Ansis Reyhan Victor V. Pornillos 2006-81656 Chapter Two: Laws, Commands & Orders I.

Varieties of Imperatives

Atty. Jose C. Laureta Legal Theory

n Austin!s the Province of Jurisprudence" he atte#$te% to analy&e the conce$t o' la( in ter#s o' the a$$arently si#$le ele#ents o' co##an%s an% ha)its. n #any %i''erent situations in social li'e one $erson #ay e*$ress a (ish that another $erson shoul% %o or a)stain 'ro# %oing so#ething. t is custo#ary in +nglish an% #any other languages" though unnecessary" to use a s$ecial linguistic 'or# calle% the imperative mood. The i#$erati,e #oo% can )e %istinguishe% as either a re-uest such as .Pass the salt $lease! or a $lea such as ./o not 0ill #e! or #ay)e a (arning such as ./on!t #o,e.! The #ost i#$ortant situation ho(e,er is one to (hich the (or% .i#$erati,e! see#s es$ecially a$$ro$riate. t is illustrate% )y the case o' a gun#an (ho says to the )an0 cler0 .1an% o,er the #oney or nor#al #an (oul% regar% as har#'ul or un$leasant. 2e shall use the e*$ressions 3or%ers )ac0e% )y threats4 an% 3coerci,e or%ers4 to re'er to or%ers (hich are su$$orte% only )y threats. 2e shall use the (or%s 3o)e%ience4 an% 3o)ey4 to inclu%e co#$liance (ith such or%ers. Austin!s %e'inition o' the notion o' co##an%" that the si#$le situation (here threats o' har# an% nothing else is use% to 'orce o)e%ience" is not the situation (here (e naturally s$ea0 o' co##an%s. 5ore i#$ortant is the $oint that it nee% not )e the case" (here a co##an% is gi,en" that there shoul% )e a latent threat o' har# in the e,ent o' %iso)e%ience. To co##an% is characteristically to e*ercise authority o,er #en 'or co##an% acco#$anie% )y threats o' har# is $ri#arily an a$$eal not to 'ear )ut to res$ect 'or authority. Thus command" in the general sense an% as a$$lie% to the e*$lanation o' (hat is la(" it is %i''icult to se$arate co##an% (ith 3res$ect 'or authority4 an% 3or%ers )ac0e% )y threat o' $unish#ent or har#4. II. Law as coercive orders (ill shoot.! ts %istincti,e 'eature is that to secure co#$liance" the s$ea0er threatens to %o so#ething (hich a

The standard 'or# o' a cri#inal statute" (hich o' all the ,arieties o' la( has the closest rese#)lance to an or%er )ac0e% )y threats" is general in t(o (ays. 6ne" it in%icates a general ty$e o' con%uct an% a$$lies to a general class o' $ersons (ho are e*$ecte% to see that it a$$lies to the# an% to co#$ly (ith it. T(o" i' the $ri#ary general %irections are not o)eye% )y a $articular in%i,i%ual" o''icials #ay %ra( his attention to the# an% %e#an% co#$liance" or the %iso)e%ience #ay )e o''icially i%enti'ie% an% recor%e% an% the $unish#ent i#$ose%. Legal control is there'ore control )y %irections (hich are in %ou)le sense general. The range o' $ersons a''ecte% an% the #anner in (hich the range is in%icate% #ay ,ary (ith %i''erent legal syste#s an% e,en %i''erent la(s. n all cases the range o' a$$lication o' a la( is a -uestion o' inter$retation o' the $articular la( ai%e% )y such general un%erstan%ings. 6r%ering $eo$le to %o things is a 'or# o' co##unication an% %oes entail actually 3a%%ressing4 the#" attracting their attention or ta0ing ste$s to attract it" )ut #a0ing la(s 'or $eo$le %oes not. t #ay in%ee% )e %esira)le that la(s shoul% as soon as #ay )e a'ter they are #a%e" )e )rought to the attention o' those to (ho# they a$$ly. 7ut la(s #ay )e co#$lete as la(s )e'ore this is %one" an% e,en i' it is not %one at all. La(s are ,ali%ly #a%e e,en those a''ecte% are le't to 'in% out 'or the#sel,es (hat la(s ha,e )een #a%e an% (ho are a''ecte% there)y. There is a general )elie' on the $art o' those to (ho# the general or%ers a$$ly that %iso)e%ience is li0ely to )e 'ollo(e% )y the e*ecution o' the threat not only on the 'irst $ro#ulgation o' the or%er" )ut continuously until the or%er is (ith%ra(n or cancelle%. 2e #ust su$$ose that" (hate,er the #oti,e" #ost o' the or%ers are #ore o'ten o)eye% than %iso)eye% )y #ost o' those a''ecte%. Austin calls this 8a general ha)it o' o)e%ience.8 This is %i''erent )et(een a #ere te#$orary ascen%ancy o' one $erson o,er another 9as the case o' a gun#an or%ering a )an0 cler0: an% the la(" in general. The notion o' general ha)itual o)e%ience to general or%ers )ac0e% )y threats is really enough to re$ro%uce the settle% character o' continuity (hich legal syste#s $ossess. The conce$t o' general or%ers )ac0e% )y threats gi,en )y one generally o)eye%" (hich (e ha,e constructe% )y successi,e a%%itions to the si#$le situation o' the gun#an case" $lainly a$$ro*i#ates closer to a $enal statute enacte% )y the legislature o' a #o%ern state than to any other ,ariety o' la(. The legal syste# o' a #o%ern state is characteri&e% )y a certain 0in% o'

supremacy (ithin its territory an% independence o' other syste#s. 2e call such a su$re#e an% in%e$en%ent $erson the sovereign" the la(s o' any country (ill )e the general or%ers )ac0e% )y threats (hich are issue% either )y the so,ereign or su)or%inates in o)e%ience to the so,ereign. Thus to constitute a 8legal syste#"8 it is i#$ortant that there are so#e $ersons or )o%y o' $ersons issuing general or%ers )ac0e% )y threats (hich generally o)eye%" an% it #ust )e generally )elie,e% that these threats are likely to be implemented in the event of disobedience . This $erson or )o%y #ust internally supreme and externally independent. '" 'ollo(ing Austin" (e call such a su$re#e an% in%e$en%ent $erson or )o%y o' $ersons 8the so,ereign"8 the la(s o' any country (ill )e the general or%ers )ac0e% )y threats (hich are issue% either )y the so,ereign or su)or%inates in obedience to the sovereign.