Analytical School - Bentham
Analytical School - Bentham
Exponents
1- Jeremy Bentham
2- HLA Hart
The basic idea of analytical school of jurisprudence is to deal with law, existing
in its present form. It is also called Austinian school as its methodology was set
up by John Austin. Analytical school believes that law is the direction of the
Sovereign. That is why Analytical school is also termed as imperative school.
Analytical school is also termed as positive school of jurisprudence because it is
based on positivism. It is a step away from a priori approach. Analytical school
gained prominence in the nineteenth century. It says morals are not objective;
law needs to be objective, if we add morals to the definition of law, and law
won’t be objective anymore. Austin is known as the father of the Analytical
school of jurisprudence.
Background
Upto the beginning of the eighteenth century the the natural law school
predominated the juristic thought. In the opinion of few writers, the principles
of natural law were held to be supreme and they could override man made laws.
Natural law was derived from justice, reason, utility, nature, supernatural
source. The analytical school was basically the reaction against the assumptions
of natural law.
Bentham(1748-1832)
Jeremy is known as the founder of analytical school of jurisprudence. He wrote
a book a called ‘The Limits of Jurisprudence Defined’ in 1782 which got
published in 1985.he was against the judges made law. The making of law
should not be in the hands of judges. The law should only be made by the
legislature and the legislature should possess the absolute power of making the
laws. The law should be based on pain and pleasure. When the state makes laws
it must consider the happiness of the citizens i.e. the law should provide the
happiness to the citizens and alleviate their pain. The goal of the law should be
that whether that law contains equality, security, subsistence and it is abundant
or not i.e. the aim of the law should the above four principles. Jeremy bentham
basically supports the codification of laws. He rejected the natural laws. The
law which is being made by the state or the rights provided by the state has
value natural laws doesn’t exist according to Jeremy bentham.
A revised edition was published in-laws under the editorship of Prof. Hart
Bentham who was a tireless campaign of reform and insisted that prior to
reform there has to be a classification of law as it is. He advocated that there
should be no reform in substantive law without reforming its structure through a
process of analysis. Like Austin’s theory, Bentham advocated an imperative
theory of law in which the key concepts are “sovereignty and command”. On
one hand, Austin’s sovereign is assumed as an unlimitable or indivisible entity
but Bentham’s sovereign is not like that and he accepts the divided and partial
sovereignty with some legal restrictions imposed on him.
1- To provide substance.
2- To produce fullness (abundance)
3- •To favour quality
4- • To maintain security.
Importance:
1. Bentham’s contribution to the legal theory and legislation is so much that his
era is known as “Benthanite Era” in the legal history of England. He introduced
legal positivism and treated the study of law as a science of investigation
through scientific methods of experiments and reasoning. This philosophy that
“justice is nothing but social happiness or the happiness of the majority of
people” seems like a great moral of ideal for the welfare of states.
2. He agreed with Kelson who said absolute justice is an irrational ideal, an
illusion- one of the eternal illusions of mankind. Bentham’s perception of
justice is based on the system of values i.e. morals. The individuals living in
society have to conform to the set values or norms and rationalize their
conduct/behavior accordingly.
3. Bentham defined law as an “assemblage of signs declarative of a violation
conceived or adopted by the sovereign in a state, concerning the conduct to be
observed in a certain case by a certain person or class of persons; who in the
case in question are/are supposed to be subject of his power.
4. Expression- where the expression of law is completely in unequivocal terms,
the judge must adopt liberal interpretation. It is only where the expression of
law is incomplete that the judge may resort to liberal interpretation.
2. HLA HART ON ANALYTICAL JURISPRUDENCE
Hart unlike his predecessors did tilt towards morality as being not an integral
part of law but at the same time he believed that morality had an influence on
law and he called this ‘the minimum content of natural law’. His famous works
include ‘The Concept of law’, ‘The Causation of law’ and ‘Law Liberty and
Morality’. Hart agrees in his book that law is an obligation, law makes certain
human conduct non optional or non obligatory. But he disagrees with law being
just a command as per Austin’s theory.
