LEGAL PHILOSOPHY/JURISPRUDENCE

SYDNEY UNIVERSITY
BRIEF NOTES FOR STUDENTS PRIVATE GUIDE ONLY - WILL NOT REPLACE EXAM PREPARATION ISSUED ON
CONDITION WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED , SOLD OR TRANSFERRED WITHOUT

PERMISSION THANK YOU

S OPHIE YORK

WHY OBEY THE LAW?

Why should one obey the law?

What is the source of obligation in law?
Have looked at the nature of law, theories on why law ought to be obeyed at all

Obligation is a binding force. When we say that a person is obliged to do something, or when we say I
am obliged to do x, it is because there is some DEMAND being made on them.
The demand or binding force can be external or internal or both.
Cf:
I feel obliged to tell you the truth: demand is internal.
I feel obliged to tell you the truth because if I don't I will be fined or if my friends find out they will
despise me etc demand is external.
The obligation to obey the law, is it:

an inner felt duty because you believe in the law and think it is the right thing to do?
A fear of punishment?
Pressure to conform?
Fear of social ostracism?

A number of legal philosophers have looked at this question.

1. Coercion Austin and Bentham

2. Social Contract and Consent Theories Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau,
Socrates, Rawls etc
3. Integrity - Dworkin
4.

Morality Natural Law Aquinas, Grotius, Finnis, Fuller

5.

There is No Obligation Obey because you want to, there is no

obligation, no inherent compulsion Raz, Wolff

1. COERCION
Austin and Bentham
John Austin born in 1790 was a professor of jurisprudence at the University of London from 18261832 and had a profound effect on British and Western jurisprudence.

student of Jeremy Bentham (1748 1832). Austin favoured Benthams views on legal positivism.
Austin and Bentham felt that law was the command of the sovereign backed up by the ability to
enforce it.
So the law was valid because of the threat of punishment for breach.
Classical positivism unites OBLIGATION with SANCTION. Coercion is equated with obligation.
So Austins view: that a person is obliged by the command of the sovereign = the superior will punish
the person if he/she does not obey. It is the external force, the fear of punishment, which obliges a
subjects obedience.
Bentham was a utilitarian, who said that law should be about promoting the greatest good for the
greatest number and that subjugation of individuals by law was for the good of the majority and could
be justified and understood/analysed that way.
Obligation equals coercion when it is said that to obey the law is the same as saying we are coerced to
obey the law.
Criticisms of this approach:
obligation to obey the law is no different to obeying the order of a terrorist/gangster
law has a greater status
better reasons to obey
more compelling analysis of the obligation indicates law is obeyed not only because of
troublesome consequences

Social Contract and Consent Theories Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau,

Socrates and Rawls

2.

Hobbes (1588-1679) published Leviathan in 1651

English Civil war of 1640-1653 - misery
Hobbes emphasis on the importance of a strong State
a science to the way man behaved.
natural behaviour would tend towards chaos and strife unless acted upon and governed by the
rules of social living. (eg like Newtons theory of physics, that matter will behave in a certain
uniform way unless acted upon).

Only a covenant, kept by the rule of the sword,would keep man from falling back into his
natural savage state.

Without rules, society would disintegrate and it would be every man for himself, against every
other man and the result would be inevitably that the life of man would be solitary, poor,
nasty, brutish and short.

Man banded together for mutual self-protection and in return, gave up some freedoms
and agrees to be subject to the law.

He came up with the concept that society operates because of a social contract. He was a
materialist, everything is corporeal. Hobbes was not spiritual and only matter was relevant or
had value.Human motivations were derived from our biological nature, and the key drive was
survival.

The social contract theory is based upon the key resources being required by people as being
scarce (food, shelter, and the essentials of life). Because of scarcity, there is competition.
Each would be forced into a war against all others. If there was no law/state set-up governing
behaviour, it would be not possible to act properly simply from a sense of moral sentiment.

Why would there be perpetual civil war?

To look after future interests (to grow a crop next year)

To pre-empt an attack when one is weak or not expecting it (so attack first)
Because there is no penalty for such actions but a price to pay for not protecting oneself and ones
interests.

