The Concept of Law

Hart, H. L. A. (1961). The Concept of Law. Clarendon Press.

Type

Book

Intellectual base

Review or monograph

Year

1961

Link

https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-concept-of-law-9780198761228

Cited from

architecture_urban_planning, computer_science, earth_sciences, law_governance, mathematics, philosophy, political_science, sociology_anthropology

Cited by

15 citations across 15 artifacts.

Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.

Primes

• Adjudication (Dispute Resolution)

  • This sourceDevelops the 'secondary rules' — incl. rules of adjudication — that empower designated officials to authoritatively determine when primary rules have been broken — directly supports the complexity-delegation claim (D49-005).

• Authority
  • Law and governance. Statutory authority vests legislatures with power to create binding rules; judicial authority allows courts to settle disputes and create precedent; regulatory authority permits agencies to issue binding rules within their delegated scope, as Hart (1961) systematizes through the union of primary and secondary rules in The Concept of Law.

    This sourceAnalytical-jurisprudence treatment of a legal system as the union of primary rules (imposing duties) and secondary rules (of recognition, change, and adjudication); the rule of recognition supplies the criteria of legal validity and grounds the authority of legislatures, courts, and agencies to issue binding rules.

• Classification
  • Hart (1961) analyzes these classificatory practices as constitutive of legal systems, distinguishing primary rules of conduct from secondary rules of recognition, change, and adjudication.

    This sourceAnalytical-jurisprudence treatment of legal systems as a union of primary rules of conduct and secondary rules of recognition, change, and adjudication; this rule structure underlies the classificatory categories (offense classes, procedural status) that constitute a legal system.

• Closure
  • Jurisdictional closure (the set of cases a court can resolve in its own forum) is a primary structural property of legal systems, and the design of court hierarchies and subject-matter jurisdictions is largely organised around closure profiles, a structural property Hart (1961) frames in his canonical analysis of the rules constituting a legal system's authority.

    This sourceAnalytical-jurisprudence account of legal systems via rules of recognition, change, and adjudication; rules of adjudication authorise bodies to resolve violations of primary rules within their forum.

• Design Patterns

  • This sourceDevelops the 'open texture' of legal rules: rules from legislation or precedent are indeterminate at the edges and are applied by analogy to new fact configurations.

• Discretion
  • This trades the predictability of rigid rules for the adaptiveness of case-by-case judgment, and it answers a recurring structural problem that any rule-governed system eventually faces: the impossibility of enumerating in advance every contingency a rule must govern, as H.L.A. Hart (1961) analyzed in his account of the "open texture" of legal rules.

    This sourceAnalytic jurisprudence; the 'open texture' of legal rules (a core of certainty plus a penumbra of doubt) makes some judicial discretion inevitable because no rule can anticipate every future case.

• Formal System
  • In law and governance it is legal codes treated as quasi-formal systems — defined terms as alphabet, rules of statutory construction as formation rules, foundational statutes as axioms, judicial inference as derivation —

    This sourceTreats legal rules as a quasi-formal system of primary and secondary rules and introduces the 'open texture' of law — a core of settled meaning surrounded by a penumbra where rules under-determine outcomes and judicial discretion is required, the legal analogue of undecidable cases.

• Layered Accumulation
  • Organizations accumulate policies, regulations, and procedures over time, paralleling the layered structure of legal systems that Hart (1961) develops in The Concept of Law, where primary rules of obligation accumulate beneath secondary rules of recognition, change, and adjudication.

    This sourceAnalytical-jurisprudence treatment of legal systems as rules of recognition, change, and adjudication; develops adjudication as the rule-bound institutional practice through which secondary rules apply primary rules to particular cases—foundational for understanding procedural fairness as a constituent of legal-system legitimacy.

• Mandatory vs. Default Norms
  • This division traces to Hart's (1961) jurisprudential separation of primary rules of obligation from secondary rules of recognition, change, and adjudication, which together constitute a legal system's bindingness architecture, and has been generalized by Sunstein and Thaler (2008) into a broader framework of choice architecture spanning law, public policy, and private design.

