This paper will be an argumentative paper, criticizing Hart's theory of law including his thoughts on the internal aspect of it and their {his thoughts} applications within the legal system that Hart creates. Hart invests a great deal of his theory into explaining the role of law as a form of social control, and why people feel obligated to succumb to or obey as he prefers, these forms of manipulation. Hart questions things such as litigation and judicial discretion among many others and encourages society to do the same. Hart's theory of law has been very influential in the past century and we shall see why in the following analysis. His model and account of the nature of law has resolved many issues in question including accountancy for non-criminal statutes and majority attitude to law or how the populace reacts to laws administered; he explains how a valid rule can exist even is nobody obeys it and distinguishes between normative existence of rule from behavioral descriptions of it. Following this will be a discussion of a secondary treatment of the issue(s); in other words, Hart's theory of Law and the internal aspect of it; the piece in question will be Radbruch's Five Minutes of Legal Philosophy.
Hart has a very complex theory on the nature of law including many facets such as rules, habits and the different types of obedience merited to each. Without summarizing, it would seem that Hart's theory makes certain suggestions on obedience and the authority given to a sovereign. The general theory of legal system foundations is parallel to the doctrine of sovereignty, which states that regardless of type of law present in a society, in other words democracy, monarchy whatever.subjects habitually obey a sovereign who in turn obeys no one. In order to understand this though, it must be clear what term obedience or to obey means and just what exactly fulfilling that act entails.