Concept of “Rule”
Kinds Of Rules
· Primary Rules
· Secondary Rules
Primary rules regulate the behavior of man in the society. These rules either
grant rights or impose obligations on the members of the society.[9]
Example:- Rules of criminal law forbidding murder, robbery, rash driving are
primary rules, tort rules, the individual right to freedom of speech ,the
provisions of contracts that define the primary obligations of the parties, the
environmental law rule that forbids discharge of toxic substances in rivers and
streams etc.[10]
Secondary rules are those that stipulate how and by whom the primary rules
may be formed, recognized modified or extinguished.[11]
Example: - Contract law rules that enable parties to form contracts, the rules
that allow testators to create a will, the constitutional rules that confer
legislative powers on Congress, the statute that authorizes the Supreme Court to
promulgate rules of practice and procedure for the federal courts.[12]
Hart's basic idea is quite simple. Primary rules are rules of conduct; they tell
you what your are legally obligated to do (or refrain from) and what
consequences attach to obedience or disobedience. Thus, the criminal law rules
that prohibit theft, forbid certain conduct and provide for penalties for violating
the prohibition. Technically, the class of secondary rules includes everything
except primary rules. For example, secondary rules are legal rules that allow for
the creation, extinction, and alteration of secondary rules; secondary rules are
power-conferring rules. Thus, contract law empowers individuals and firms to
make contracts; contracts themselves are usually collections of primary rules.
More precisely, primary rules are rules that govern conduct, and secondary rules
are rules that do not. Thus, the distinction between primary and secondary rules
is just a bit different than the difference between duty-imposing and power-
conferring rules: duty-imposing rules impose duties, whereas power-conferring
rules confer power. This leaves open the possibility that some rules can regulate
other rules, but do so by imposing duties. For example, a secondary rule might
impose a duty to legislate in a certain way or a prohibition on certain kinds of
rule creation. One of the really nifty things about Hart's introduction of the
distinction between primary and secondary rules was his account as to why
secondary rules are important. We can certainly imagine a system in which
there were primary rules, but no secondary rules. This would be a system of
customary law. Certain actions would be required; others would be taboo. But
there would be no mechanism by which the set of obligations could be changed.
Of course, customary law need not be completely static. It is possible that
customs might gradually change over time, but this process would require a
change in social norms. It could not be legislated. Secondary rules enable
relatively more rapid legal change at a lower cost. Moreover secondary rules
enable individuals to create customized primary rules that govern their private
relationships or privately owned resources.
Difference In Gist
· Under primary rules, human beings are required to do or abstain from certain
actions; secondary rules are in a sense parasitic upon or secondary to the first.
· The primary rules bind people whether they like or not, wish or not; secondary
rules bestow facilities upon them for realizing their wishes.
· Primary rules are essential for social life whereas secondary rules are
necessary for the development of a legal system.
The view of Lord Lloyd is that Hart’s description of a developed legal system in
terms of a union of primary and secondary rules is undoubtedly of value as a
tool of analysis of much that has puzzled both the jurists and the political
theorists. Professor Hart himself seems to recognize that his legal system is not
necessarily as comprehensive as he appears to indicate since he suggests that
there are other elements in a legal system, and in particular the “open texture”
of legal rules as well as the relationship of law to morality and justice. Lord
Lloyd asks the question whether it is possible to reduce to reduce all the rules of
the legal system to rules which impose duties and to rules which confer powers.
This is an over-simplification of a point. It can be said that many of the so
called rules of recognition do not so much confer power but specify criteria
which are to be applied in particular cases, such as the rules of procedure and
evidence. It is doubtful whether all the so-called secondary rules can properly
be treated as a unified class. Professor Hart concedes that a full detailed
taxonomy of the varieties of law still remains to be accomplished.
According to Hart, the rule of recognition is a secondary rule, but the view of
Prof. Dias is that it looks more like the acceptance of a special kind of rule than
a power. Hart’s concept is based on the distinction between rules creating duties
and rules creating powers on a legal system is constituted by their union, but the
view of Dias is that it is questionable whether such a sharp distinction can be
drawn. The same rule can create a power plus a duty to exercise it, or a power
plus a duty not to exercise it.