Fire 070 1 Liu Jiawen

Personally, I think it is necessary to read the Concept of Law intensively for the following reasons: Hart's Concept of Law is one of several classic works that cannot be avoided in studying jurisprudence, and the importance of analysis and argumentation for our legal research is increasingly apparent. Both semantic form and logical argument have the function of purifying some rough theories. In addition to the above objective factors, the change of personal taste also drives me to turn my eyes from the original "fighting for rights" to some rational, calm and wise literature.

In the process of reading academic books, the biggest test is uninterrupted interest. Looking down is feasible, but the pain and depression also increase geometrically. I have no determination to finish reading this important book along this process, and I don't think it can be treated like this. So, I began to try to read in a way that interests me, which requires not only "knowing what it is" but also "knowing why". It is boring to know Hart's basic ideas. This means that the information you need is selected from the text, and the summary of predecessors is inevitably applied in the process of screening, thus losing your reading independence and the conclusion will be superficial and one-sided. "Why" is aimed at: Why did this person put forward such an idea at that time and place, and even finished such a book? In this process, I don't have to focus only on the text "The Concept of Law", because the background of this book is undoubtedly broader, which means some exploration or thinking about unknown information. This process driven by curiosity deeply attracted me, and my interest arose.

It is inevitable that some people will ask what "knowing it" means. This is the attitude of the century to the text. What does this text provide? Some people might say knowledge. I think this is an absolute view. Does writing at least provide information? Is the word knowledge a cold and positive value judgment? Otherwise, without historical interpretation, the so-called "knowledge" may just be dismembered and pieced together information. Taking the concept of law as an example, most people will think that this book is about: Hart put forward the "rule theory" on the basis of criticizing Austin's "legal imperative theory", that is, domestic law is a normative "evolution" feeling composed of primary rules and secondary rules; Hart's view is more perfect than Austin's. This way of reading text is static and passive. On the premise that time and energy are limited, this method is reasonable. But if it is a text of great value to itself and even to the study of a certain subject, this method is debatable. In this way, the information of the text is extracted by us and a certain understanding is formed. The process of extraction virtually endows knowledge with vitality, which "seems to be opening up its own history and world far away from life practice". When we discuss this knowledge in the future, "we often start directly from the abstract general theory, instead of returning the theory to reality, it is getting farther and farther away from life." Without the historical environment of the text itself and the author's feelings, we get rigid information, while giving complete knowledge is superficial and comprehensive, even if we can recite it backwards. Words are not materialized writing paper, but the carrier of thought transmission. Although thought transcends the times, it can't get rid of the brand of the times and the country.

There is a central image that pays attention to logic and system in general analytical law works, or many viewpoints are extended to form a system, or although they are not core viewpoints, they run through the whole text. In The Concept of Law, Hart wants to tell us the importance of obedience.

Britain, a welfare state, is entering a new rising period. Hart's theory virtually reflects the prosperous social view: "In Hart's legal concept, people can almost smell the post-war English countryside. Cricket, home run, obedience ... This reflects a country that is basically at peace, class conflict has been institutionalized, and it has become a legal and rule-bound struggle for the activities of political parties and industry associations. The emerging welfare state provides pensions, education and medical security for all; This country is full of confidence in the value of its system and the discretion exercised by officials, and full of expectations for the future: full employment and the continued success of sports teams. The main social problem seems to be to determine the exact function of everything and analyze the position of special parts in the whole society, as if in a huge progressive machine. Of course, there are also some problems ... the neutral semantic analysis style does not cover up the revelation of his inner ideal of a country ruled by law. It is true that Hart's articles rarely talk about war and chaos, and all the images in the articles are pacifist obedience under the cover of descriptive words. But "sociologists want to know why everyone is so obedient. "Why do they all seem to obey the rules?" But Hart seems to have nothing to worry about: he simply sets the behavior of obeying the rules. Or, perhaps more justly, he succeeded in establishing social customs. In this way, we can appreciate the difference between Austin and Hart. The former always exposes the mandatory side after the law to readers, and finally gives the legitimacy of the existence of the law; The latter skipped this step, taking it for granted that this is a necessary view that can be explained from an internal point of view, and obedience is self-evident. If obedience is emphasized, Hart goes further than Austin. When a person takes something for granted, it shows that he has a deep belief that this "course" will be understood by others. Hart's ideal of a country ruled by law is inadvertently presented to us. It is neither an "ideal paradise" of legal formalism nor a "nightmare" of legal realism. His obedience intention reflects some characteristics of British society at that time, and at the same time enlarges his optimism: a world ruled by rules no longer needs to forcibly join the sovereign, nor does it need to emphasize the deterrent effect of modern society!