A State will not be an effective kerb upon the tendency of people to strike pre-emptively
unless its authority is paramount. Therefore, to achieve a peaceful and stable society the
power of the State must be absolute.

Once committed to the state, as a member of the state from which we receive benefits, we are
obliged to obey the law.

It is a promise to behave, because we have taken benefits. Obligation because of what has
been taken/received. Consent or social contract theorists argue that the ONLY source of
obligation to obey the law is this promise we have effectively made. Like any contract, the
obligation relates to the promise which has been made.

A promise is defined as the making of a sign which signifies the creation of an obligation
knowingly made and with the intention of it being an obligation. (Signing a contract before
witnesses is an example).

Promises are divided into strict promissory or quasi-promissory eg you might not sign an employment
contract but a contract exists by dint of both sides of the agreement
Socrates simple: by living in a society and receiving benefits from that society one enters a
quasi promise to abide by the laws of that society. One is obliged, having taken the benefits, to
accept the burdens. One of the burdens of living in a state is the burden of obedience to the
law. This is the notions of a quasi-obligation.
John Locke John Locke (b. 1632, d. 1704) was a British philosopher, Oxford academic and
medical researcher, opposed authoritarianism by government or church or any authority other
than the individual. Thought man had a divine purpose and should not necessarily hand over
decisions to any ruling body natural law should be the paramount guide institutions are
flawed/corrupt./superstitious...not necessarily following natural law.
He was an empiricist, everything we know is derived from experience or observation.
Asked how might the state have authority over us?
Nature gave us individual rights to life, health, liberty and possessions. These exist prior to any
political organisation.
He thought that in the state of nature, moral law would generally be followed, some would break it and
the law would be futile without enforcement, so everyone had a natural right to enforce the law, but
that since individual enforcement might be excessive, inconvenient, difficult or inconsistent, it was
useful to have a civil authority to resolves disputes and ensure peace.
The critical thing to ensure, acc to Locke was that it was never intended to confer legislative power
upon a civil authority which would permit it to violate our pre-existing rights.
Whenever the legislators endeavour to take away, and destroy the property of the people, or to
reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the
people, who are thereupon absolved from any further obedience and are left to the common
refuge
All humans had reason and were equal.
Man gave up liberty to secure his property (social contract)

Rulers could not dispose of their subjects property, ones toil gave a private right to ownership. (cf R &
R Fazzolari Pty Ltd v Parramatta City Council [2009] HCA 12 where proposed compulsory acquisition of
privately-owned properties by the respondent was for the purpose of re-sale by Council and therefore
fell within the constraint on acquisition in the Local Govt Act s 188(1) and NSW legislature which
overturned effect of High Court 5-nil decision (See Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation)
Amendment.)
To properly understand political power and trace its origins, we must consider the state that all
people are in naturally. That is a state of perfect freedom of acting and disposing of their own
possessions and persons as they think fit within the bounds of the law of nature. People in this state do
not have to ask permission to act or depend on the will of others to arrange matters on their behalf.
The natural state is also one of equality in which all power and jurisdiction is reciprocal and no one
has more than another. It is evident that all human beings as creatures belonging to the same species
and rank and born indiscriminately with all the same natural advantages and faculties are equal
amongst themselves. They have no relationship of subordination or subjection unless God (the lord and
master of them all) had clearly set one person above another and conferred on him an undoubted right
to dominion and sovereignty- Locke
No taxation without representation (Lockean ideas used in the American constitution to protect life,
liberty and property.)
Wrote Two Treatises of Government in 1689
1st Treatise attacks patriarchialism
2nd Treatise outline of theory re natural rights and social contract theory
(See also Lloyd Ch 3)
John Rawls American Professor of Philosophy at Harvard - supportive of the contract
theory that an obligation arises in a liberal democratic society, to obey the law. Says there are
two principles:
i.Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a liberty
similar to others
ii.Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both reasonably expected to be
everyones advantage and attached to positions and offices open to all.
He postulated that the fair sharing of wealth and resources could correct societal imbalances and law
and morality was about achieving this.
1.

Veil of Ignorance (the most fair rule would be one you came up with with no knowledge of
who you are and how you might benefit)

2.

Difference Principle (Inequality acceptable if you are treating the most needy differently).

Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712 1778) Leading French Philosopher (see p91 Harris)
Man was born free and he is everywhere in chains
- Wrote The Social Contract the ruler is the agent of the people, not the master, which was
miscontrued as a blueprint for totalitarianism.
- supported democracy
- duty of all those who participate in the society to obey that which is for the greater good of the state,
thus eroding any notion of individuals rights.
- distinction between the general will which is direct toward the common good, and the will of all,
which was just the aggregate of a bunch of individual, selfish wills.
Vote = must then abide by result of vote. If dont, then unfair and violating rule essential to democracy.

CRITICS
Critics of the social contract theory included arguments:
mere fact of living in a state cannot be taken as freely given consent as it is hardly feasible to
up and leave.
not another society nearby with a different suitable regime
laws change and you might have voted in a particular government and then they radically
change the rules/move the goalposts
Not comparable to other legally recognisable/enforceable contract scenarios
Premised upon pessimistic outlook re nature of man? (ie Hobbes)
Provided rationale for crime? eg offenders regarding themselves as having had a poor receipt
of benefits from the state could consider the state as having broken the terms of the
relationship, justifying their criminality (ie a release from the burden of obedience).
Robert Nozick (Author of Anarchy, State and Utopia) thought that individuals have rights
which are so strong and far-reaching that there were limits to what a society could impose, and
that the concept of a social contract was erroneous. He gave the example of local authorities
broadcasting music in the street which we enjoyed we would nevertheless not agree that the
local authority could then start billing us.

3. INTEGRITY - Dworkin
Ronald Dworkin (Laws Empire)
Ronald Dworkin (born 1931) is an American philosopher, professor at University College London and
the New York University School of Law. He is known for his contributions to legal philosophy and
political philosophy. His theory of law as integrity is one of the leading contemporary views of the
nature of law.
In 1969, Dworkin was appointed to the Chair of Jurisprudence at Oxford, in which position he
succeeded H.L.A. Hart.
Dworkin disagrees with social contract theory. Says inadequate explanations for the source of law.
Instead of obligation of law coming from a promise by way of social contract, Dworkin argues:
obligatory nature of law comes from:
i.

ii.

Associative obligations belonging to belonging to a family or neighbourhood you incur

certain obligations without entering into any quasi or strict contract. Recognise family
obligations parents to children, siblings to siblings, children to parents. Belonging to a society
is akin to belonging to a family and gives rise to obligation by association.
Integrity Matter of circumstance; matter of rules; matter of principle adhere to certain
beliefs, ideas or principles

Ideal community is a community of principles. Obligation arises not from coercion, nor fear, but
fidelity to a scheme of principles. It is a felt internal obligation based on a commitment to principles
rather than an external force.

Criticism: Professor Leslie Green:

Family a wrong analogy to society as family does not demand obedience demands other things such as
care, interest, loyalty, and co-ordination but not obedience.
4. MORALITY - NATURAL LAW
Principles of Natural Law

Natural Law an individual has an obligation to disobey laws which are incompatible with higher
moral principles. Natural Law is that set of universal moral principles starting with the principle do
good and avoid evil.
Positivism separation of law and morals. Recognise as constitutionally valid laws as legally binding
upon citizens even if these laws infringe upon human rights. Specificity in concrete circumstances.
Purpose of law is to promote the common good. At times we can be obliged to disobey the law if a law
is detrimental to the common good.
Nuremberg Trials the famous example. Nuremberg trials were the trials of war criminals
Natural law theory holds that certain rights exist independently of the legal system and are incapable of
abolition by legislative act. The Nuremberg trials imposed upon individuals a duty to disobey laws
which are clearly recognisable as violating higher moral principles. This has become known as
the Nuremberg principle.
(See article by Gabriel Moens The German Borderguard cases: Natural Law and the Duty to Disobey
Immoral Laws the Nuremberg principle was invoked.)
Germany was reunified on 3 October 1990. The German public wanted to try the border guards who
had killed East Germans trying to flee to the West. The Border Guards said that they were obeying
orders.

In military, orders are sacrosanct.

Obeying orders is drilled into military people because others have lost their lives in the past
because individuals have disobeyed orders - because they have felt like it or because they
were not privy to the full intelligence/strategic picture.

