natu:al irw rh,t guides hnntan beings toward dre good
    Thus, rules that run counter to nrtunl llv rre rr opposnion ro the very pur
    poseoahumrDl.\s.ndso rrc pcrvcrsions otlarw ln othe. vords, such rulcs
    represcnt the unsusc oithe po(cr to frarne rules for the political comDrun,r\1
    As sucii, u'lust rules .re !v;drou l.gal a!rhcriry

    Assessing Aquinas
    ls Aquinas\ argumcnt for a traLtrional n:tural larv approlch a convincing one?
    There arc some rcdons fo. quesdotring its cogency.The mottjmportlnt reasons
    ierrrosrrd*quinalstr,r-chntlir.rlic}triF...6f h-uinei-awsroprom-ore
    thecolMon sood ofdre cotunudrty.Ile is confident ofthe cldm bec.use he ;s
    confident that he Inolvs ilnt (1) God e\isLs; (2) God has ordained that those in
    charge ofpolitical conmuo ries frrne lawsservinsthecomongood;and (3) rhe
    natural rexoning powers ofhunrars lead all reasonablc persons to agree on the
    basic principles that deternrine good and bad,right and wroog.
    Many .uftenr legal and political philosophers do not have Aquinas's confi-
    dence in these mauers-Thcy sould argue tlMt (1) thereis no Godi (2) even if
    lhere is, Godf enstence n not somethidg thrl we can know but ooly beliele
    in; (3) even ifwe crn know drar cod exis*, sc c.r.nor know lvhat, ifanyrhins,
    God inlendi lhose in chatge oi.pohacei conmuniries to do;and (4) reasonlble
    people .an disagree o\cr fundrntcnral principles of hunan good ard obligr-
    tion,These philosophers soutd, in slrorr, expel Cod from colsidearron in
    developidg a l.Aal end political fhdosophy and rrgue th,r basic dnrgrecncnrs
    about nrr,lic) trndju$ice crnnor be dcfirnikly setded by reason.
    - - Ifcod n expeiled, the oDI! purposcr drat 1vc c.n atr.ibute to the posirive
    -- la.{ are hun,n purposFs, not divn)c ones. And r;,is $ lvhere thc rrouble for
    Aquinlst tr2dnional version ot narural lalv rheory stars !o become obvious.
    The purposes to which huBrrns hrve pur posiiive law have nor rhvays becn
    especially mor2l orjust.A; rhe c\nnplcs ofslavcry and Nazism shoq opprcs
    sion, exploitation, ind ev.n gcnoctde hrve becn among such purposes.
    54

    Contemporary defenders of d,e t"ditionl narL,.al ltr$ rPl,rotr.ll nxrl,1


    seek to nounr a 3ecular d€Gnse ofAquinasi notion dr:t the tdrPor. oihN r
    to Promote the commo good.They mav Point out th'ar prucr;'es N' ""'1"
    stand as violatioru ofbric moral obligations, N,zs and slaveow,rers rcg"rd.d
    as just and right.The Poinr is not to endorse the rclaovist nooon drat onre'
    thing is made right by the simple fact that some people rhink rr s lglrt 'l L'
    tmdition,l na rrl lalv vierv clcarlv reiects anv such r€lati*m iD favor olth'
    idea that thcrc de objecrive moral ob|gatioru' tlither' the Point n to suggcst
    rhat in enacting laws People are rrying io do lvhrr n light, howcv.r fia$cJ theI
    notio's ofright and wrong mey be lfthis is lvh,t people rre tr}')g to do rL'n
    we can sriJl say th:t the purpose oflaw n to P.omot€ morJrry and Justice 'l hr
    is the hunu' aim of las! iegeidlcss of vhethe! lt is God's ,nn .s w.ll r\n'l
    unjust lews wil run conrrary to that aim.
    Even if wc acceP! tblt humans are :lwavs cqnrg ro prono(e jusrice *)r"
    cnrcting laws, it does nor folow thlt unjust rules catnot be genuine ltrws 11 r
    philosopheris iryingto lvrite a book rlrat ansvers all the baric qucrions o'lcgrl
    philosophl,we would not sly that her qriling crnnot rmount ro a se"'" "' b'''k
    unless it rctually ans$trs aI such quelhons The book simplv would not I't r!
    good as the one sbe hrd been antu g ro writc. C.rtics ofthe trrdruonrl r:turrl
    hw appro,ch will s.y somcthing simi{,bout an unju5t rule:;! strllcan be '. g'n
    uine itrv elen iflt is no! as good a rts luthors h,d been ainnng ro dlakc r!
    Moreover,j!isdubioustha!humrnsarcalvaystryingtoPromot.Jusricevhcn
    they emct hws Somc lalhcr cynicxl political lerd-s throughour hunin hrs$'r
    were probably not even trying to dojustice.Thev ruled for thc pesonJ a{!L-
    :::::1 r:gesrteyroU*cxtretftsing theirtrotiicalPowr,norroTrcr'nE jNi- in thci- -
    co]rmuniryOfcoune,suchcy calleadersclaimpubliclviha!therlauBp'omor'
    j ustice, but such an assertion is meant ro hide, not reveal their t'ue pu rPoser '
    Traditional Mturai trw theory thus seem to be on shalry glounds in chitF
    ;!g th,t ujurt tules cannot have legd authorirv lfthe cl'n is to be vindrfir
    ed, a rnore persua'ire rpP.oa.h than Aquinasi nust be developed Pe'hrtr it
    can be. But en ifn cadnot, ! connection of,norher kind betlveeo
    'eccsslry
    positive laa and moraliq is stil po$ible. Let u3 exPlor. thet posibi[',!

    FIJLLER AND FIDELITY TO LAW

    The lnner Morality oI Law


    Lon Fuller rny genuinc sysren of Lav necessar v abid's bv
    argues drat
    'ernin
    -- - horal PrntciPles. He (alls these piinciPl€s thc ";nn.r mocalitv o' the h!r'" 1\
    gDvernmert can.ontrol add regulate rhc conduct ofthosc in socieq in d1n''t
    ett wrys. But e system ofregplation and conEol is not a systenr ofltN" ac'ord
    ing to Fule., udess th.sc Principles are satislied
    whrt lre tire Prin.iplcs *ilt uP tie nlner moralirv of h\'? Fulirr
    'nake
    derives thed from thc ide! drar l.rv is lomethi.g intended to rcguhte and
    'oD-
    t.ol conduct by mons olgcncr.l rulca that are rddr.$ed to hu'n'ns as I'tc rs
    55

    cap.ble ofdetbention and choicc j\'lodes of !.gulxrion iDd conrrol ttrrr do


    nor r€ly on gcn€ril rules or rlDt bvta$ the huru,! capaciry for detibera(ion rnd
    choic. zre .x.luded. Accordingl,v, I.gal flilcs nn's. be ,pplied prospcclively,
    nrhcr than rcrroacrively, bc.aulr only prospeclive rulcs eddress humlns
    lgcnts .apablc ofchoicc. Similar\l lcgal rulcs must bc relarively ctcar in nrcau-
    ing, possiblc to cotnply Nirh,,dopred jtr rccord wnh exsdng rules, L,l
    forth.In othcr rvords, for lruller, r govcrnrncnr nut give individuals fa; wrn-
    ing and abidc by the othcr prn,ciples of lcg.liry if ir ts (o show .esprct for
    humens as .gents crprble ofchoosing rhcir o*n conducr.
    Becalrse tlle principles ofldgalirr embod) rhjs respccr, rhey reprcscnt aD
    inncr monliry th:t is prr. of,nv gcDuine lcg,l sysrem. On.ccounr ofth's
    monlity, Fuller contcDd, thit therc ii r prin. frcic obligation to obey rhe 'oner
    !ulcs
    of:ny genuinc systc'n ofpositive Ia$:A pri'n, f,cie oblig?tion ir on. rl)rt .,n
    be ovetiddcn ifit conili€ts iirh I norc imporlrnt obliFrion. Nonedr.l.ls
    prtum facic obligatioD imposes, r$l moral requir.menr oD individuals. lirller
    puts rhis point by s,vnrs ;hat ti,c.e a dury oicdcliry.o the law
    "
    The jnner mor.rlity oflalv docs no! gurrinr€e thlt evcrt genuine lx\! s l
    just l^qAnd ifa lJlv n scrioudr unlust, drc prirrr: facie oblig,tion ro olcy n
    l
    may bc overridJ.n. Afrer all, r iN nrisht bc 50 ,iusr rha( fund3menral nonl
    obligatioc require drobedicnce.
    Fuler thus bcliclcs rbrt thc brnc tdei bchind orrunl hv theory c:n bc vio-
    dicrted: thcrc is a n..essary coDDcction bcmren positivc law ind monh\1Jnd
    tha! conncctio. ircms FoDr the larule ofiiw nscliThe nccessary connccuo[ rs
    not.s snoDg ar tr2dirionrl n3ruril hw rhjnkcrrhrdbostul:rcd.forrt rrpossiblcth*
    s'.rictd,a-?o.iri'el,l.qqrEju!!l1{L!eer!ry)r*ffS}l d949€4+ga!-
    --: FuIc. rhosc postibiliries do nor elininare thc f2ct thet every genuine legal svsrem
    has rniMcrnorality rlhr imposes a prnna facie obligarion roobey itsrulcs.
    Fuller conccd€s that in real $oild legil sysrenB, thc inn€r monliry ofdre
    law is nor pcfccdy obsedcd. Fo! cxampl., it ; not unuru3l evcn for a cour-
    tly like thc Unil.d States or Enghnd to have sorne laws that arc .,ery vague.
    ' But 3om€ d.parturc from drc la$i;rner monliry is,for Fuller, compatiblc lvith
    thc .xirtencc of. lcgal syst.m. Hc sensibly poinB our rh,t h,ving a lctrl rys-
    t.m is a mlttcr ofdcg.ee and thet ir is i misr.kc to reg:rd the cxistcnce ofa
    systcrn ofhw es .n dl-or-nothing atrril
    Yct, Fulcnlso ersue( $ar at sorne point the violrtion ofrulc-ofJrv prin-
    ciplcs becomes so pervrsivc and sctious that we ar€ no longer dceiing with a
    sy(cm undcr the rule of law bor rrtirer wnh :rbirrrry governm.nt or som.
    similar mode of rcgulrting teharior. lle belicves, for examlle, thrt N:zi
    Gerurany rvcnt past rh.i toht Nnh irs pcrv,si!rc ind bl3tant di$cg3rd of the
    . Lr4f.ip!!,o{tg{ity. N.zi Cermro) did not r.a,latc bchavior thousl, r 5ys-
    tem of law buc ntliar ihrough aD aibiir.rry sy:tcm oa te-ir6. organizcd 3nd
    implem€ntcd by the N.zi Parr) and the ,gencies it controlcd. This r.rror
    oPcrated outtide and :bove the la\e So rerious wrs thc di!.eg.rd for legariry
    that the system ofsocial control could not be ,rid to tre2r hlrmins as rcsFn-
    siblc nor.l ,gents. Inslerd, i! r.ertcJ rhem is ot'jdcts to bc manipulatcd by vio-
    lencc rather th.n as srbic.ts clpit)lc ofd€liberation and decision.
    56

    Whrt does Fulle!t thcorycn.iil forthc irsuci trncd by thc NurcmbcrgTrid?


