English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

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.

SOURCES OF DOUBT, SOURCES OF DUTY: HLA HART ON INTERNATIONAL LAW