Rule of Recognition and Legal Official’s Duty -- A Reanalysis based-on the Hart-Fuller Debate

Authors

  • Yanbo Zhou

Keywords:

Hart-Fuller Debate; Rule of Recognition; Legal Validity; Legal Officials.

Abstract

This paper is a reanalysis of the Hart-Fuller debate based on the Grudger Informer case, which discusses whether the German court should incorporate morality in determining the validity of laws. Hart proposes that the rule of recognition, customarily practiced by legal officials, is the test of legal validity. Law and morality are therefore not necessarily connected because legal officials have duty to obey the law, represented in the rule of recognition. Fuller claims that law and morality are connected given the fact that extremely unjust laws lose their validity. This paper argues instead that extremely unjust laws cannot be valid still fit in the rule of recognition as the test itself is limited due to political constraint. This is an implication of Hart’s theory that is not directly claimed by Hart.

References

Hart, M. The Concept of Law. Oxford Press, 2012, p. 94, 101-104, 267-269.

Harvard Law Review, 1951, p. 1005.

The Human Rights Watch, 2022, https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/08/22/singapore-decriminalize-gay-sex.

Downloads

Published

07-11-2022

How to Cite

Zhou, Y. (2022). Rule of Recognition and Legal Official’s Duty -- A Reanalysis based-on the Hart-Fuller Debate. BCP Education & Psychology, 7, 46–52. Retrieved from http://bcpublication.org/index.php/EP/article/view/2606