    Thc thcory sccm' to nuli$ et lcrt onc ofthe arguments madc by the dcfcn-
    dantJ, namcly, thar thcir rctioff w€rc lcg:l undcr (h. cxisting systcm ofNizi law
    For FuD.r, thcrc v$ no sFtcm ofl,w in N'i Gcrminy, oi]y, syst.ttr oflaN-
    less tcrror.But thrt lcavcs thc qucstion ofvhedre( tlldc was some genDinc tyt-
    tem oflrwundcrwhich the acs ofdrc dcfcndrnts could be considercd cri,nes.
    The prosecurion's apped to internatioDal lalv would scen to bc problcrn-
    atic Gom the pcrtpective of Fducrt theory with itr hck of corlsjsic.r and
    imprrtial cnforcement, uguc prolirions,.nd rclroacrive .nfo.cemenr, interna-
    tio al law fcl scrioudy short ofmeeting F ll.rt inner tnonliry e,rd .rgrxbly
    did not conrtiturc. g.nuinc rystenr oflaw.
    Thc appeal to natural l,v is .vcn morc problemetic &om FuIer\ Frspc.
    tiic.Th. i'tn€r no.rlity of liv rcquires fi,nctioning institutiotu to i,Dpletnent,
    intcrprct, rnd cnlbrcc thc provisiont ofrhe hw Rulc' ofoblg:tions rhar are
    not brought down to czrth in dllr way do not count es r lcgl sFtem.
    Yet, Fuller could rrgue dDt, dspite dle s.rious flllvs ofintcrn.tiontrl laN,
    thc riil and conviction ofthe defcndants did. bctter job th,n,n-v fcrsiblc
    ahemativc of prooroting thc rroer nromlrry of hrv in borh thc internrtionrl
    rrea and Gernrany nscl( Frller! insight tbr! the ruie ofhw is. nutte. ot'
    degrec suggcss rL.t ir mxy nccd to bc bu'lt over ri'n..Thc initial phase of
    that building proccss m1y frlt far 3hoit of the inncr moreliry of the la$r But
    it mry nonethelcs bc jtrstilicd if, undcr the circu.r,rBncet, it is dre best nst
    step ihat onc can trke.

    Fller: rpprorch lvoi& key problem of$adirion.l trlturd las' theory He


    'he
    docs not try !o show thar ei€ry unjust rule of positivc lew is legally nullified
    by thc higher authodty ofnatunl law. Hn t-ocus is not on parti.ul3r hrvs one
    by onc, but rather on the kind ofsystcn by which the ruling authoritics in i
    country seek ro icgulatc rnd conrrol socieryAnd Fulert ccotr.l claim is llut
    a systcm ofla.v, untikc: sysrcn orhwbss reftor,imposcs onindividulL a P(in,a
    f.cic obligation ofobcdiencc due ro rhe {cspcct &it thc inncr morality oflaw
    rcccrds to ur rs rcAonrible agcnts.
    Fuler n on safc g.ou d in thinking that syrtens of bwless te.ror imPose
    no oblig.tion of obedi.nc., trot cvcrl a prima facic obligation. Ilo$cver, h;
    cl,im rh.t. sysreh ofliw Jv.ys imposes 1 prini li.ie obligarion is prol'relr-
    .tic.The rules ofi:ystcn) rlur tully abides by Fullcrt inner motaliry tan be rt
    unjust.nd dehumrnizins,s dre rcgime ofthe N1zis.
    - Fuller argtcs tlrat thc r)nc. moaliry oflew Puts tigtiicent coostranrts o,r
    . Sowrnhent bent on evJdoing and injustic€. Thos€ 'rho conon evil rntl
    injusticc rypicaly do nor $,int othcrs to krow about it rnd do nonvrnt to bc
    restricied by ruler.nd rcglla.ions.Thc principlcs oflcgrily, on tiL odrer h.Dtl,
    r.quir€ thet ofici.t,ctioil be euthorized by lutes that rrc made public and.it)
    be gcnerlly kDown.lli.ler IDiy h.\c ordcred the extermirhtiotr ofJews, idd
    mrny Gcnnrns no doub( wcre rwl. rhat ext(rminrooD! wet. oL ur ir,! 'r' J
    ttrrBe sc.le. Dur the cxtcimi ation policy N:s not mrde pub)ic in r rvay tltrt
    57

    lcgdity requtes: ev.n thc N:zis wcre not so braz.n :s ro rdvcliisc a[ ofrheir
    atrocirics ro thc wodd. And mny ofthe N.zi atrocities simply ignored cxj(-
    ing rulcJ ,nd tlgdatioE.
    Fullcr sccms to bc on solid grolnd in .rguing that rulc-oflrw principles
    rcnd to corEmin govcrnment injusticc and evildoi'g. Ccrtdnly, al of thosc
    thinkcB in'Wcstcrn hltory vho h.ve dctcnded thc rule of law would ,eree
    vith him on ih.i :corc. Bu. cvcn gnnting the point, it do€s not follow rhrr
    drcrc ir.lwvs a prima facic monl oble.lion to be faithful to thc.ul.s oflny
    systcm ofl v So c systcns of law nly be so opprcssive and hjust that dre
    is no mor:l obligation rvhatsoevcr to be f.ithful to rhem-
    Thcrc arc many cxamples oftcFibly lnjusr N,!i laws dut wcrc duly prom
    ulgatcd and mcr rh. othcr r€quircmenB ofthe inner moraliiy ofthe l.wThe
    most infemous, pclhaps, werc drc Nurcmbcrg lalvs Ptohibning marriagc md
    scxurl intcrcounc bct*ccn Jcwl .nd p.rons or"C€rman blood." It would b.
    Cifiicult to ,rgue thrt rhcrc w'5 a priml lacie obligation to bc frithful to ruch
    Iawsjusr beciuse rny trtem ofpositive hlv is such pus cenain constraints on
    govcrmcnt .vildoing. ltr cersin crses, thosc conrtriints t woefully thor! of
    wh.t mo.al;ry cm tolcnr.,.ud dre only r.ason bcing frithful to such larvs
    is fcar ofthc ivfulcoDscguences ofdnobcdicrcc. 'ir
    FuIc. would claim thar the cxample ofthe Nur.mbcrg l.!vs does not rcaly
    rctutc Sisporirio'.Ile denics th:t N:zi G.rmany hrd e mrc sptcm oflaw: it vro-
    latcd so nrany ofthe principlei oflcgiliry in such ar cgregious My th:t ir u\:
    slrtcm ofterror not laqAccordingli:, FlU€r would say thrt thcre was no moGl
    obligtion ro obey rh. Nurmbcrg lNvs or othcr oPPtdsive Nrri cnacEncns.
    _._-@
    Ccrrn:ny, his rcply scill misses thc brsic point, even if thi *uiitraa confoimA
    to thc prmciplct of lcslliryrh.y wouid niu hrle bc.n able to cn.ct rnd cnforce
    l,ws so dnconirn ,nd onjust thtt rhc PeoPlc of Gcrmany u,ould hrvc hld no
    mor.l oblig*ion at ,ll to obcy those lNs. Respect for thc mlc oflaw end the
    vrlucs it promore" mjght imposc on us an obligarion to obey hR3 that are in
    sohc dcgrc. unjust o. unfeil But we lre cxPecting too much Gom .h. dl€ of
    law ifsc think it c.n grcund: prinu f.cic noral obligation to obey any laq
    no m.Rci how opprcssivc or unyust, as long u drc la\\ in qucstion is Part ofa
    syltd rhtt gcneElly conforB to rhc lri.ciplcs ofl€gdity.Thc bzrbdc hws
    ofthc N.zis could not have becn morrlly mtv:gcd in any dcgtee evcn ifthev
    had bccn cr'rctid rnd cnforccd in a systcm tlrat had obs.fl.d the rulc oflaw

    bw and so(ial Purpose


    Fuller cbin$ that positivc larv rrril monliry are corrrtcctcd in rnother way Pro-
    ' vidingzn additiorial mool basis to be frnhtui ro thc Posiivc hw.Thk dlegcd
    conncctioo concctns d:e rvay i0 *hiclr lews should be intcrPrcted ttenls
    'nd of rhe
    6om the fact the tunction of Positive I.w n !o rcgslate the conduct
    mcmbers of sociery Bccause ofthn tunction, therc a.9 soci:l PurPosca tlrr lie
    bchind thc rules ofPotit've law Fullc' s.vs that rhc rul's 3hould be int'rPrer-
    cd so as to promote those p",F*"; Doing so would (Prcsum:blv) pro-
    '".^l
    mote the g;od of socier)-,.ln"ihrne ,l'x rnonl'ry comnends us to do
    Considcr i rulc prohjbidng tchcles aroD enrering thc prlk. Dors rl,I rulc
    excludc an ambul,ncc thrt is abour !o cnter dre prlk in ord.r ro go tcr rh. rcr
    cuc ofsonrconc who has had 2 hcr!:tu.k? lfonejus! loo\cd 3i thc s.onL of
    the rulc .nd ignor.d:ny con5idcration ofsoci3l purposc, !l!cd o,;e lvorl(j har.
    to excludc thc .mbulance. A litcralirt :pplic.rion ofdre rtnt Noutd l(ad to r
    riturtion in wbich rncdical cmergcncics in rhc park cou]d nor he cr'ti.rir,t!
    treetcd. But it scerni cle.r rhat rhe ptllpose ofrhc rul. is nor ro ;tlertde wuh
    cmcrgency medicrl tretment bor rather ro promote (he srfc cnloynrur oitlr
    park. Rctusing entry to embulances in an cmergency siruation nd ld!r.rrro
    mote thar purposc but rathcr ;tr.rAre with n.
    Criti.s ofFulcr point oDr $rr interpretnrg h\r, in te.n6 (,a !herr unJe,h,
    ing socil purposer does not Dcccssarily promote what is morlli! goo,l. srpl)
    bccausc sociJ purposes can be grossly imoral or unjusr. LNli rsreblishing
    shvery or condcmn;'gJews to a second-class status illostrarc drs poi,r- !:r n.
    scnsc cln mordty l-'c said to b. promoted by intcrprcting such hws in ftrr!tr
    oftheir unde ying socid purposes.
    Purposive intcrprchtion may bctrer promotc monliry rhrd i l,r.rillst xfTL-
    €{ion ofthe laqifthc lals havc moraliy acceprible purposcs b.hr rh.r).lhr
    notltng in (he idc! ofl!!v or thc idea ofa legai rysrcn gurrant&s t|c la(ls p:r
    poscs vill be morilv 3cccptable.And vhen the purposes are ihnrorllor \ni;!,r.
    purposilr inrcrprctadoD coold ectua.lly be rv'orse rhan litcralitt aptlica tloD or rhc
    hw.This posibility n rgain illustrated by the ItEs ofNazi Ccrnr.ny.
    Nazi judger ofrcn uscd purposive inrcrp.erarion in order to nnpos. crr.r
    hardships oDJcws:nd others regrrded as politicaly ard morauy uud.sirable. for
    example, rlrey interprctcd the law forbiidnre sexurl intercoN bcnF.:9&s --- .:.""":''''=
    and Don-JeNish Germans .s s oihcr rlun
    e purpose ofthe law rvas ro discour.r.l
    intimatc rehriod between jew' and nor-Javs, and thlt purpose woqld bc bcr
    ter served by interp<eting thc law broadly to indude.ny kind ofsexBl acrivirv
    Fullcr! €trorts to cst:blish a necessar-v connection bcrwcen pos'ri$e law and
    mor.liry rhu*ppe.r ro fxil. But his idca lhat there ir such a conn.ction an(i
    tl,at it stens ftom thc way laws should bc inrerpretcd was pickcd up and devel
    op.d in r difcrent diEction by drc legal phitosophd Ron,ld Dworkin. Let us
    rurs to Dwo.kjn!' intcrprctive version ofnatural hw thcory

    DWORKIN'S INTERPRETIVE THEORY


    Rules and Principles: The ldea o{ Fit
    Dworkin bclievc! rhat leg.l intciprclrciofl, when propdly carried out..equircs
    thc making of oril jldsmcDr.This docs trot meln thit rulcs cfposirire l.rv
    -wiil be dc.lrred iiNaiid rvhen rhcy arc jL,dged to be imorel or un1st. But it
    - - docs mem that morxiiry lvill,.:xercire sone significant inducnce over drc \ly
    those rulcs arc to be under(ood and vi tl'ercby be incxtdcably nrternuncd
    rvith the positive larv
    59

