But reconceptualizing them as mere parts of duty imposing rules distorts the way in which these norms function in social life. They are directed at those who are empowered, not on those who are subject to the power they generate.
5. Law as imperative, as a command according to Austin also fails because it neglect the impersonal nature of legal regulations. Legislatures are not reading each piece out to the public on television and they themselves are unaware of them at times. .
6. Imperative theory does not explain the reflexivity of law. If they are commands , then commanders cannot give commands to themselves. So, sovereigns are above laws. But, laws often apply to those who create them. Consitutional regimes are celebrated because the rulers are constrained by law.
7. Customs theory not explained, likes stare decisis.
8. Hart shows three properties that are central to our concept of law that Austin cannot explain:.
a. Continuity of law making power. (Rex II can become a sovereign only after habit of obedience has been formed, which cannot materialize instantaneously). This implies that according to Austin every change in leadership must result in revolution and cannot be juridically seamless. .
b. Persistence of law which cannot be explained by Austin as the laws cannot survive the sovereign for him, or else who will impose the threat.
c. Legal limitability of the sovereign is not explained, especially in case of democracies as there is a limit even to the amendment of the constitution.
Austin fails on these accounts because of a very personal understanding of sovereignty. This is so because he neglects power conferring rules and thus fails to recognize that power passes from one hand to another.
9. HABITS, does not explain a good citizen who think that the sovereign has a legal right to rule. People have habit even when they are not aware to them. So, in reality people defer to the sovereign are guiding their behavior by norms.
