Abstract

Much of contemporary British legal theory has its roots in the tradition of philosophical empiricism—the philosophical position that no theory or opinion can be accepted as valid unless verified by the test of experience. In this context normativity, both in law and morals, is understood and explained in terms of social practices observable in the world. The nineteenth-century jurist John Austin, for example, defined law in terms of a command supported by a sanction and as presupposing the habitual obedience of the bulk of a community to the commands of a sovereign himself not habitually obedient to anyone else. Similarly, Hart's conception of legal obligation, although somewhat more complex, derived from the observation of people's actual practices analyzed in terms of "the internal point of view" crucial to their comprehension of and participation to these practices. It is within this framework that we must consider the distinction between is and ought as used by British positivist theories and which is so essential to positivist jurisprudence. In this respect a chief difference between the British and the Continental traditions in legal theory prevails. This paper aims to re-examine some main themes of contemporary jurisprudence and explore the extent to which contemporary theorists, both British and Continental, have succeeded in developing a theory of law that would create a workable marriage between the two traditions