    For Dworkin, rhe hN urclucter n,orc rban tbose rlles thar,re cxpli.ittv
    doptcd :5 rurhoritetive t)\ rhc poUrj.xl communiry Such rules crn bc found
    in sorutory coderjudicial decisions, ud other ollicial documenB. But ir is !
    misr*e to stop s.ith the explicit rules irr coruidcringwher bctongs !o ihe t1v
    This is bccausc those rules slrould be unders(ood nor s some miscetlineout
    col€ction ofnorrru or r m$e product of porvcr politicr but rather as rhc
    exprcssion of an underlvnrg philov)f h\, of govc.nhenr.
    Such a philosophy s'orLld cons;st of moral !,incipl.s specifying iire iun-
    d"$ental purposes of gorcrnnrcnt aoJ dre proprr rclarion benvcen govern
    ment and the individuil. fhc jar corrrrts oftbe cxplicidy adoptcd rules piur
    the bat morrl pincipies rhrr car b. undersrood to Ii. bchind thosc rulcs.
    In e countly such as drc Unned Stater, such principlcs concern tlrc noral
    righrs of individurls, rishts that d:e governnent musr resp.ct rnd prorccr.
    lhc prrncrplcs teRe r\ lraitimre brses of lcgrl d€.'5ion5, a w. a hclp
    guidc the inrcrpretation oflcgal rul$ jn hrrd clses in which thc iieht lcFl

    Hoi! doe\ onc dcterrnin. whni rr. rhd bcs! rnool principles thnt caD Lrc
    seen es lytrlg bchind tl,c rulcs cxplicnly adopted by rhc politr.al community?
    Thc beginning ofD\\oru.i ansltr i\ d:2t odc nustjudg€ the dcgree of fif'
    between ,ome proposcd prnrciplc ar! the rulc.Thcre are two zspeca offit.
    First, fit i, . nrauer of logic:l coDsisrcncy: .try vi.ble crndidarc for an
    undcrlynrg principle nusr 'be loeicall_v consisrcnr with most ofrhe rules.Tobl
    consitteDcy is not rcquircd, si!)"e i! is not to b. expe€ted rhit any let ofcxpljc-
    DlorHnt nrcrhod of iiterpleration 3skr us ro d.tcrnfie which rnorrl
    principle lis thir corxriudonal rul€ again5r unrcasonable scarchcs 1nd reizurcs.
    We arc to look for a principle tlat would bc logically coniisr.nr wirh dtc rulc
    and ,Lo help €xpliin $+y thc rulc i5 r good onc ro h:vc,Accordinglv a prin-
    ciple st ring dret goverunent should do whatever it rcgards:s uselirl in dctecr-
    ing.nd punishing crimiml.ctivity do.s nor fit rh€ rde.Tbis is be.ause thc
    rul. clc.ny plac6 r:!.i€tions on wh* th. go',.rruncnt mry do,refusing ro gilt
    n a &e. I'rnd ir irs cr;min.l cnforcemcnr rcrivihes.
    In conlr1sl,i prirciple thrt rMn&tcs thc pror.ction ofprivicy does sccrn ro
    [t thc bill. If wc undcrstind prilcy in terrnr ofa certah phyrical sp,ce ,soci-
    atcd wi an individual, where otheB my Dor inftude withour rhlt p.r5o !
    cons.ni,rho ve c.n sly rL.t pcople hrvc a mor1l right ro privacy in dr* LoD)cs
    ,nd rhtt dln r;ght helps providc thc ntionale for dre Fourth Ancndmeot .!1..
    Ofcoursc,dre right to privaq cennotbc coroidcred absolute.or else cffectivc-
    ly prolccu.nrg crimcs Nould be too difficult a task. But thc FourthArnend'ncnr
    rule rgainst unr€asonrble ser.hcs andsciztrres in onct house; r sood one. on
    dns nrion,lc, be€ause it allows crimes ro be clfcctively prosccutcd rvhile 1! c
    sime tim€ trotccting to :signiflc1nr degree the .ight to privacy.
    \t clDnor assurnc, hoNci.cr, th:t the mor:l right to privrcy is limltcd !r
    dte protcction of physical spa.es. lt can also be sri<l to includc control osr
    info.marioD coDcernirg onct lifc, iDcluding irrformation th.r corld be uscJ l.)'
    orhers to hrnr tlrc peson.'rhc right to p.ivacy in thit scnsc is. righr to con
    tlol the disclosx.c ofsuch ilfornbtion to oth.rs.Wnhout such a right, wc 1r.
    rcndcrcd lnuch morc wlnenl.rle to othen rvho rnay wish to harnr us.
    Ilr.ddirion, this informrtional aspect ofthe right io priaecy hclps p.olidc l
    turthcr r:tiond{ for the ft)urth Amcndment rul.. lfgovernmenr '!cre abtc (o
    inredcan indrvidualt hornc at \ri!,thcn ncoulrl
    she wete gurlty of a
    o-.simply a hwtul.riti€ o{rhc govcrnmcn!.Agdn, the r;ght ofnfortu!-
    tiond privrcy .rnnor be sccD ar absolu!., dd the Fourth Amendmcnt caD b.
    intc.pretcd $ doving c0;ctir. larv .nforccment investigationr to proceed whil.
    .t the sane time protecting t( 1 tignific.nt dcgrce rhis sccond aspc.t ofprivaql

    o/mrt€ad and geyond


    ODc. we sce dc Fourth Amcndmcnt rule * th. cxpr.ssion ofr m^rc brsic
    monl principlc about thc individu,l right to privacy, thcn it becom€s cle..
    how thc Amcndment should bc intcrprct.d in .ases drat ilpolv. ncv ie.ii
    nologie, rinho"D to those \yho $rote 2nd rrtified rhc Am€n&nlnt in tlr.
    eighrccnlh ccnrui'rThe l92a.rse ot Olntleud u U,irrd Sbrsr illust.ates ttre
    powe. of frworh)i afproich.Thrt ca5e i,Nolved wiretapping ofa suspectcd
    criminrl! telephonc by thc goRrnrnenr rvithouc a rvatranr.
    Tllcphones a d wiret ps *tre, gfsourse, unknown in th-aighiecndr ccn
    , . tu!y. Corernment-o[(tca evidcncc Fom a p.rson's hone then by p|ysic.ly
    cnt*;ng ihe prote.ty lnd rikitrg whrt it found thcrc.Tbus, the Alnendnent
    spcaks of'searches and seizures,"ects ofphysic,l intlsion md confisc.tion.l,t
    61

    Olnrt.d4 the Supreme CoDr! dccidrd drx! because wireiippingwas nor an ecr
    of pbysicd inrusion and conliscation, dre Fourth Amcndment rulc did not
    :pply to it,.rd so wn Dor legrly rcquled for Boverffncnt inv.srislros to
    't bcforc rl,ey , oLld plicc . wtrct:p.
    obtrin a serrch w:rnn.
    Dworkir! mcthod of intcrprcration provides r vcry aitrerent
    "pproaciiio
    a c,se like Orrn dr. It rvould look to r moral principle that Frh th€ Foirrlh
    Amcndmen: :!le igairst uffcrsonable serrches and scizures.Assumins thar rhe
    principlc is onc rhat pror.cts dre righ! olprivacy and rhir rhc prec€ding anely-
    sis of privacy r .ccurate, tlrcn wc cannot simply say rhat wirehppina ir noi
    covcred by thc An)endnlent beclose it s not a physical inrrurion.The in.lysn
    of priEcy lniint ins d,at tbcre rre at leesr rwo aspccE of priwcy: r physical
    sprce aspect and ,n iDl-onnirional aspecr. The protlem with th€ Supreme
    Court's decision i^ Ol nead is rhat it ignor.s dre inform.tional arpccr.
    Wiret ps ile not physi€al invNiotu,but drey arc informltional invasions. Using
    Dworkinl method, we must interpret thc Amcndmenr so $ io p.omote bolh
    rspccts ofprivrcv.Thc corrccr lcgal r.s,lt would thcn seem to be clerr: wirc-
    upping withou( p.obehlc .rus. tr tr liolarion ofth€ Fourrh Amcnddcnt.
    Thc concctir ofpriv).v r cornplex,xnd dife.edt peoplc arc lkely to und.r
    sund i! djge(enrly.Evca tcotle Nho rgrec rhat ihe right ofprilacy prorcc$ peo-
    ple.ge;nst vi.er.ps witho!t probrble c.use mighrdisrgtee ovcr rvhethcr it pro-
    tects crnployees :gainst randonr drug tcsting by thcir employcrs. Somc *iil
    include thrt protLction n thc ide! ofpritJcy,but othcrs will excludc it.
    In additior, some people lvill !nderrrind the risht ofpri\acy .! extendiog
    tion for physical spaccs and informaoonrl control. They vil
    -rrcu-.iharirr
    choicca thic p.6ons makc-for examplc, thc choicc to use contraccptic;-i
    have en aborrioD. orhcrs rvilldcny that rbe morrl right of priucy protcca such
    choices.Thc upshot is rhr! cve'r pcopie who agrce th,t r privlcy principle IiI!
    the Foulth Amendmcnr vll disrgrec orcr rvhat rhat principle protecrt. Onc
    pc$on's pri\acy principl. wil be rehtivcl/ nrrros, and aoothcr! ivil be rcla-
    tivcly brcad.This reficcts tl'e dtdcrcDr moral lnd politicd viewpoints peoplc
    hrE, including di6.rcnccs in then philosophy ofgorernment:nd rocie+And
    thcs. diferent privicy principlcs cen rll 6t thc Foulth Amendmenr rule: dlcy
    rrc losically con'ntenr wnh tr sd ptovide a radon:le for n
    This po;nt sho\s thrr DNorkin: m€thod of inerprehtion must invohc
    morc rhrn sirrply d.:.iding lr'bch droixl principles fit th€ comudry's cr?!ic-
    itly edoptcd lcgal rdcs. If sckol compcrilg priv,cy principlet fit the Fourd)
    Am.ndncnt rulc, thcu \c musr decidc shich ofrhcm is part ofthc law ind
    c.n bc r lcshi')atc b.sn for l.Srl dccnion m3king. Horv can ve dccidc?

    The Role of Morality


    Dworki ! lolution is to look !o moralty: the prilacy principlc on which legal
    dcci3ioos should bc m:dc is rhe onc. from rmong drose drat irt the exphcit
    l€g.l rules, tb.t is norally bcsr.ll drc l,cst privr!) principle onc (llat covcrs
    's
    a Pcrsont iDtimat. choi(:c\. !rch !s thc choice to usc conr.;ccptivd oi obr?in
    62

    an abortion, then thit is the privacy pritrciplc ih dict!!.r rh. .iglrr ;cg.il
    inswcr in h.rd c,s6 thrr involve th. .onstiturjonil righr offrnia A D)or.
    rerricted priercy principle rMy fir rhc cxptcn bgal rulcs, bDr ifd). corrc.r
    morel judgmcnt is thar the rcstlicted piiqciplc is not $ good trs th(: b^)rdcr
    otrc, then thc broadcr privacy principlci5 thc orc rh,r is parr ofrl)e hsl
    For D*olkin, then, thc hw consiste ofthc rulcs cxtlicidy adop ted ly rh c p.lir
    ical cornmunity plut (hcbestpri cipler that fifthosc rutc";8esr herc rnca rrr rnor.r I-
    ly best, Drorkin contcnds thit this w4- ofund.rstanding the Jau,emblcs u' t.
    6nd the right leg:l rnsrcr3 to cases in which thc cxplicir rules do n.t proviJ..
    single,clcar.rsv€.By lookingto the best princip!.s th,t fit rhc explicit rulc\.$1
    comc up rvith ar, ansscr that thc cxplicu rulcs by tknselves fail ro providc.
    Thus, the cxplicit rlles ofrhe Constitution do not provide a clear rrsrvcr
    to whcthcr pcrsons havc 2 .ight to use contraceptivcs.The Conniturio tro-
    rccts "libcrrf' but docs thrt includc th. libcny to practice conrncepinDr-
    Dworkin's rcsponsc is th.t w. musi cxrmine thc principles rh.r tli rhc l.nr\
    cxpUcn rulcs ard ask dhich ir rnorlly bcst.
    Penotu wijl, ofcouB., dis.glcc ovc. wh3t is morally bcsr. Mor?lJudgrn.,,r'
    are notoriously controvdsirl.What is rJudgc, o. anyonc clse, ro tlo rr dr rirct
    ofsuch di5agr.cm.Dt? DNorLin grab! rhe buu by thc ho.ns: erch pc$on nn,(
    deciile for hinr ot hc*elf$bat is mooily bcst. For eximple, if i Judgc det..
    mincs tlbt, very brord pri\icy principie isbest,rhen thit is the onc shc sho,)l(l
    I
    $c in decidiDg th. outcom€ of: ces.. Sh. may rot arrivc at the corcct lcgrl
    outcome; aftc l, rhe rnay bc mistaken in her moraljudgment. Ilu r judf.
    who foUowi Dlvo.kinl mcthod oflegd intffplctarion will mrkc r good-!.irh
    cffort^to dercrmine whai is mor.dly bcst. And suc\lcdgejLb nworbn+
    tSaiii-ot'-rvht sl, -'
    rcgards :s thc correct monljudgmcnt.
    Dworkin says that. on hi! view,law h{ "inrcgriry." He mcrns, in perr, ther
    law is more than merely a iniscelencous co[cction ofrtrl.s liid down by $c
    most powfiful in"ritution! in $.icty. Fo. Dworkin. nusht do.s ,.o, rnrk" r';i:,
    but neither'docs it rn;ke l,1vTh€ idca thlt thc law h.J intcgriry is rhe iJea ihrr
    thi hw-coroists of rhc rulcs rhc conFiunity h.s authoriritively dectded to
    adoptll!{ fte b.st noEl principlcs th:t 6t thosc ru!6-The pl'rr hclpr re6c las
    abovc thc level of shccr porvcr into thc mord domrin. h h.lps give judicial
    d.cnions in hlrd crres their .urhoritla And i( givcs moel force to thc lcgal obli-
    grtions thrt membeis ofthe community have.1l

