On Coleman’s view, there is nothing in Hart’s evaluation of social guidelines that precludes such borderline disagreements about whether or not a practice is in keeping with the Fifth Amendment. The semantic sting resembles considered one of Dworkin’s earlier criticisms of Hart’s pedigree thesis. Hart believes that the rule of recognition is a social rule and is therefore constituted by the conforming habits of people that additionally settle for the rule as a ground for criticizing deviations. Like all social rules, then, the rule of recognition has an external and inner aspect. The external side of the rule of recognition consists normally obedience to those guidelines satisfying its criteria of validity; the inner facet is constituted by its acceptance as a public standard of official behavior.
Hart believes it’s this double side of the rule of recognition that accounts for its normativity and permits him to tell apart his principle from Austin’s view of law as a system of coercive instructions. For, as Hart points out, a purely coercive command can oblige, however by no means obligate, an individual to conform (see Section I, supra). If attorneys disagree concerning the criteria of legal validity, then the grounds of authorized validity … Read More