The Border Guards caused German courts to reconsider the Nuremberg principle. See two main cases.
Article B of the reunification treaty provided for West German law to apply to former East German
territory.
The rule was that where there was two laws governing an event/crime committed prior to reunification,
the milder law would apply; and there was immunity for an act which was not a crime under East
German law prior to reunification. (Part of the treaty said that it was unlawful for anyone who
committed an offence against a German or who did the act and then became a West German. Both of
which caught East Germans. This was rejected as it nullified the immunity).
Two defences:
1.

East German law said that the use of firearms was justified to prevent the completion of a crime at
he border.

2.

Border Guard not criminally responsible for carrying out an order unless a blatant violation of
international or criminal law or obviously contrary to higher morals.

***
The duty to disobey immoral laws debated by
Professor Hart v Professor Fuller
Hart: What is law and what ought to be law two sep things
Fuller: Natural Law theorist law must contain a minimum of moral content for it to be characterised
as law. If a law did not satisfy the minimum moral content, it could not legitimately command the
obedience of its citizens.
Fuller wrote in his The Morality of Law external morality makes a law which deserves to be
respected and obeyed, internal morality is the minimum conditions which every mature legal system

must satisfy in order to achieve its purpose. If legal rule are just, their satisfaction will promote respect
for the rule of law.

Are some things objectively wrong/disreputable?

Naturalist the pursuit of high ideals contributes to the betterment of society law embodies values.
(Law must be good to be obeyed, evil orders ought to be disobeyed must be a minimum content of
good for the law to be valid).
Positivist law is a tool not the yardstick or codification of what is necessarily good law is valuefree. (So if it is law, obey with a clear conscience no evaluation laws could be evil, if legally valid,
should be unswervingly obeyed: moral validity not rel).
There is a problem with citizens evaluating for themselves every law, because this could cause
instability.
Article ends saying that the legal system of Germany failed to achieve a satisfactory resolution to the
perennial problem of whether there is a duty on citizens to disobey immoral laws.
5. THERE IS NO OBLIGATION
Joseph Raz (lecturer Hebrew Uni in the 1960s and then PhD at Oxford) wrote The Morality of
Freedom, The Authority of Law etc. (See Chapter 12 of The Authority of Law entitled The Obligation
to Obey the Law.)
Natural Lawyers argue that the source of obligation in law rests in the fact that the laws are good and
the rightness of the individual law determines whether or not the individual law ought to be obeyed.
Starting point is that law is good and ought to be obeyed.
RAZ is the opposite, in that says there is NO general obligation to obey the law. There might be an
obligation to obey particular laws, but it would be for prudential reasons. The laws are good, or there is
a risk of legal sanction, of social sanction (affecting different people to different degrees depending
upon their social standing, family connections, background etc. The justness of the law or the legal
system is not the source of an obligation.
He concludes that even if it makes sense in a society to obey the law, and the law is useful and
important, there is nothing which gives rise to even a prima facie obligation.
Robert Paul Wolff is a Professor of Afro-American Studies at the University of Massachusetts
Amherst USA. He is the author of more than twenty books, He wrote the famous In Defence of
Anarchism in 1960. He criticised both conservative and small-l liberal thought.
Wolff assumes the Rousseau position : democracy is the reason we are obliged to obey the law the
majority are of that view so therefore we should follow and obey.
Rousseau = the majority view is a manifestation of the general will.
Wolff argues that the majority view does not always produce a just system nor a just distribution of
political power. If people vote on the basis of self-interest rather than on the basis of universal moral
principles, then could end up with a very unjust system.
CONCLUSION
Sources of obligation in law:
Force/coercion,
promises based on social contract (or consent theory),
associative obligation/integrity,
principles of Natural Law - goodness and justice of the law - it is worthy of obedience.

And all-important philosophical question:

Are we obliged to obey unjust laws?
Yes. Duty to obey we obey all law even unjust coercion and social contract theorists
Yes. Duty to obey generally esp to uphold an otherwise just institution but permit exceptions
Natural Law theorists
No. No general duty to obey law - only duty to obey particular laws which one sees to be
good/worthwhile No obligation theorists.