    The Challenge of Skepiiqism


    Dworkin js rvell rwar. thlt hu m.rhod ofint.rprctation invites siSnificanl d'r
    2areem.rr ov.r the bcst i,ltclprctrdor ofrh. hw rnd rhe correct dc(i(ion id
    -SadFrc l€gal cascs. U[dcr hir nrethod, thc morel dislgrcemcnts pcotle hi\c
    rvill revcrt'erate io thc anr of legat interpr.trtion, producing disputcs orc.
    vhat thc law mcins .nd rvhat th€ right .nsweri .rc h h.!d c.se3.Thi! niight
    invitc r decp skepticn,n about the law. After all, moral dimgrcemrnts rrc no(o
    riou5 for bcing r6ixaut to any de{imtive rcsolution. Onc mighi fsre rhit
    6l

    Dworkinl ippcal to nooliry dcfcas his os'n purpde: tr$tead of producing


    right ,Jlswcis to legal caca, th. ,pp.al to Domlity critures th,t thcrc lrc no
    luch ,nswe6, b.cru3. thc.c rtt no risbt answeh to rnoi:J qu*tions.
    Dworkin countcn this son ofskcpticnm by cticicizing onc ofth! frrmis-
    cs on which it rcs.s, n.m.ly, tblt thc .fincnc. of diegreamatt $ott aomc
    mlttd mc2ft th.t th.rc i5 no right .tEwe. ro ir. Hc aiSucj thrt diicL'lcanicnt
    do.s not by ilself cnhil thc abscnce ofa rigL' rnswer. w}l€n pcoPlc disagr€cd
    ovcr whethcr the canh Ns sttrrion2ry or noved around the sun. it {id not
    mcrn th1r thcre rhc quesrion. Peoplc di'agre. on
    meny morat issues,but thit does nor provc drrt rhcre is no right.nswei
    Dworkin discinguishcs two distind rnes ofskepticism and urgucs that nci-
    thcrprovidcs good groun& for rcjcctingh; thcory. Hc c.lls thcm"cxtcrnel"and
    "intcrnd" skcpncism. Ext.rn,l skcptidn s..ks to ce$ doubt on th. idc. thlt
    thcrc rrc right affeeB whcn it <om6 to bsic moni qu.stioDs.bout our obli-
    gztio'r and righr'. I tcrnal lkepricism docs trot chalen8c thc exiticn.e of right
    .nsw€.s in moFlity,l'ut ndtdargucs thet D$orkin's thcory n noncficlcss insuf-
    Gcient to show that law is morc drrn dre mctc exercne ofpovcr by those eho
    conrrcl society. ,l
    Ext..nal Sk€pticise Ext€rnrl skcPricisnt |olds therc s norhing objective n I
    thc world tha! can rnik. . stztcnrcdt .boul our moFl oblisrtiotu true o! fals.
    Wltcn I lay,"Michlel Joidln is oler 6 feet i!ll;'there is sonething objecrivc '.
    :nd perceir':btc to wliich ttre satcment cor.csPon& tblt makc! it t e Aut
    (orBidcr: "Th.rc is : bsic moal obliSzoon ro respcct r uomrnl chorcc to
    @ i---:-::.:::::-
    in thc *orld to which the hacr satcmenr correspontJs.
    Thc concePt ofhcight d.rircs Gom a fcarure ofthc rvorld thzc wc cao pcr
    c.ivc, and thc concept is uicd to dcs.rib. thingi wc see in tcrrns ofrh3r fca-
    turc. tf wc disagr€c ovcr someonc't hcight, th. disputc can be 3.tded entPiri
    cally, by mcasuing the peson.
    Id contrast, thc conc.pt ofmotal obligrtion docs aot secm to rcfer to 2ny
    cmpiricn G.rrure ofthc wodd,.nd ,n emPirical mcthod fo. scnllng disPutes
    .boutmonl obligation5do.s nor ippearto cxist.Mord obiigtiorx crnnot bc pcr-
    ccivcd by our ordinary rcces, rnd stat.mcnt! about dcm cailnot bc connrmed
    or di:conlirmid t'y cnpi'iel mcrns. Unlikc statcmcnB $out hcight' nothing in .

    thc empiricrl world cor rcsponds to stat.'tcnG about mor:l obligrtion5


    Ex.rn,l ,kepticisn can bc unde6t()od as arguing that qu€stions .bott
    mor:l obligtiorx lravc no right answet bc<:usc norhing in thc .mpiricd 'rcrld
    makcs thcm truc or felse. From such r Per\P.€ti're, ii would seem a trlis
    'erious thc
    --- ukstoflke leg.l qrrstionriep.nd on thc.nslvers to troral qltestien5 lot
    implication would b. rlrrt legal qucstions lrave no right rnswers either'
    Dworkjn countcrs the argunent ofcxr$nal skepticism bv chiming dnt n
    rcstl on thc felse Pr.tnise that monljudgmcnt' must corr.sPond !o Perc€isble
    frcts in ordcr for !s ro reson.bly sscrt th! some suchjudgmens arc right rnd
    othcts ue u,rong. turd rr is equally qlons to think tltat disagr€cmeD$ olcr
    mor.t obligrtionx rcquire somc cmpiricrl rncthod fo. rcsolving thenl
    64

    Undcrlr ng Drvorkjn's pos on n a liew rlur rcjecrs rhc idcx rt,trL rltstrtcm.rr
    n.cd to bc about pcrccivible sr.tes of effairs jr ordcr to be both n...i,irtul
    ,nd subjcct to rcaloncd argomcnt. Surcly, ifl say "Torruring brbiei; wrong."
    I havc n)adc a,ncanjngful statcmcn!, dcfcnrible by good rcasons. even rtrough
    n corr€spoodr to no objcctive, pcrc.ivlble stxte of afai.s anilogous to son,r-
    onc: heighr.The Drongness of rorture caonot be lirenlly perccived in tirc 1!.r
    rh,t he'glrt c"n be, but rlrar doe( nor srop us irom meening{Dttt ajrcrrin[ u
    i! n wrong ro torturc bibies and giving eood rcasons es ro $h! ir is s.rone.'1,In
    short, makn rg tnoral judgnents is a pracricc wirh in oNn strnduds ofgood (r-
    soning aDd should not be confused with the pracrice of nrlkidg e'np;,! i1
    i

    Dworkin is ccrtaidlv right in rhinking rhar rcasoning ind arsuins aLoLn


    moral qucsrions is di0lerenr tom re.soning 2nd arguing lbour cnrprri.rl
    qucltions. But he fails ro comc to grips wirh drc f!€r drar rhcr. irc trnny
    difer€nt, codlicting ways of conducring monl .rgumcnr.'l h.re n Do! on.
    tr.€tice of moral argumcnr but m,ny such pnctices. For some nlc,dcs of
    ntord argtmcrt, secred t.rti such as the Biblc or KodD pruridc ,urhorit:
    rile A'idrn.c; 1br orhcrs, sccular p.inciples end !.orldly coDldc.ar;onj .!L
    d..itivc, And sithilt ee.h category-acred .nd ncu),r.-rlde rrc ,ulir
    coniicting \'.rrio'rs.
    Ix(ernrl lkcpcicism De.d nor rcsr iK"no righ! aDrr-cr" dresr on lhc liilurc
    oanor3l juJgnrcnts to correspond to .ny cmpirical facrs. Rrthcr. u caD rcsr irj
    crse on thc cristrnce of€onnicring modes ofmoral argumenr and ou thr irs.r-
    tion rhet thLr. is no vay ro esublish vhich mode js correct- And if drer. s
    some way to csQblish the correc!merhod offtoral reasoning,Dwolkitr hrs no(

    bleforthe(c robc noralobligrtioBwh€nthcenrldice']ts to be .onrposed s!ric r-


    ly of.mpirical facts. From rvhere do suchob)igations.ome?Whrr is rhc source of
    thcir euthori ty to obligate us? How c.n wc figure our which obiigatunr are rea-li
    It would bc fiir to say rhat, dcspitc c.Dturics of cfcrt by philosophea
    and th€ firm conviction of most peopl. that moral obligations arc real, no
    thinkcr h.s _vcr come up v,th fuly pcrsuasive .nswe6 ro such qucsrioni. So
    pelhlPs it is unfrir to criticize D\vo*in for hrving fiit€d to dcvelop the
    aDswcB- But he shoqld heve .dmittcd tblt 2n .dequrte refutation o( exter
    nal skcpricism docs oor enst rd concedcd G.! hir th.ory procecded on dre
    "unprovcn" a$umption thrt drere .rc rigirt mlwcr3 to monl qlestions. Sjch
    an approrch lvou;d be enrircly sensiblc. After all, the assunprion of right
    answcn do€s secln rceson.ble rvhen we think rbour cases like ro.rure lnd
    genocidc, and errc.nil 3kefti.s certainly hrve nor proven rhir rlr$. rrc ro

    In.ernal Skelti.irh Internil skcpticis dos not seei( ro €ast douirr on thc
    cnst.ncc of iigh( answers ro monl qucsrions. And it can ac€epr Dworkjnl
    cleim thrt Ia\. consists of the rulcs cxpliciCy adopted by the comnruDir). l,/',t
    65

    the bcsi mord principles th,r fit those rules.Thc problcm, according to int€r-
    nel skcpricisln, js rhrr such principlcs nr:y be insufiicicnt to give thc law an
    integ.ity that raises it out of the domein ofmcre power politics.
    According ro intcrnrl skcpricism. our leg,l 3Ftem ;s fitn&mcnt2lly unju5r
    and oppr6sivc: the sysrem plomolct th€ intcrsts ofihc rvealt\ rnd privilegcd
    at thc expenlc ofthe rest of soci€ry In this vicw, the best morrl Principles rhat
    6t thc cxplicit tules ofth. sy(em ere insumcient to raisc thc I'w abovc thc
    reilln of power pohics. Such princiPtes e$entialy rcflect and reinforce thc
    iniercsB ofthc po*,erful Thus. conlrrry to Dlvo.kin, lhe hv h* no integrity:
    it is stricdy , Inlttcr ofmight 3nd not of right.
    Moreovtr, intcfiId skepricism holds dlat drcre is no consistcnt set ofmorel
    principld that undQlics our leivs. R.rhe., di{fcrenr legal rulcs and doctrines
    reflcct incoDrpatible moirl riewPoinrs.'l h€ result is fi3t lhe law is so riddlcd
    with mord contrdictioc and inconsisrcncies th.t it is imPhusible to under-
    stand it as .cflecti g lny coherent undcrlying philosophy
    lnrcrn"l sk.p(icisn n .ssoc;atcd w,th rhe viev known as "Critical Lcgal
    Studics." Dl\orkrr does r)onc.cpt Crxic.l Legal Studiei skePticism bec'ute
    he bclieves neirhcr rlFr tl)c irlv is riddled $rth conB,diction aor that it i5
    unjusr .nd orpre$ilr Thc dirpute olcr dr€se pourls sll be erannned in
    Ch3pter 9-

