ABSTRACT

Ronald Dworkin, H. L. A. Hart's successor at Oxford, has stressed that a 'general theory of law' relies on many branches of philosophy and must 'constantly take up one or another disputed position on problems of philosophy that are not distinctly legal', but he shows no sign of believing that social theory has much to contribute. As Hart explains in a footnote, there is great need for a discrimination of the varieties of imperatives by reference to contextual social situations. One merely needs to reflect on the sociological insights which abound in Hart's discussion of the differences between 'being obliged' and 'having an obligation' or between habits and social rules. For anyone interested in examining social behaviour, the points Hart makes in these passages are of obvious and great importance. For a theorist concerned to understand law and rules as means of social control, Hart is surprisingly uncurious about alternatives to law or rules.