On Hart's Point Of Internal View

"Internal point of view" is one of the core concepts of the book on the of Hart's "the concept of law". He made this concept for three purposes: first, he illustrated that Austin's theory of obedience had a defect which the authority of the sovereign did not have continuous, and found a secret that rules is different from the customary rules - the internal aspect of rules. Second, people, especially officials must hold the internal point of view in order to make the modern system of rules develop normally. And third, Hart made use of"internal point of view"to refute prediction theory of the reality school of law, and determined to defend legal positivism. By combing Hart how to discuss "internal point of view" in this book, I found that "internal point of view" can be understood from three aspects: the first level, the "internal point of view" is expressed as rules of "internal aspect ", and only rules with the" internal aspects "are called the rule of law. The second level,it could be interpret as the " obligation ".People take self-restraint by the rules, therefore, participants who recognize that kinds of rules and consciously apply them held the attitude known as "internal point of view". The third level, the statement which people who hold this view have to accept the rules of the recognition which have effectiveness of the fact to instruct their behaviors,is called "internal statement".The external point of view is not accepted in the rules held by the point of view. Scholars interprets "internal point of view" in different ways at home and aboard. Shapiro had a supplement for Hart's "internal point of view", and put forward to "practice" attitude which is the attitude of holders of internal point of view. Perry is opposed to use Hart's implausible semantic analysis of normative statements. He desires to discard these normative constraints and hold a certain belief, which could be either true or false, about the legitimacy of law. McCormick and Raz thought that the boundary between Hart's "internal point of view "and" external point of view "was blurred. So they did its further division, detailed the" Trichotomy "and" Quartering ".Rettleuthner beyond the internal and external point of view, and tried to digestion the boundary between "internal point of view" and "external point of view". There are other scholars, such as Nancy, Wendell; they explained the "internal point of view"in order to serve their own text. And domestic scholars stay at introducing Hair's the internal point of view. For more in-depth understanding of Hart's internal point of view, I compared the problems ,which Hart and Wittgenstein want to involve ,and found both common ground that Wittgenstein pulled the philosophy back to social life from the sky by the "the game of language", so that the philosophy can describe phenomenon of language in daily life. People can realize the meaning of the philosophy through participation in games of language. Meanwhile, people can present the value of the philosophy by describing language games without needing to explain and illustrate. Hart accepted Wittgenstein's idea, thought the rules of the law as discarded methods that other jurists defined the "law" as certain standard, the rule of law as a "game". In the game of the law, Hart emphasized that the officials hold the internal point of view, in order to have effect on citizens holding this view. Thus the continuity of the authority was solved and "internal point of view" was to given to the legal discourse. Then, he was based on their it to construct legal language expression of their own, which was implanted the daily life, in order to enhance people's understanding of legal phenomena through the "description" . However, Hart still can not use the logical structure of the system of legal rules to certify the issue of authority and therefore he had to find the rule of recognition which had sides, the law and the facts. Nevertheless, efforts, which Hart tried to use "internal point of view" to guide us to understand the legal issues and resolve to defend legal positivism, deserve our recognition.