    Atie5sing Dworkin
    Drvorkin! intetpretiveversio. ofDaturalliN rhcon secns to be the skongestof
    those considcred. It posiB aD imPort nr.nd neccssary conncction benveen law
    -.--i] oreitrl!r:varGheFr6-blEtffiildtr@
    Fulcr.UnlikeAquinas\ triddon.t \ersion otmlural lau' theoryDrvorkin's does
    not hold thit unjust rul€s rre invdid as l.!vs. Unlike Fuueti vcrsion, Dvorkin's
    does nothold that thepri'ciPles oflegalitt,rebv themelv€s sumcient to crelte
    .Primafrcic moral obligation roobevrhcrules ofanv svtrcm ofPositive law'
    Dwo.kin sce' to 4rce sith Fuller dut legal obligations have sor'e moral
    forcc: theic is sonre moral resrn to :bide bv such oblisations But Dworkin
    locatcs th€ source of lhat moral for€e not merelv in th' Principls oflegditv,
    but in the itrtcgrity ofbw ln other words, for Dworkjn tirc intrer moralitv of
    law is morc cxtensive th.n for Fulcri ir co,rtists not only of the principlcs of
    ' i"cJicy but ilso of the best nord principles th't undeilie the settled l8'
    Nonethclcss, D\\orkint theory hrt scnc Prcbiems ofitt own'
    fiworkirr emphlsizcs rhat dccnions in hird cases'in s'hich the l'N do's not
    havc r dcrr ans"cr, reqr,irc inoral judsrDents. And on hi' theorv'judses arc
    authorized to rely on thcn own morJ Pdgments in dcciding srch rascs
    Moreover, the cortcc! lcgrl ttrswersio tltsc cises depend on vhat dE coi'cct
    momljudgnens are-
    l-ei us gmnt for At srfe ofrrgument rhat DNorkin is righr in cliimii;.that
    h:td casesiegui.c rnorn judgrnens. It does noc follorv thatjudses are author
    ized to decidc a casc on the basu ol then orvn moralJudgrenLs or tlb! thc cor
    rcct moraljudenena dctc'n;dc th. corrccr lcgrl aDswcrs Thcrc arc: ternatives
    66

    :o .D$:,tili rlko? {-n ,rwe a.knowr.dse (he ne(e,si,y or ruirr jud-.,r-


    rn regrr dccEron DkinA.
    . .Or)e alrcrn"tive hol* thar, i' our sysrem of l1w, judges must not rrt, on
    rhe; orn moral.j udgments but rathcr musr defer rojudgmens ttr"t arc iac
    ly acccpted in socicty. Ard it js societyt mor]t j udgm.nt Jcgardtes! ofvlr ( h e,
    rhey are horally correct, th.r detcrmine thc righr teeJ answer in a hlrd c,s.
    Dv/orkin novcs roo quickly tom rhe cleim rhar moraljudglncnlj arc ntql.d
    to resoive hard cases ro the €onclution rhat rhe corec! mol,ljudgnlcnts ilctcr
    minc the correcr legal answers 3nd tha!judges should rely on thei. ovn 1.1,.^
    about lvlnch horaljudgmenrs are correcr.
    Dwo.kin migbr .eplv that dre law must have inregriry aqd tlur intcenta is
    . tunction ofthe corecr momliry Integriry does nor glamnree rhe jusr;.e oi
    law, but it does guaFntee th3r mo.aliry detcrmines co sorne degree what rlrc
    Iaw is-Thus,law necessarrty has a mool dimcnsion thar nises it o;t ofrh. arcnl
    ofpurc power politics.
    Yer. DwNkrn never cleerlv evpt:ins why llv ncce sl it) hr su, h . r,., ,
    "
    'ion.r2 cr"rrt-d. orlr r nrorrl drmen\ion woutd mrtc Itrv mo,e (n,n ,l,c ! i
    product ofpo*cr pol,tics.Bur whymuschv be more than tha!? Drorkir) d!.!

    Mo.eokr, Its critics rvill folow up oo th; gjp in D\orkir\ rhcor_ .,


    argue ilDt ir ii a fundrmebt2t tuist]ke ro explain rhe na.ure ofhs.jn r.rm oi
    momliry ar atl, even rhe attenu3ted norality of Dworknnan integriry.Ihere
    critics wiJl rgue thar a superior approach to uodersbnding l,!v lies in rli. tr!_
    drrion ofiegel positivi'D and it. rejecrion ofa ne.essary connecaon bcnren

    LEGAL POS tTtVtSM: OVERVtFT.V

    Crirics ofnatural lerv theory have developed atternative approaches ro un{ter_


    standing the nature of posirive law .nd i6 retationship to monliry These
    approaches are examples ofwhat js known ar legal posilivism They reject the
    lnditioDal nlrur,l law idee that genuine hw is ncccssnily just liw. Bur posi-
    iivism gocs turth€r ind rejec$ th€ necessrry liokr bcrween positive t.!v end
    monliry posircd bi. Fuler md Dworljn. Thus, Iegal posirivism rcjecrs $.h of
    the versioij oanatural hw rheory cxamined in dns chaprer.
    I-ike natu(dhw rlieor).,ditre.cnrvdsions ofpositivisjr iravc ene.ged.\rrc wjU
    begin wnh rhe vcrsiorl fornlulared in rhe nineleenrh c€nrury byJohn Aunin.
    Austin cxplicidy d.vclops his rheory.s a sup$ior alternltive to rhe tr.dirionJ
    o4ur]i lew apprcach ofsuch thinj<os a Btackrone and Aquiras.We-will ther
    turn to thc \c6ion ofposiriv;m formolated in the rlvenrieth ceorury by H. L.h.
    Hart.Hartargued th.tAusrin's theoryws dalved io importanr respects.The .cnL
    edyw6 not to swit.h br.k to natuGl talv thinkins but rather to develop a new
    and imprcved v.rsion ofpositivisd.Wlether,and in whar respects,H.rrt rhe..y
    isan advDce overAusrin\ is an issue we wil cxamin€.rsome leagth.
    67

    AUSTIN'S Of tAW
    'HEORY
    ' Law as Command
    ODc ofthe fi.sr tbirkcrs ro forhulalc leg.i positivirn in a systcnadc Niy $'as
    thc Engltsh thcorhJohn Austin. ForAuit;r,I.!rs e.ulcs hid down by supe-
    riors to guide the rctions of those undcr thc'r l\ules arc a tpccies ofcom
    rnind. Som€ comD,rqds require (or prohibit) thc perforrr:rcc of a specific
    action on a spccific occision. Othe.s r.q,'nc (o. I)rohibit a geueral kjnd of
    action, not limitcd ro specjlic o..i'ion.'l-he .,hrnard 'Dri* milk.lery
    ',r)
    day" ir an example ofdrc latter *nrd, lvhil,j l)rnrk milk noN'illustrrtcs fic
    6rmcr Lrwr rre gcner.l comnledd! Iihe Drhk nrlk evcry da],'not Urnted
    to a specific action on a specilic occrion.
    Since thcy 116conrnandr,Austin expl';ns, la ns ;mpo3c obltations on ihosc
    to whom th€y a.c.ddr.sted. Bcidg undcr an obliririon mcent dut a pesoD is
    liablc to h.ve undesireblc consequenccs ("sinctioh') ioflictcd on hin o. l)cr
    for ecting conrery to d)c con1n,Dd. S;n,:c hws .,'c gencrrl commlnds. ihev
    impose continuing ot'ligltions ro r.r in ccruin \L.rvs, not sinryly an oblip,rrn,r
    co do r spccific tl)nrg .r r spccilic tD)..
    For Austin, thcn, llvs are gcnerrl corrrnr:nJ: laid do*n by supcrio.' to
    guidc the rcions or those under thc'n. fhc gcncld comman& laid dost by
    God for humans constituie divirc l$r' :nd lnposc mor.l obligrtiots- Thosc
    who ect conttary to such rules lre lirl,le to tun(htneot at rbe h,od, ofcod.
    Th€ eencrrl co'ffmn& laid donr q pol,ticrl rulers .on'drutc positilt la$
    :::Fffi@b6ia;a,Ftr+ri#dcdonccpsu'rEstts:cdlebf lc= ---, ==
    punishmcnt .t ihc h.nds ofthc political rulcr (or ihair dciign:tcd rg.nt').
    Sorne of the rules lbund in sociery arc not hid down or enforced bv thc
    political rulcrc. Cqtair nf thesc rulcs arc laid down by 3uperlors in a tnvrc
    organizaiion, for cxamplc, in r club. Others :re not ieid doNn by anyone it !l
    and .re cnforced by gcnerai oFinion. Thcy corsist of in{brmal standards of
    beh2vioi th.t socieiy cxpects individu3ls ro abide bl. Evcn though the pollti-
    cal rulers wilt not punish persons for viola$ng rhesc inform,l strndffd. 15 such,
    peoplc in g.ncEl havc r low opinion of.nvonc who do.s violatc them. An
    cxampl€ would b. th. rule "Cive help to thosc in nccdl Ncith.r the rule
    ebout helping thosc in nced nor the rules of priutc clubr {e p:rt ofthe pos-
    itiv€ law Austin places them in thc crreAory "posiciv. moriiity," that is, the
    mo.al valucs and 'u!es nrfcrnraly acc.pted bv . g,ven sociery
    Positivc iav coroists ofgeneral cornnaodslaid dorvn and enforced by pol:t-
    ical rulers; motc exacdy, it is bid Jovn and enforced by the sovercigfl of rn
    -- - indcpcnd.nlpolili.il so.ieiy, the 3o\€rciF! i! dte lqpieme pod of such 1
    3oci*y: iu cornrnands are gen..ally ob€yed by thc peoplc in thc socicry wbil-
    it docs not gcnertly obcy any oft.r carthly polvcr.
    It is crucid to Austini! vicw of lalv that the sovereign is dcfincd solely in
    term ofpower, not in tcrrtu ofjusticc or any othcr monl concept-Austin docs
    not bclicvc that might mrkes right; but he doer trcli.vc that Driglrt nDkc" sov
    ereignty, and sincc sovcreignry m,kcs positive hw, miglrt tso tn'kct positive
    la$r'l hc sovcreign Decd Dot evcn cl2im to bc rulingjusdy or fo. thc conrmor
    good,mucb lcss acturlly doing so.The pow€r rh.t maket sou)c pcrson or group
    sovercign Las no moFl qu2lificationi whaBoev.r ittached to ir.
    In Austin! vi6v, clcr thinking about law rcquitcs th ode niu5r kcep tr)
    mind cfftain disrinctions. One €rucirl disrincrion is beRvccr the quesiidn of
    whethcr r c.rtiin rulc isp.rt ofthe positi!'e lrw and thc quririon of{hcrher ir
    h a sood orjusr ru;e.Thesc tlvo questions musr not be conf \ed."Whit s dre
    l.v?" is onc que5tioni"Wlat ought rhc liw bc?"is a sepanrd one. Id, fldrous
    formuhtion ofhis $ewAust;n wrires, "Thc cxistence ofhlv n oDc d)iDg; irs
    ner;r or denrcrjr is aDorh.r.V&ether it be or be nor is onc inquiiy; lvhcrl)cr it
    bc or bc not confornrable to rn artumcd standrrd, is. dillcretrr nrqu;Di"rr
    It n ako a coDscquencc of^usrin3 theory that thcre is Io necersary con-
    ne.tion berwcen lcg,l end moral obligation- Whether a gcn€ral connund
    imposcs a lesal oblig.rion dcpends orly on wh.ther the sovcreigfl issued ir rnd
    cr.d;bl,v lhre.t.ns to .nforcc it-And thc fact drat a solcreign i$ues and cnn)rcrs
    : conDand do.s nor by itsclfme.n that thcrc is rny norrl obligarion fo: :ny-
    onc to obey n. For Austin. dre concepts ofhw and lcgrl obligarion rc 1ual,v
    "pos'cr conceps rnd not in any respect moral oncs. And dre sour.c nr' odr
    legai oblig:tions r rot sornc highc! autho.ity bcyond rhe crtrp;ric,l sorl,l it ij
    thc sovdeign thar gore.ns th. rerrirory we inh.bir.-Ib havc . lcsil obiigirion
    simpiy nears rlht onc n liable to undesirable consequenccs ,'r rhe hrnJs oidrc
    sovcrergn for !(ting conrr:rv ro its (omand.
    Aurtin proceeds to condem the ttaditional natural l2w view as' ar rbu5c
    oflangurge" rnd iri5chievour." k it an abu5c oflmglis. bcciuse to s3y dat
    , hum,n l,\B wh,ch contucr \rri (:,c Divinc hw !rc rcr b'n,1'd 4u!rsr5,rF
    =.-I '-€n€f lnYsrFrol(]lLrorlscn5ejFfc-rtr5iElErrtii-rouif.r.ql;r'ebeenandrre
    contimra.lly __.,__-., rs bw' byju&.ial rribunJ\"ra
    --_.,-..-,., cnforcc,l If, pcr-,n tlrr"t'
    "'l'.'
    wis€ rd acts connary to some rlrle she does not regud * r posirive l$v ther
    thc judi€id systcm vil "dcmonsrrite thc inconclosivcnes' of [her] re6o ing
    by iDflicrirg punislxn€nt. I t
    Tradiriond nitur3l lilv theory i!.lso "mischicvous"because advocating rh:t
    unjus.l.s arc void "is to prc.ch anarchy,hGtilc lnd pciilous s much to wire
    and bcnign rulc r to stupid and galling tynnnyi'16 Austin does not.lain du(
    thcrc is no conncction betwccn positivc hw and morality.IIc says, for cx!m-
    plc, that positivc molllicy is an important sourcc of positivc lav: the gcdcrrl
    conurEn& oathc sovcrcigr, ofien rcflcct the rulcs ofpositile moraliry. In rddr
    rion, ev.,)ahing humans do 5t.nds under divine hw, the ultirrarc standi i)r
    judging human conduct. For Austir, no humin can legitrnrtely cla;D rc be
    cxempt Gom Godt l.n! and rhe moral obligatiotu it in'poscs, $h.ther .r',. i, i
    rubj€ct d.ciding ro obcy the so\areign or ljudg€ called on to apply Crc sor
    !(cign's comEnd! or.ven the sovcreign himiclf Noncth.lc,r, th- moial bbli
    garios nnposcd by God! conrftuds musrnot bc confused.vith th€ leg"l ol,li-
    gltiob5 inposcd by dre conlJnands ofr politicd sor..rcigr,.
    It ws drc Austinian theory cf hw to which the de6ndants ii
    Nurembcrg appcaicd'hcn they .sserted thci. legal innoccnic Aunin
    thc idc. thrt ";rte(rirional larv'' is p.op.rly trnderstood '.j..(!
    as l.sr Thc abscDcc
    69

