Law is not reducible to commands backed by sovereign force

Evidence

Law has often been thought about and sometimes defined as “the command of the sovereign”. The implication is that the use of legitimated force by the government against its subjects is of the essence of law. Such a view can be made to fit the techniques of positive governmental action so far discussed. Even with these, however, means ought not to be mistaken for essential end. It will have been observed how often the sovereign’s command is merely an instrument for a larger purpose - as the duty to perform contracts, for example, is designed to promote a system of self-determination of the particulars of private activity. Moreover, commands to private people are far from being the only means which the law employs in the control of private activity. The view of law as a system of commands to private persons definitely does not fit the techniques of governmental action to be discussed in this part and the next part. — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process, 826

Categorization

• DEFINE: Challenges the Austin-style ‘command of the sovereign’ definition of law by showing further techniques of governmental action.
• XREF: connects to: Law pursues human satisfaction through many techniques beyond command — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process: Basic Problems in…, 828; A law binds only because sovereign will chose to be bound by it — Wael Hallaq, Restating Orientalism: A Critique of…, 197; Legal obligation differs from mere coercion by threat of force — Ronald M. Dworkin, The Model of Rules, 40 (+1 more)

Broader Connections

• Legal obligation differs from mere coercion by threat of force #corroborates (0.92) — Ronald M. Dworkin, The Model of Rules, 40
• A law binds only because sovereign will chose to be bound by it #qualifies (0.85) — Wael Hallaq, Restating Orientalism, 197