Lets get this clear right off the bat that Hart's jurisprudence is not hard to understand. The idea that we have both primary and secondary laws that share a relationship to help create a belief in society that they have a working legal system is simple enough to understand. The confusion can arise when we start to discuss a rule of recognition and internal points of view. Basically, in order to validate a law there must exist a set of criteria that people can point to that say that this law validates another law and is hence a valid law. Then in order for the legal system to work both citizens must obey them for their own reasons and the officials have to enforce and follow these same rules while believing in them that these are proper rules.
Comments