    of a global sorereign to nsue ard ciforce comrandr nreans thar,er best, rhc rules
    ofintcrnational law.implt rmount to akjDd ofpositive monliry for rhc interna-
    tion l cornrDuniry, imposiDg no legel obligations. Ard onc of thc hwycr for the
    Nur.mberg def€ndanG, HemannJahrrejs, argu.d for rhcAnstinirn poini that rhc
    sovereign power ofthe st.te is not compatible with permining individirats to
    judge the legal r€lidity of the sovereign's comands on the bds of thcir views
    abootsome aileged highdlarvlTThc )egalobligation ofthe individu:l is to obey
    the dictate ofthc sove.ejgr, norrvitIstindiDg international or natu El law

    Assessing Austin
    Ore ofthe great virrues ofAustnrt theory n rhe clariry with which it exPI:itu.
    distinguishes, and relates thc vrrious conccpts he uses in rn:lyzing the phenome-
    non oflaqr. His positivism presens. truly clelr.nd systemetic alicrnatiwe to tie
    natu.rl hv,ppoach- Noncdrcl{ss, rl,c dircct rrgumenr5 he ruk6 again,t tndi-
    tional natur,l liw theory are u npers d x,ve rs th d st rd For ex: mple, h is claimihat
    r
    :

    lernicious hrvs arc cnforcedby coura *lsvs is not: chim tharnarural l,w tle-
    orisLrwouldrej..t.Bu! hisconJusiontlnt,dlerefore,suchrtles:re valid and Be
    uine l.ws sinply avoids die question th3! the n,runl hw theorisr would .aise l'
    rule €nforced ai a law by rhc courts a qlid ltw ifit is contrary to natu.i law or
    " .

    moElity?Ausrin fiinlG tlle answcr is obviously yes,but rhat do.s not eounr t' r i

    reasoned irgu'nent 4Finst sonconervho thinks thar the answd is no


    Mor€overAustin scotr no Points agaidst narursl hw theory in claiming that li
    dodrt.'E \jrnftFislo---:--+
    a gcnuine law by punnhing the Pe6on for an inftection of it. A rraditional nlt- .,
    lrral lew theorirt will simply interpret such Punishmenr as the iliegal emPloy- .i.

    n.nt of brut. force, noi as tn" o""nt of g""uine leeal obligation. i


    "nfo.thet traditional
    In rddition, Austint argument " n.rurd hv; theory invnes !

    ,narchy i! qu€stionable.The atgume:lr assumes trr3r a theory abour the natu* !i


    of law sho;ld be judsed (;n pirt) by tl:e practical consequencs of haung , |[
    adoptcd in a socicty, dd nany leg:l theorists would reje.t such a practical tesr iii
    Bot cvcn ifsuch theornts arc wlcng,Austint argqnent stil riites quesdon' ]i
    It is Possible to poiut to a very dcsinblc consequcnce that might eroue j

    &o,n the edoption of tndnjonal natuFl lalv theo.y, namely, thc moEl Progres I
    rchioed by thc rejecrion ofur!.st h'"s ti'c retisal to enforcc them. Such I
    "n<t
    prcgres could, in some situaons at leasr. outweigh lhe so.iJ disorder thai 1

    rnight be carsed.Austini cspon* to ths poi,x wo"uld likely be that so mlnv i

    diff€rent, conflicting ide's trnd injus.ice plevail in modern socif


    'boutjustice
    -- ry thal.tbepr"-.trllle4.e.! ott'idicional natq4ll rv tbeory wcC4 !s+e 49!'l ll
    p.ogrcst but mor,l and socirl confirion.
    This response points to rn irnporrant differencc betleen the medi€\'al soc;
    cty in which Aquins developed hn nrturat lerv theory and thc soci-
    socict, 'nodern
    !\as dominlt-
    cry ;n which Austin devcloped his posjtivism- Mcdieval
    ed by a sinele Chuich aud x sirslc velue systcm. There lvis fundam€ntal
    agrcement ,bout justice, obligatio.,and goodness. Modern society, in contrast'
    s fmgmented into codlpctin{r *.cdi and conflictirg ide's rbout nloriliry hl
    7A

    thc contcxr of.uch Grgmcntation, ir sccnr that x tr.Jnio :jl nJt,rral lrlr
    eppDich sould generate subst Dtid d.isasrcemenr, disobcdie!.e,, d .or'11!.r
    Yct, it should bc Doted that such dirobedicrcc end conllict m:y *rnerrDc\
    help gencntc gemrinc mord progress, a, we wil scc in Chaptc. 8 \vh.n .-!.
    exlminc Manin luther King end thc civ;l righr5 movcmen!.
    In additiorlAustir! own th€ory clrirrlt that ,I human lcrions arc co!.r.(l
    by divinc law.In dre context ofthe di0"erent religio$ belie6 held h nulc.r
    socict'! drere wi ur.loubt€dly bc a sjgaificant arnounr ofcorfljct ovrr (1rdr
    divine lllv requncs disobedience to the gcncni commardr of (he sok'.ig'l
    And it n not,t rli clear that rherc woutd be more disobr:dience anJ corrlli,:r
    un.lcr Aq",nrs: rh(ory rh:n undcr Austini.
    Austir's aersiolr oftositivisrn hls.lso been c.iticized L'y other posiruts
    Such posirivisn agrce withAusti:lin r.jcding thc cxistcncc ofthc kindr ofnc..
    esrary conne€tion betwecn law and morality positcd by mtt'rel law thiikers.Bur
    they bclieve rh,tAustjnt account oiliw in terms ofthe gcneral comnrands ol'
    ihe 5oi.creisn i3 fud,mentzlly mist*cn.In the ncxt sccrion, lve exxrntrc die
    theon ofonc ofthc mosr promincnt positivist critics ofAustin.l L L.A.ll.trr

    HART: LAW AS PRI MARY


    AND SECONDARY RU LES
    Types of L€gal Rules

    *:- |,:--- friitftn:3ti;6ial.ii v.rsion of the poritivist xpprorcl,


    --crtnc-
    e3s .dequtrte.The most infllenri.l critique ofAuslin's theory by another po5
    itivirt wrs developed by H. L.A. Hirr. According to Harr,Ausin's cordmnd
    theory oflelv f,ns to account for important $pects ofa legal system.
    Har:aigues thetcertain cypes oflegal rulcs cannot be adequarcl/ underslooJ
    .3 contrniods.Thc rules ofcriidnal law fit th. com'nd model f3irly ve[, sincc
    thcy prohibit (o. rcqtrire, as in t:x hws) particula! kindr ofconducc.nd providc
    fo( p.Dilties for thos. who violrtc the prchibirions (or .cqunerncn$). Bu( ll,rt
    chinB thrt thele arc leg,l rulcs very diffcrent in nature Gom the rules ofcrimF
    nal l.vThus,somc lcgal rules do nor prohibitor r.quitc but rarher erpouer indi-
    .viduds to do didgs dtet vould orhcNisc b€ mpossiblc for them to do.
    For insrJncc, rl)c rulcs ofconlract law cmpower iodividuals to cnter into
    leg3lly bindtrrg agrccrne')r. Without them, individuals vould bc porv.rlcss to
    enrcr such ,grceB.nts,just rs rvithout the rules ofbasebal individuals woul(l
    be powcrlcss ro hit bornc runs- Ofcolrse, individuals could sril usc sticks of
    *"oa ," t',t srall, |"rd. rcund obj..Ls ,loDs djsMcci but thi ponii is rll"r
    l
    such acriors rvould nor .:ounr .s homc rurs without the rulcs of brscirl.
    Similarly, ;rdividuak coL'ld .gree lvittr one .noilE ro do cettrnr things, but
    thos. agrctmcDts lvould noi couDt as lcgruy binding contracts vithout dr.
    rules ofronrnct llr
    71

    ' .Hart calis the legal rulcs that cmposcr lrdilidurls "power-conferring
    rul6.'r Such rul€vcmpowe! nor oDly private persons blt Public oincisls as wcli
    Thus, power{on-ferDng rulc\ sivejudges th. Powet to o interPrer rnd
    'c'aly
    apply the laq legislatos the lower to mxke ed alter n.and executive ofiiaiels
    rhc power to er otce i,.
    Does the oostence ofpolver-conferring rules deDionstrate the inadequacy
    ofAusflni rheory? HJrt 'eer ighr il \ufr'v,nq tikr powcr !o'f'rrrng ruler
    cannot be properly undersrood as Lom. nds.Yet, such nrle! ar€ like aotn-
    mandJ in an important wiy: the point of eich is to alier the world in sonle
    wy, Bther thrn sidply to describe thc vo.ld as it is A command seek to
    alter thc world by getrjDg someon€ to do sonrerbing. A Power-conferring
    rute reeks (o altcr ic by enporvering perons to do drings thrt they would
    orheNise be unable to do
    Moreover, defenders ofAustin can arguc dret, like the proNbnions ofthe
    criminrl hw' Fover-conferring leg,l rules Dlrst also rsue from the sovereign
    Such rules are rlrdarariors ol the sovereig:r, and onlv rhe "say so" ofrhe sover
    eign deteinines lvhether :nd horv nrdiv u:ls Qu enrcr contracs, rvrite rviik
    and so forth.Austin rnav bave triled ro draw a !.le!an! Cat'nction bc|ecn thc
    comands of the soveie ign md the dechnticns of tlre But his the
    'cvereigt.
    ory can be easily modified to take accosnt oi the disrinclion vrthout lelin
    quishiDg the central idea dr,t l,w and it$l obligations are cotrcePts to bc
    ex?hin€d in t',rn{ of the poser of r polir.rl 'overeis

