Скачать или смотреть HLA Hart: Concept of Law | Chapter 4

Hart criticizes the OBT (Orders Backed by Threats) theory for portraying legal sovereignty as brute force. He argues this view cannot address the issue of sovereignty’s continuity because it disregards the importance of rules. Hart distinguishes between a habit of obedience, which reflects repeated behaviors, and rule-following, which incorporates standards for evaluating conduct.

He challenges Austin’s notion of sovereignty as a "person or group of persons" whose authority relies on habitual obedience. According to Hart, this approach struggles with transitions of sovereignty. For instance, when a new sovereign assumes power, there would be a period of uncertainty or interregnum while awaiting the establishment of obedience habits. However, if sovereignty is understood through rule-following rather than habitual obedience, it becomes possible to recognize a "right to sovereignty." This allows a successor, like "Rex II," to inherit sovereignty through established rules rather than waiting for behavioral patterns to develop.

Hart emphasizes that modern legal systems define sovereignty through rules, framing it as a rule-based institution rather than as a specific individual or group. In systems like the United Kingdom, sovereignty is embodied in the "Crown-in-Parliament," which represents a set of legal and institutional rules, much like a corporation that exists independently of any specific members. Consequently, the OBT model fails to account for the corporate nature of legal sovereignty, where authority arises from institutional rules rather than a determinate group of people.