Hart rejects Austin’s theory in two ways firstly, as regards his theory of rules, Hart argues that not all legal rules can be understood as coercive orders, as not all laws establish duties. He sights the example of power-conferring rules which rather than establish duties confer public power on judicial, legislative and administrative officers. And emphasizes that customary law cannot be defined as an order by the sovereign thus refuting Austin’s theory of rules. Secondly, Hart rejects Austin’s theory of sovereignty, by highlighting that when a “sovereign” changes Austin’s theory cannot explain the new sovereign's lawmaking power; If the law …show more content…
Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter introduced into national introduces into international law anything which can be equated with the sanction of municipal law. Which would suggest that International Law would have some applicable sanctions for violation, however as this right can be vetoed it essentially only exists on paper. However Hart suggests that to argue international law is not binding because it lacks organized sanction is to accept the analysis of obligation contained in the theory that law is essentially a matter of orders backed by threats. Thus we need to question if International Law is not enforceable by sanctions why is it still complied