    Legal Obligation: Governm€nt aid Gunman


    Hrt hx l
    more tund:rnenral .rnicisrru o' Au un! ihcoo ro n€ke hese criti-
    cisms revolve rround Austin's .oncePtion oflegal obligatron Hart believes thlt
    th€ conception is seriously defectivc and that correcdng the defeca necesarilv
    involves major depa*ures frotu the basic ideas ofAusiin: theoryAustint posi
    tivist seParation ofmor.liry and Posni\e tarv ivil remain intactt blt his ldder-
    standing ofpositive iew ':Ji11 requirc radicai revnion. o! so Hart ergues-
    \vhat does it mean fo! a pcrsoa to h:ve a legal obligation to do (or refrain
    &om doing) sonething? Austinl rnswer is thJt ir means ihat he standJ under
    rcme general commend ot rhe sover€ign anr!.risLs having rome sanctio'
    inflicted on hiDr should he fin to comply. Her! argues th:t th; an,tvsis dik's
    it jmpossible to correclly distinguish a go\tlm)ent from a gunman
    The gwm.nt thre. t "Your n, oney or your life"cteates a situation in which
    . percon is likeb to experic,ice und.sirrblc consequences untes he complics
    *;th the orde, Ye,. nobody r ould ,ay 'hrr rh. gunmJr\ v'dim h$ sy krnd
    of oblig:tion ro fork over hi. tnon,v l n. f,:r thr' the Cu.man' rnit I
    'orn'n
    p*ricuil rnd uot genell r rrr.l"vrnr. '.n'e rhere uould rill be no oblig'tion
    even ifthe gunnan ordercd his victim to p.y o'cr. ccrtlin percenr'ge ofhs
    Paycheck ev€a paydavThc victin mav be ob)iged ro hand ove. the
    moncv r:
    thrt he h.s a very s(,ong In c',t,ve ro do (o rn lighr o{ (he hr'(h .on'equ'n('
    hc will likely $ff.r rhoul.j h Fl'ire 8,,t, Hi,t Ponrr( ortr. being oblscd io c"
    sonething is not the sa,ic xs bc;ng obligled to do it.
    If gorermena can create obligatioff by cn,cring hws, Hut rcisoro, gor-
    crnments mult bc dillercnr &om gunmeD;and rh.ir laws musr be diffcrenr fro'r
    thc comnwdsrrnd thrc.rs ofgurunen,Thir is b.cause gunhen, rhrough tbeir
    thEat5 2nd ordc6,c.nnot creetc ray obiigtion-moral,lcg,or any orher knrd
    A natunl larv rpprorch wo'ild scck the difcrence berwec. rhc govc.nmenrt
    hws and the gunnant orders in some necess.ry connection bcrwectr hv rld
    moralirli r con!.ctior obviously rbscnt ftom rhe gunrmnt ordcrs. Uur ll.rt
    reject.s drc natunl l$v zpprorch,.xplicidy crnicirins rhe vicws ofAquin.s. Full..,
    ,nd Dqorkjn-Thus,he nust fird soDlc alternarilrvay ofcx?hining thc difiir-
    cn.e o.clscacceptdle irnplicacion ofAusrin's theory thitthc.e really is noe$.n-
    dal diffcrcflce and tbzt goverrunent is simply the gonnran Nho ir hrb'rorlly
    obcyed andvhodocr nothabitu?lly obey any more po*.rful sunn3n.Si!.e Hr(t
    docs nor b.Iieve tbit govclmenr cen be undersiood at esseDrially th. lroo-rcst
    gunmen on tllc block, hc devclops an dtcrnarive to the natunl la* approrch
    'A€cordngto H{t,thc idea ofen obligtion is tobe cxpl3'ncd in tcrmi ofthe
    ide, ofa rulc.A rulccxisl'N'hen p.oplc senenly (1) rct in a c.ri.in lviy md (l)
    r.gard dcviltiotufrom tharivayofactingassomcrhingto be cririci,ed.Cordriion
    (1) n extcrurl in thrr n mvolves outlva.d beh,viol In connNr, co"di(n,, (l) r
    internrl in thirninlohcs rhe ritudc people r.3ke:ihey rhi!)k !hir violiuor oa(hc
    rule is a rcaon fo. c.nicizing rhc violaror H.rr iftis!' dEt this inre lilp.6p..
    dve n csscnriil ro thc cxisrence ofr rulc: without it, the ,ction3 ofPcor)l. nuv nt
    low cert inp.ttc.ns or regularitics, but there isno.uie that lhey are follo$rg.
    Fo! H.rrt,a person has an oblig"don when a certaiq kind ofrule applics to her
    There nrust be e geet dcal ofsocirl prcsurc to confo.m to rh. rule;the.ul. nNrt
    help ruin(1ip e apect ofsocicty thit is rcFrrdcd ,s importrlr! -4!dralqrb!c,a!rd _
    irsorrretimEsrmsrrcquaicF€(sod31o-artorrrlrytiiifiaiiiaaN,ilurlillFinl!rlsi. ---
    Ali socicties have rules rhat inipose obligations. But nor :I sociclics hrre
    rules th.r impos. tuJal obligations b.cause not .ll socjcties hare legil s),!renrs.
    In ord$ to h{e 1lcsel,ystem,I roci.ry must hev. cdtain speci:l kinds of fules
    ovd and .bov. thc mlcs rhrt imposc oblig:tioDs.

    Primary and Secondary Rules


    Fi6r,. socicty with r lcgal systcm must h.vc z rulc that singles out the rulcs
    . that actually do rmpole oblig.tion5 in thac socicry Hlrt cals this thc "rulc of
    rccognjtion" bcc.urc ir h.lps p.opl. r.cognizc rhe rulcs unde. which d)ey \.,1i
    be ofiicially held .cco untablc. A rulc ofrecognition scn.s . lrlu:blc irn.ton
    in helpnrg diminirh uDcertainty o!€r \vhit thc obligarioDs ofpcoplc in rhe
    society arc.The rules sirgled out by the rule oirecognition ire tbc leg.llt' qlid
    rules of (1,.,( so.ie17.
    : Sc€ord, r so.iery nusr h.ve rul6 thrt spcciE ho\' thc lcgaly v.lid rul.s
    i can be chang.d.These rules hclp to changins c"ndnions b) Dik
    'ocicry.&pt
    nrg it possible to eliminate old rulcs and cna€c nelv ones.
    Third, a sociert nrusr have rules that cmpower rpccilic individurl5 k)
    cnforcc and applv socitrv'3lcgillv valid rulcs.Th.sc rulcs hclp socictv.nn 1'
    more eifectivcly rhat the obligatioos it imposcs on its mcnlbcA ,re m.r
    73

    H,rt c..ils thcie three special kio& ofrules' s.condlry rutes."They are sec-
    on&ry not in th. sen5e ofbeing unimportanr,bur nther in the scDse thr they
    could nor cxisr uqlcss rh.re were orhcr ldnds of, ulc). nM.ly,ruJ$ rhar impos.
    obfigatioff.r Accordiochrhe c.Is thc les imposing obligaiion! "prirnery
    rules.': For,Hart, then, a leg.l system is e sysrem thai brings together borh pii-
    mary and se€on&ry rules.
    In any tun€tioning l.g{ s}stem, the peoPle hr8t genen y comply with rhc
    leg:Xy rrlid primty rules, and public ofticirls must acccpt the secondly ruJes
    and the prim,ry laler identiied by the rule ofrecognition.This means that rhe
    ofrciaL mus! adcpt :n internJ pcrspective od the prirmry and se€ondlly
    rules: they must regrrd depertures Eom diose .ules 25 something to be crit;
    cized. But, according to Hart, the rest of (he peoPle do not need to have an
    int.rnal pcrspcctive otr the pr;nary rulcs thrt apply to th.m: they n.cd to
    comply with those n s, but th€y might do so onlv from fe?r ofthe Punish-
    menr rhrt might be infhcted on them.
    In such . c,s., peoFlc generxlly lql pcrceive the legaliy valid prinury rules
    merely as comnrnds backed br llre th.eat of fo.c€, and they q'ill not reeard
    violatioDs as so.rclbing to bc .riticizcd. Hart says th.t o.ly in an extreme c.se
    would a legal systen's primiq nrles be conplicd lvith by mos! pcoPle soiely
    out offear ofthe consequenccs, but he xrrts thet even such 10 er1reme .ase
    .rq colnt at r gen!;re leg?l sysien1.
    Ha.t's concepdo! ofa lesal system ,3 i union of prinury and secondary
    rulcs mkes it qu.stionlble vhcthcr inre.n,rionil law, at le.st at ihe time the
    Nure,nbers defendanLr comitted their anocities, constituted . genuine legal
    ---- _-- s-aaln-tT iffi-rerr whElher lhc-re=WrJ
    primary rul€s thrr obLiFted nations. Bdt even ifth,:re v:5 e g.ncBlly accepF
    ed lule to the ce'e.t rh.r lhe nord ofinteination.l treaties counted as bind-
    ing intcrnational law, clearly lacking were secondary rules authorizing percic-
    ular agencies to enforce those binding rules.
    Likc Fuller, Hlrt seosibl,! insists that,he exist.nc; ofalegal system is ! mat
    ter ofdegrec, not atr all-or-notlnng a$air. But :he ebseoce ofsecon&ry rules
    coveting thc oforcement ofthe primary rules seeG to be e niher lilgc gap.
    R,ther thin d'iming that prio. to -world war lI international larv amounted
    to . legd system, dbcn d in.omplet€ one, H.rt would bc oD firmer $ound
    to arguc that the lrial ofthe NDrernberg defendanti was the bes. feaible wat
    to promote the cslrblishnent oi'an iniernational rulc oflaw. InteresritrCl',l thit
    i' the very <ame:rgum.nt rl.rt seem' ro !,, be{ wrrh lon Fulleri v'r'ion of
    natural Iiw theoryThe p cticll differen.cs betlreen Har( and Fuler may well
    be considenbly less rhan 6cir rhcoreri.al diasreemens would suggest.

