Hart - Concept of Law - Ch 6 (The Rule of Recognition)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 2 июн 2024
- This is a lecture video about chapter 6 of HLA Hart's seminal 1961 book, The Concept of Law. The chapter is titled "The Foundations of a Legal System" and it is mostly concerned with the Rule of Recognition, how such a rule halts the regress of legal validity, and how it is a social rule that comes to exist because enough officials of a legal system accept it from the internal point of view. This lecture is part of a Philosophy of Law course.
I have also made lecture videos about previous chapters of the book (skipping chapter 1 because that chapter is boring and not really important).
Chapter 2: • Hart - Concept of Law ...
Chapter 3: • Hart - Concept of Law ...
Chapter 4: • Hart - Concept of Law ...
Chapter 5: • Hart - Concept of Law ...
I really struggled understanding the Hart's theory of law but after watching the videos from Chapter 2 to 6, I found it very easy.
Thank you! It's work well done!
You really saved me. Law school ordered me to read this but the whole content is kind hard to understand. Even if I read all those chapters, I probably would be feeling lost when it comes to explain everything in front of my class. Thank you so much for that, hugs from Brazil.
I dont mean to be offtopic but does any of you know a way to get back into an Instagram account?
I somehow forgot the login password. I appreciate any tips you can offer me
Thank you for this! This is a super clear introduction to Hart's concept of the rule of recognition. I really look forward to watching the rest of this series.
You're welcome! Here is the playlist of the videos on Hart's The Concept of Law: ruclips.net/p/PL7YPshZMeLIbkhDcwdyhyCFlA6Na9nvn8
I only made videos about those chapters that are most important and interesting.
My god, Doctor Kaplan is the best lecturer I came across, he makes this subject so interesting through his outstanding presentation skills. I am doing an LLB at the University of London and since Professor Kaplan got educated in the UK too, his material is in line with the UK way of teaching jurisprudence. I wish the University of London offered Professor Kaplan's videos to complement its Jurisprudence module.
Giiiirrrrllll. I feel you. I am in south-west africa, and I cannot emphasise how the lecturers don't know what they are talking about. For the first time this whole year, I understand the importance of Hart. Just wow.
"Professionalism at it's best, Thank You Sir".
This is my favorite in this series. You crack me up as well with your manurisms
Thanks so much for all these videos. Amazing content and easy to follow. Look forward to more videos on legal theory:)
We love your work Jeff ..thumbs up.
THANK YOU from a first year mcgill law student! you are an excellent storyteller
I am doing my PhD thesis on legal positivism and your lectures have provided me huge clarity upon these otherwise not easily discernible theories. The way you differentiate a theory of one jurist from another's is a significant factor behind success in hitting the learning outcomes of your lectures. Thank you and please keep doing the good work on jurisprudential studies, people like me have a lot to learn form you.
A new subscriber.😊 You make law school easier!⭐
This is brilliant! I'm in high school and I plan to study law in the future so I dabbled in a few legal books which led me to come across Hart. Initially, I found his ideas confusing but these videos have helped me immensely in understanding what he was talking about. Can't wait to see more from you!
Glad you liked the videos on Hart! I have all the video lectures for the three courses that I have so far taught online here at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro. Check them out in my playlists.
This is fantastic, thank you
I am one of those people who don't get the rules of fashion. It took me a very long time to appreciate that there were such things and by the time this fact got into my head I had become a devout Slob. This saves me a lot of time.
Perhaps the same thing could be said of my attitude to many other social or even legal rules. Hmmm
J.M. Cule, Barbarian and slob, still wearing a white shirt in December.
Good caligraphy and excelent explanation!
Amazing how you teach! I study law and the class we are taught now is legal philosophy. You do such a great job compared to our book. When you explain Hart, it is very easy to follow and understand while when we read our book, it is bascially impossible to conclude the points made. Thanks!
Brilliant!!! Thank you so much! 🤗
Wow You 're very articulate👍👍
So underrated.
Love from Bangladesh. 🌹
Thank you!
Never stop please.
Thanks so much ...very helpful
1;13 I thought that the rule of recognition is under the secondary rules???
Thank you very much Jeffrey to put Hart's Chapter 2 to 6 for law school reading into clear human-can-understand language. I have a question at 8:20 - Is this paragraph equivalent to "there is no further rule" in Chapter 6 an evidence for the question of "Parliamentary Supremacy"?
About 20 years ago I went to an African country to advise on public finance accounting. There was an employment law that required complex calculations of future benefits which was inconvenient from a practical point of view. The strange thing about it was that law had been given effect by a military council after a coup but before democracy was restored. I am confident that the generals had little idea of what was in it as it was purely technical. It was accepted without question by all the officials I dealt with. I always wondered why.
Hey! These videos are amazing, and are really helping me out with my legal theory course. Hart says at the end of chapter 5, "the union of primary and secondary rules is at the centre of a legal system; but it is not the whole, and as we move away from the centre we shall have to accommodate elements of a different character". I was just curious as to what your interpretation of this quote is, as I've found it a tad difficult to understand. Love the videos though, keep it up!
