Comparative Law Review

Comparative Law Review

Command Theory, From Description To Distortion

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors
Mohammad Amir Khabbazzadeh 1
Mohsen Borhani 2
1 Ph. D student, Faculty of Law and Political Sciences, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
2 Assistant Prof. Penal Law and Criminology. Department of Penal Law and Criminology, Faculty of law and Political Sciences, University of Tehran, Tehran
10.22059/jcl.2025.393303.634749
Abstract
Analytic jurisprudence was born with Austin's command theory and was later reinvigorated by Hart's rejection of it. The certainty of Hart's objections became one of the few axioms in the field. Although accepting this requires a study of Austin's legal theory, it is striking that the command theory is understood through The Concept of Law. This article examines whether the command theory is described or distorted in Hart's seminal work. Austin defines law as a sovereignty‑oriented concept and, to deepen this view, attempts to explain certain non‑legal concepts. Hart does not distinguish these from the basic concepts; hence, instead of focusing on the "command theory," he emphasizes the "concept of command" and projects its shortcomings onto the theory as a whole. Hart has distorted the command theory in the guise of description. This distortion has deeply affected analytical jurisprudence. This article has been prepared using an analytical–descriptive method.
Keywords
Analytical Jurisprudence
Command Theory
Hart-Austin Debates
Legal Theories
Subjects

  1. A( Books

    1. Austin, John. (n.d.). The province of Jurisprudence Determined. (H. L. Hart, Researcher). Noonday Press.
    2. Dworkin, Ronald. (1977). Taking Rights Seriously. Harvard University Press.
    3. Dworkin, Ronald. (1986). Law’s Empire. Harvard University Press.
    4. Finnis, John. (2004). Natural Law: The Classical Tradition. In The Oxford Handbook of JURISPRUDENCE and Philosophy of Law. Oxford University Press.
    5. HART, H. L. A. (2012). The Concept of Law. Oxford University Press.
    6. Kelsen, Hans. (2008). Pure Theory of Law. The Law Book Exchange.
    7. Kramer, Matthew. (2018). h.l.a HART The Nature of Law. Polity.
    8. Raz, Joseph. (2003). The Concept of Legal System. United States, New York: Oxford University Press.
    9. Rumble, Wilfrid E. (2005). Doing Austin Justice (the reception of John Austin philosophy of law in nineteenth-century England). continuum.
    10. Shapiro, Scott J. (2011). Legality. Harvard University Press.

     

    1. B) Articles
    2. Bix, Brian H. (2009). John Austin and Constructing Theories of Law. In The legacy of John Austin’s Jurisprudence. Springer. 10.1017/S0841820900005257
    3. Duxbury, Neil. (2005). English jurisprudence between Austin and Hart. Virginia Law Review, 91.
    4. Schauer, Frederick. (2009). Was Austin right after all? on the role of sanction in the theory of law. Presented at the GALA, university of California, Berkeley. 10.1111/j.1467-9337.2009.00441
Comparative Law Review
Volume 17, Issue 1 - Serial Number 33
Spring & Summer 2026
August 2026
Pages 75-93