    Assessing llart
    Somc critics ofHart question vhether Ins account of obligtion is essentially
    different FomAustin'... Fl.rt crit;.ize( AustiD on the grounds th?r Austinl the-
    ory.annot distinguish the lass ofa go',erndent from the coercive cornmndr
    of a guman. Unl;ke l'lvs, (hc comnund\ of a C nmin clearly do not c.eate
    any obligations.Yet. Il.rt! exrrcme case rccnrrio-,n wlnch rhe pcoplc corl
    ply vith dre legtly valid prim.iry rules solely out of feit-docs not se.nr
    csscnfiJly drtrercnr Gotrr rhe Surunan siru:don.
    In thit scenario, most pcoplc comply with the I$r., for the samc rcron r
    person conplies with a gunmrn: fczr olthc coroequences ofdisobcdien(e. It'
    a g mrlnt comrnand cannot crcate an obligation ofany kind, ir scerru d r r
    govcrnnenr in Harti exremc sceMrio cannor do so cither OD the od,c'
    hud, iatltc elficme sccnario lan cr€te oblig:rions, rh.n so can rhe g.ne.xl
    conrmrnds of Ar:stnrii sovereign. It thus appcac thii Hart is faccd \vith r
    dile'runi:lle must concede &her that his own dreory is jiadequutc or d t his
    criticis'n ofAusrint theory ofleg,i obligtion is unsound.
    A nrtural Iaw thcorist rrould insist thrt Harti crnicism ofAustin is sou.,l
    ?nd rhit rle only w y out ofthc dilem is for Hart ro concede dut his own
    theory is in,dequatc.The natural law thirrkcr rvould thcn pres drc poinr thr(
    Hrrtt d:sDnc.ion b€nrcen . govcrnmenc and l gunmrn cin be tn.iDbined
    ooly bv girirg up oo the go3nivist 5ep:htion ofpositi\c lalv and mor.lit\.T|.
    lrrvs of a governrncnt rrc essentialy ditrercnt tiom tbe orders of a guon,ro
    because rLc former hare a necessary connection to moraliq bur dre larkr dr
    nor Or .o rhc narurrl Lrr ,pproa,h rvould hrte n
    Howeler. H.rt can cscape the dilemme wrfiout giving up th. pos,tir;(
    seplrxriori ofpositivc la* rnd moolity or his desne tc disringuish hs \rrsiod
    of pos;tivnm 6oDl Aus r:.Thc key is for Hart to distinguiJr a goverd'rert
    under thc rule ofllw frod an.rbitmry government th,i uses hw to conuol
    socicry:s ir plcres. Hrrrt theory,pplier to the form..,Aunnri to the later.

    il;Tii-fiaq,*n- '
    Fo. both Hrrt rd Ausrin, positjve iaw uhim.tely stems frorn thc ex:rciic
    ofporver Ly some humrn rgency (or agcncict in no!!l consid.r-
    atioG do not neccssrr'ly Egularc,nd control rhat 'ocicty,.nd
    tgcnly h its exer*e of
    pover. where Hart and l-ustin djtrer is ovcr whether ,.ral conlidc.arions !cg-
    ulate .nd control the sour;e of positive l^y Hartt aDrwcr is !fiirmattuc: d:c
    ru16 ofpositive law drmelvcs .mpower spcciEc individuals to make,entorcc.
    and apply rhc I'w .nd direct thosc individuds a5 to horv those tarks are to bc
    cairi.d out. That is thc oucial function of H.rt's secood,ry rules. Ausdn!
    arswcr, i,r corrast, is . ncgative one: thc source ofpositive larv is a sovereign
    po*er sLudjng ibovc inv and a.I rules of po'itive Lws.
    C.rr.inlv sc.iety can have i sovereign thrt sbnds abore drc hw n ncc
    'rd
    to act irtrirn.ily.Bur u is rlso possible for society to hrvc a verv ditl"ercntkin,l of
    go\'.nuDcnt:one tl)i,r gencrally abides by thc rulcs and reguhtrds ofdre posr-
    ii!. hsl Such r socicr-y \rotrld hile r governmenr undcr rbe rule oflarv.rnd n n
    lh-clagrl sliiam ofrlul kntd ofgrov..ntneht that Hart iadetcribiDg in his ac.ount
    ofttrs,is., q:ten rhit h.ingr togcther prim:ry rnd secondary rulcs-
    Ilirt cin a.g c rhit hi! govdnmeDt oflaws is unlike e gunman in thit irr
    exrrcisc ofpowcr n rcg.lated and controllcd by secondary role5.In coDtrlst.tr
    Aunntiin n)rcr.i!:tr rhlr is ibovc th. hlv is in a.t imtortrnt r.spcct likc, $'n-
    m!n: both cxercisc rltritrary power. But rvhat about rlar('s cont.ntion thxt hF
    75

    governmdt ofp.inrar) rnd sdcondtry rules c,D nnpolc kgJ oblj$riorr, s hile
    rn Austini.n sowreig .nd a gurDln clntror impose any obligerio$ ar rl?
    Hi.t r1cs thc idcl oflcgrt obligation ro draw a linc thrt hs governnrnt
    opcnting by sccond:ry rules on tl)e one 5ide, and both gunmen rnd r$iaary
    gove.nmenti on rh. odrer. Dut his positiv;r cir;cs \dI question wherhe. Harr
    has drarm the Iinc in the right phce.Thcy Nill rrguc tha! the proper phce to
    dr:w thc line ir betlvcen golrrllrlen$ of env and all ryper on one side, and
    gunmen on the othcr.The djlircf,ce lies sinrpiy jn the location of sovcrcig
    powcr: gov.rnmcnts havc such Foscr and sunnen do not. *41i.h is *hy the
    fo.mcr c.n impose ieg.l ol'lig,rio'rs,nd drc lirlcr cannot.
    Uart! rsponsc rvould be tlnt the gunm.n,nd the a:bitr:ry governuent
    bclong on the omc side ofthe linc bccausc they both cacrcise .rbitrrry po\rer.
    But his positivist ..iticr soutd dirnisi the inrpo.hnce, for an aoalysis oflcgal
    oblieation, ofrvhcther pot!'er i! exer*cd id,n.rbitxry or rute-govcrrcd way.
    For these crid.s, thc imporbnt fict is thrt golcrnm€nt-whethe. .rbitrarv or
    rcgulrted by rulcs-hu sorcreign pos'er, rvhile the gunnun Lcks it.Acco:ding
    to thcse positivitts, lvhcdrrr souc .gcnr or rgcnc! can nnpose legil obliSations
    is not r metter of horv is poser is cxcr.iitd justlv or urtlusd-v, regulrted [v
    secondary rulcs or unregul!ted. ILather, it is i natter ofNh€ther the rgeD! o!
    agency has thc sovcrcrgn powcr (o rulc soLrcct
    Hartl problcm i, rhrt hc dertlv expLins u'hy the existcucc of: legil
    'rcv{
    ob[gation dcp.nds not rimpl] on whote po!!.r ; imposing it but on how tbrt
    powr is being d.rcied. Fqller h$ in rns$!r, but rt is not one d)ir Halr

    f:cic moral fotcc and they gain th:t forc. from tF inm
    any lcgd systcm mGt conform. Only by following the principlet offi'r imer
    monlity cen , go!€tment iorposc obligations of ?ny kind. And sutrlciently
    peosive and scvcre violltior,r ofdr.! inner mor.liry rurn i governxrent inro
    thc cquiv.lent of I gurman.
    Hart's seccn&ry rulcs:rc v.!y much hk€ Fulert innci moraljty oflaw:botb
    Hat and Fullcr zrc p:oviding iccountl ofwhat it is for a goverrlaent to opcr-
    .tc undd thc rulc oflew. But Fuller go.s on to dantcnd thlt 1 governmcnr rbid-
    his tnn.r moEiity crcarcs a primr frcie monlobligtion to obcy its bu.
    'ngby H.rt r6iit! thc conclusion thrt e govemment rulins throush r sysrem of
    whilc
    primary and rccondrq'rul* nicesrrily cr" es any such oblisation.
    H.rt.xplicidy rejects I'ull..! contcDrion. tikins.h. Positrvrst posrtjon dret
    icgal obligrtions do not necc$ar;ly h3ve .ny rnonl force !t .ll Yet, ifdrcrc n
    such : scpantion of legrl .Dd !))oFl obligition, the quesrion ariscs as to whv
    .
    - rbrolureAlr4illi.n sovcreilrn c,ruor imtorc legal obligations wirh i$ com-
    mrnds and declrr*ions.'I hc A$titiiir) ao!'ei.ign mry rulc bv:heer forcc,:vitlt
    -:n r.o mor..l jusdfication or basis for is comrnands And d wE hivc scetr ;)
    Ch.pter 1, go!€rnments u!de. thc nrle oflaw gencnllv tcnd to bc lnoElv
    rnuch prcfcnblc to zrbitnry o.es But the Foint ofpositivism is that lalv docs
    not nced to m.et any nrohi t.st in order ro P6sess vatiditv o"uthoriry
    Hart might nrsist rlrrt. nror:rliry aidc therc are good rersons to distrngunh
    between arbirrer) Ausriiirr sovercigns rnd govetnnren$ rhat operate thDugh 3
    76

    sFteDr ofsecondan aDd prim:cy rulcs. For cxrmplc, histori'ns and sociolosisls
    might lind rhc distirct'on uscful h u.dersrmdingdiffcrcntsocieties,cras,andht-
    toricd trendr. But the qucstion remis rs to why th. disdnction is to be dnvn
    in tcrms ofthc idcr oflegal obligrdon- It is posiblc to .gr.c rhrr thcrc .rc impor-
    t:nt diffcrencc'-monl, sociotogici, historicrl-wirhout claiming rhar
    Aultinian sovereigns crnDot inpose leg.l obligations. Pcrhrps Harr would hivc
    been b€tteiofto dcscribe th€ diferenccs bctwe€n-::bitr:ry and rulc-govcrned
    poltic.l svsrerns widrolt insistingthar only thc larrer c.n impose lcg:l obligatioB.

    SUMMARY: NATURAL LAW


    vERSUS POStTtVISM
    -letwecn
    The dividing iinc positivirn and natu!,I l,v rheory runs righr
    through the conccpt oflegel obligarion. Do lcg,r oblig.tioDs nccess.rily h1!c
    somc roral forcc? ls ihere ncccsatily I moral dincnrion ro any gcnuine lcgal
    obligation? Positivists insist on ncgrdve r swers to thesc quesrions, arguing thrr
    the ide:s oflarv and legal obligarion cen ard shoold bc exphined in terlns ol'
    poslr, coercioD, coDtrol, andlor rul6 but nor in tcrms of moral righr and
    Nrong. N,tur:l law drhkert insjs! on #irmrtiensivcrs, irguing thar rhe idcas
    ot-power, coercion, .ontrol, ,nd rules c,nnot adequatcly er?hin rhc nature of
    legel oblig:tion: mor.l right and $rong arc cssenrirl ingrediena :s well.
    Thir chrpter h* not sought to r€solvc rhe disputc. In$exd, ir hs rried to
    expl.in 2nd ctiticdly anallzc thc posirions .nd

    '! NOTES

    1. PhildophcE on n uc !a. t rm ,!p.- 5. cusv R2db.uch,"Fi( Minur.s oa


    aguro? ro d.*rib. .cdotu rh2t {c .boR L.gn wdosopby:' tpLin Phil6orhr oJ bu,
    sd bcy$nd rbc <rU ofdury 4th cd., cd- J. F.inbdg 2nd H. Gos
    2 Sohc PhnosoPh.F h.v. tgu.d th:r L* {B'lnont C^:q'r{k$! h 1991) PP
    hI: tun(d.":tr"1.; u *h 6
    r..;hine 10.i_104
    ddr.nd wng: tn tltlr !nv. n try b€ po!- 6. Mi.h:c! Moorc. 'L:w-. Fun.rionJ
    nbl. fo. Lw to fon.r vi!tu. indjrccdy br icF Ki!d,"in NcrlEll-fidry cd.R.PG€orE.
    tings is:@ rh. dilt Encc b.srd rishr (Ot'ord:cln ndon,1992),p.I89.
    rdwonEOfcous.,w.nJ'drcnJo :.Dc^.[A.vld.l] jdRoo.!
    rhn n risht for Gdotu oih* rhln dE h*! Ero;qord.Ltuqauuai"ao_ar
    ..hr::6 in ordd to rd tom
    sood moriw, (r.n,ror ss*r & Nrrp.U, i98?).
    - 3-TlE:orlogrro ounicrfd non.t.om.! 8. S,..thonr, Aquins, S;,c I'.oi,grc,
    6Dn D.vid t)oE, E/ii6 drr rr. R rL Ousrion ; ,d,lc. n
    Lo (N.wYorh Cmbride. UnivcBir! 't 95. S.:ond
    p;ttudt tdts ol
    r D!. c
    St..Ihon6 Aqtu6, cd
    _(N.wyoi(:
    Pr'$' 1984), P 62. D Bigolsnri H;fn.r, le6e). p.
    4. SL Augstjlc, On fr. C'Dn. o/ d. n?' 58.
    (NdYork Libnry o(Lib..:l A r,196.r). g.rbi/_,p.12.
    P 11.
    77

    .-'1980
    :i.;,';..'.d.
    1964.

    S-ar putea să vă placă și