In many ways HLA Hart’s critical analysis of the concept of law, with its repudiation of simple command theories of legal obligation, is at the same time a critique of the notion of state sovereignty. It is therefore an adumbration, if no more, of a radical reconceptualisation of international law, one which redefines the distinction between municipal and in-ternational jurisdiction. This paper is an exploration of what Hart could or ‘should’ have said about international law, based as much as possible on what he did say about international law and law in general. After some introductory comments it outlines Hart’s general analysis of law, with particular reference to the relevance for our understanding of international law.
Every reasonable effort has been made to ensure that permission has been obtained for items included in DRO. If you believe that your rights have been infringed by this repository, please contact firstname.lastname@example.org.