    This sourceAnalytical-jurisprudence treatment of legal systems as rules of recognition, change, and adjudication; develops adjudication as the rule-bound institutional practice through which secondary rules apply primary rules to particular cases—foundational for understanding procedural fairness as a constituent of legal-system legitimacy.

• No One Is Above the Rules
  • Equality before the law means that reasons for differential treatment must themselves be public, justified, and applied consistently, a requirement Hart (1961) embedded in his account of law as the union of primary rules of obligation with secondary rules of recognition, change, and adjudication that govern how rules are identified and applied.

    This sourceAnalytical-jurisprudence treatment of legal systems as rules of recognition, change, and adjudication; develops adjudication as the rule-bound institutional practice through which secondary rules apply primary rules to particular cases—foundational for understanding procedural fairness as a constituent of legal-system legitimacy.

• Parsing
  • In law a statute is a token sequence parsed against the grammar of legal categories — elements of the offence, jurisdiction, defences — and a holding is, at one level, the parse tree assigned to the facts under the statutory grammar.

    This sourceDevelops the 'open texture' of legal rules — a 'core of certainty' where a rule's application is settled and a 'penumbra of doubt' where it is contested — the jurisprudential basis for treating legal categorization as grammar-like parsing in which disambiguation (judicial discretion) carries the interpretive work. Resolves needs-source-404 for the claim that a statute is parsed against the grammar of legal categories with ambiguity as the locus of interpretation.

• Precedent (Stare Decisis)
  • Precedent (Stare Decisis — "to stand by things decided") is the decision-making principle that (1) the outcome of a prior similar case carries presumptive weight for the present case — a current decision-maker should decide like cases alike, treating prior decisions as binding or strongly persuasive unless there is principled reason to distinguish or overrule, an idea Hart (1961) develops as one of the rule-of-recognition criteria characterizing mature legal systems.

    This sourceAnalytical-jurisprudence treatment of legal systems as rules of recognition, change, and adjudication; develops adjudication as the rule-bound institutional practice through which secondary rules apply primary rules to particular cases—foundational for understanding procedural fairness as a constituent of legal-system legitimacy.

• Predicate
  • In law and policy eligibility rules are predicates — does this applicant satisfy the residency-and-income-and-age conjunction? — sentencing factors are predicates aggregated by rule, and contested constitutional standards are predicates whose application is disputed.

    This sourceDevelops the 'open texture' of legal rules — eligibility and standard terms with a settled core and a contestable, vague boundary whose application is disputed — grounding eligibility rules and contested constitutional standards as predicates whose boundary is litigated.

• Procedural Fairness (Due Process)
  • Administrative law scholars, drawing on Hart's (1961) treatment of adjudication and the rule of recognition, recognize procedural fairness as foundational to rule-of-law legitimacy, preventing abuse of discretion through transparent, rule-bound processes that constrain official power through procedure rather than outcome.

    This sourceAnalytical-jurisprudence treatment of legal systems as rules of recognition, change, and adjudication; develops adjudication as the rule-bound institutional practice through which secondary rules apply primary rules to particular cases—foundational for understanding procedural fairness as a constituent of legal-system legitimacy.

• Rule of Law
  • Each case stitches together symmetric application across entities and reflexive inclusion of the rule-source into a single composite pattern Hart (1961) anticipated by distinguishing primary rules of conduct from the secondary rules that govern how rules are made, changed, and adjudicated, with rule of law obtaining precisely when the secondary rules bind the officials who operate them.

    This sourceAnalytical-jurisprudence treatment of legal systems as rules of recognition, change, and adjudication; develops adjudication as the rule-bound institutional practice through which secondary rules apply primary rules to particular cases—foundational for understanding procedural fairness as a constituent of legal-system legitimacy.

Verification

This reference passed the adversarial substantiation pipeline: it was checked to exist and to support the claim it is attached to. See how references were verified.

Links previously used in the corpus

Before the registry existed this work was also linked 1 other way.

• https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-concept-of-law-9780199644704 ×6

Registry ID ref:bf993c67ccc8 · see in the full table