H.L.A. Hart’s Concept of Law: Rules, Obligation, and Morality

H.L.A. Hart, one of the most influential legal philosophers of the 20th century, revolutionised jurisprudence with his seminal work "The Concept of Law" (1961). As a leading proponent of legal positivism, Hart redefined how legal theorists understand the nature of law, legal systems, and the relationship between law and morality.

His theory of law is primarily rooted in the notion of rules—both primary and secondary—and the interplay of social practices, obligations, and institutional structures. Hart’s contribution is pivotal in distinguishing law from coercion and morality, while also showing how they may sometimes intersect.

Hart’s Legal Positivism: An Overview

Legal positivism, as championed by Hart, is the doctrine that laws are rules made by human beings and are not to be confused with morality or natural law. Hart’s formulation was a response to earlier positivists like John Austin, whose “command theory of law” described law as the command of the sovereign backed by threats.

Hart criticised Austin’s theory for its failure to explain laws in modern, democratic societies. Instead, Hart introduced a more sophisticated model of legal systems comprising a union of primary and secondary rules.

Primary and Secondary Rules

Primary Rules

Primary rules are rules that impose duties or obligations. They govern behaviour directly and tell individuals what they must or must not do (e.g., prohibitions against theft or assault). In a society with only primary rules, there would be norms of behaviour but no mechanisms for creating, modifying, or adjudicating disputes about those norms.

Secondary Rules

Hart recognised that a society governed solely by primary rules would face several problems: uncertainty about what the rules are, rigidity in modifying them, and lack of authoritative mechanisms for resolving disputes. To address these issues, he introduced secondary rules, which are meta-rules about how primary rules are identified, changed, and enforced. Hart identified three types of secondary rules:

1. Rule of Recognition – Provides the criteria for identifying valid legal rules in a given legal system.
2. Rule of Change – Establishes procedures for creating, modifying, or repealing laws.
3. Rule of Adjudication – Empowers institutions to resolve disputes and interpret laws.

This dual structure forms the “union of primary and secondary rules”, which Hart described as the hallmark of a modern legal system.

“What makes a legal system is the union of primary rules of obligation with secondary rules about their recognition, change, and adjudication.” – H.L.A. Hart, The Concept of Law

Rule of Recognition and Legal Validity

Legal Obligation v. Moral Obligation

Hart distinguishes legal obligation from moral obligation by their sources and characteristics:

• Legal obligation arises from rules recognised by the legal system and enforceable by institutions.
• Moral obligation arises from moral norms or principles that may or may not coincide with the law.

Hart criticised earlier positivists like Austin for equating legal obligation with fear of punishment. Instead, he argues that legal obligation stems from the internal acceptance of rules by those within the system, especially officials.

For example, a judge does not obey the law out of fear but because she recognises the rule of law as a valid reason for action. This is a key distinction between a mature legal system and mere coercive power.

Law and Morality: Hart v. Fuller

One of the most famous debates in legal philosophy is that between H.L.A. Hart and Lon L. Fuller on the relationship between law and morality.

Hart’s View

Hart held that law and morality are conceptually distinct. A law can be valid even if it is morally reprehensible, as long as it satisfies the criteria of the legal system (e.g., the rule of recognition). This is central to legal positivism.

In his debate with Fuller, Hart cited the example of Nazi laws—arguing that they were legally valid under the Nazi legal system, though morally abhorrent. This does not mean one must obey them, but that legal validity and moral correctness are not the same.

Fuller’s Criticism

Lon Fuller, a natural law theorist, argued that law necessarily contains a moral dimension. He proposed the “inner morality of law”, which requires laws to meet standards such as generality, clarity, consistency, and congruence. For Fuller, a legal system that grossly fails these standards ceases to be law.

Hart’s Response

Hart acknowledged that the efficacy of law depends to some extent on public morality and social acceptance. However, he maintained the conceptual separation between law and morality to preserve clarity in legal theory and avoid moral subjectivism from clouding legal validity.

Minimum Content of Natural Law

Despite being a positivist, Hart recognised a “minimum content of natural law” that any legal system must have to survive. He identified certain universal features of human existence—such as vulnerability, limited altruism, and the need for social coordination—that require certain rules (e.g., rules against violence, theft, and fraud).

This acknowledgement reveals that Hart was not dogmatic in his positivism. He admitted that certain basic moral principles are practically necessary for legal systems to function, although that does not mean law derives its validity from morality.

Hart’s Influence and Legacy

Hart’s The Concept of Law reshaped modern legal philosophy. It became foundational in law schools worldwide and influenced both positivist and non-positivist scholars. Some key areas of impact include:

• Legal interpretation: Hart’s work provided a framework to interpret statutes and legal norms systematically.
• Constitutional theory: His insights into rules and legitimacy are crucial for constitutional design and governance.
• Judicial reasoning: His internal point of view theory helps understand how judges perceive legal obligation.
• Human rights discourse: Hart’s defence of separating law from morality has influenced how societies debate unjust laws and civil disobedience.

Criticism and Responses

While Hart’s theory is widely acclaimed, it has also been criticised on several fronts:

Ronald Dworkin’s Critique

In Taking Rights Seriously (1977), Ronald Dworkin challenged Hart’s model by arguing that law is not just a system of rules but also includes principles—moral standards used by judges when rules run out. For Dworkin, Hart’s model could not account for hard cases where judges invoke justice, fairness, or rights.

Hart, in his posthumously published Postscript to The Concept of Law, acknowledged Dworkin’s critique and clarified that his theory allows for judicial discretion, but maintained that principles are not part of law unless incorporated through official recognition.

Feminist Legal Theorists

Feminist scholars argue that Hart’s formalistic model ignores the power dynamics, gender biases, and lived experiences that shape legal interpretation and enforcement. By focusing on rules, Hart may miss how law operates unequally in practice.

Postmodern Legal Theory

Critics from postmodern or critical legal studies backgrounds contend that Hart’s model is too rigid and fails to account for the indeterminacy and political nature of legal reasoning.

Conclusion

H.L.A. Hart’s The Concept of Law remains a cornerstone of modern legal theory. By advancing a nuanced model of legal systems through the union of primary and secondary rules, Hart provided a robust framework for understanding law as a social institution rooted in rules and accepted practices.

While Hart sought to separate law from morality to preserve legal clarity, he did not ignore the practical importance of morality in shaping legal systems. His balanced approach—open to moral dialogue but grounded in conceptual clarity—continues to influence legal philosophy, constitutional theory, and judicial practice.

In an era of growing legal complexity, Hart’s insights into rules, obligation, and morality help us navigate the evolving nature of law and its role in society.

References

1. Law and Morality in H.L.A. Hart's Legal Philosophy, Available Here
2. Hart's Theory of Jurisprudence, Available Here
3. Prof. H.L.A. Hart’s Concept of Law, Available Here 
4. Legal Obligation and Social Norms, Available Here

Important Link