It simply means, in my understanding, that both primary and secondary rules as we've learnt them, brings a legal system together but there are other important elements that make up a legal system as well and once we've achieved an understanding of what are primary and secondary rules, we need to move forward in now understanding the part that those other elements play.
Thank you so much sir, I have an exam this week, your videos helped a lot. Expecting the remaining chapters!
Glad I could help! If you think it might help them, feel free to share these videos with your classmates. I have no idea how this RUclips algorithm works.
Unfortunately, for the course that I am developing at the moment, we are only reading chapters 2 through 6, since those are the most important & interesting chapters of the book. These are also the ones most often read in Jurisprudence or Philosophy of Law courses. If I teach a full course all about The Concept of Law some future semester, then I will make video lectures about all the other chapters.
@@jeffreykaplan1 Thank you Sir. You made it clear. Please do video for remaining chapters too. It will be very helpful.
Jeffrey Kaplan do you have a video on natural law theory vs positivism ??
Thanks!! The King Rex example is helpful...
Glad it was helpful!
Why couldn't you be our lecturer this year!? Thank you!
Hi! Not sure whether you would respond to this but I was wondering how the rule of change worked. So umm from what I got from your vids the rule of change is basically to facilitate the change in primary rules. But does Hart ever go into more detail on this? How do we decide when to change the primary rules? If we say that Parliament changes the primary rules based on what they feel the law ought to be, and so 'what the law ought to be' becomes 'what the law is', then doesn't that make the positivist divide between 'what the law is' and 'what the law ought to be' seem a bit illusory? I could also be mucking this all up with my poor understanding of legal theory anyway haha. Thanks for the really good videos they were super helpful!!
Hart doesn't go into much detail, but we can see what he has in mind. There is a primary rule saying that the speed limit is 65 mph. But suddenly there is a fuel shortage and automotive experts tell us that if everyone drove 55 mph then we would use less fuel. So we need everyone to start driving slower. (This exact thing happened in the 1970s.) How can we change the primary speed limit rule? If we don't have any secondary rules of change, then we just have to convince everyone to change their behavior and attitudes. This could take decades. But if we have a rule of change that says something like "the state traffic council can change speed limits with a majority vote," then the traffic council can vote and change the speed limit to 55mph *instantly*. They do this based on whatever factors convince them that it needs to be done. Perhaps they change the speed limit because they want to make the world a better, safer, happier place. Or perhaps they change the speed limit because they are corrupt and they are being bribed by the auto manufacturers. Either way, they are the ones who can change the rules. This actually *reinforces* the distinction between what the law is and what it ought to be. The law is whatever the traffic council says it is. The law ought to be what is most just, fair, etc. Those are sometimes the same and sometimes different. So we need a distinction.
@@jeffreykaplan1ohhh thank you for the explanation!!
I'm skimming through your Great Videos, just wondering do you have on Harts "Open texture of law"
It plays a big part in my video lecture about some of Dworkin's criticisms of Hart: ruclips.net/video/MfSRaXY4xh8/видео.html
Isn't Hart's thesis that the law ultimately has its ground in the "internal point of view" a non positivist stance? I am trying to wrap my head around what positivism is and in your video on the topic you claim that positivism relies on the separability thesis (which, if I understood it correctly, is the claim that what the law is can be isolated from secondary aspects attached to it like its origin, etc)
Good questions. Positivism the separability thesis is not the claim that law can be separated from its origin or anything like that. Rather, the separability thesis is the claim that *what law is* is a different, separate matter from *what law ought to be*. The two things that are separated are law and morality. So the fact that Hart is a positivist means that he think law consists in social facts and not moral facts. Now the fact that certain officials within a legal system take a special attitude called "the internal point of view", well, that's just a fact about what attitude those people have, it's just a fact about what's going on inside their brains, it's a social fact. Therefore, there is no tension between Hart's appeal to the internal point of view and his legal positivism.
Is this the same "recognition" from when people say "I do not recognise this court" or "...the authority of the court"?
I am so curious as to whether you write backwards when making these videos!!!
You are not the first person to ask this question, so I made an explanation of how it works: ruclips.net/video/6_d44bla_GA/видео.html
Can Rule of recognition be compared to Kelson s GRUNDNORM
isn't the rule of recognition a secondary rule as a solution to the problem of uncertainty in a system that only consists of primary rules? 1:15 you said "One of those primary rules the most important one, the rule of recognition" ?
Quick! Do chapters 8 and 9!
This guy just saved my ass
The Foundations of a Legal System lacks one of the fundamental requirements of a Legal System, that is, punishment.
Yes, authority is captured within the content and context of the discussion. However, I found no evidence of punishment in the discussion as it pertains to foundations. And without punishment, or an undesired outcome, what reason, other than normative agreed behaviour, would the disenfranchised participate, at any level and at any degree?
You did not hit it, kid. You muddled the concept.
Good caligraphy and excelent explanation!