Hart's concept of law embraces a moderate legal system and rejects any model of law based simply on coercive orders, on the ground that this is derived too exclusively from the criminal pattern of law and is really inapplicable to that large section of a modern legal system which confers publics and private legal powers. The legal positivist argument that sanction is an essential element of any legal system, did not receive Hart's blessing rather he took exception to this position. He points out that to try and extend the notion of a sanction to cover nullity of transaction, as Austin did, is really absurd, for in criminal law the purpose of legal rules conferring power is to provide for the implementation of certain acts-in-the law.
What Hart wants us to know is that the doctrine of legal positivist is out to achieve stability, peace, unity and security within a policy, but according to other legal positivists like Bentham and Austin, the ideal thing about law is command, coercion and sanction. This implies that justice is the will of the strong. Might is right, more or less.
Although as a legal positivist, Hart rejected the views of Austin and Bentham, on the ground that if law is to be seen as a command it will not be much different from the threat of a gunman's threat is to an individual where that of a law is more general and directed to public. To take law as a command of a criminal as law. If we take this as true Hart warns that the peace and social habits of the society would be threatened.
Hart also criticized Austin and Bentham's sources of law. Hart debunked their idea of a legislator being somebody habitually obeyed. He argued that it is wrong to think of a legislature, with a changing membership as a group of persons habitually obeyed. In actual sense, Hart sees legislators as group of people with changing membership and as a result it is incorrect to say that they are habitually obeyed.
Hart's concept of law distances itself from the shackles of commands, sanctions, threats and punishment. A penal statute declaring certain conduct to be an offence and specifying the punishment to which the offender is liable, may appear to be the gunman situation writ large; and the only difference to be the relatively minor one, that in the case of statutes, the order are addressed generally to a group, which customarily obeys such orders. We must mention here that Hart's concept of law recognizes the affinity of law with morality. While other legal positivists insist on separating law from morality, Hart insist that law and morality cannot be separated.
Moreso, it is evident to note that Hart's concept of law consistently maintained that the most prominent general feature of law at all times and places is that its existence means that certain kinds of human conducts are no longer optional, but in some sense obligations. For Hart, moral rules are actually responsible for imposing obligations and withdrawing certain areas of conduct from the free option of the individual to do as he likes. The same thing is applicable to legal system, which obviously contains elements closely connected with the simple cases of orders backed by threats. So, equally obviously it contains elements closely connected with certain aspects of morality. What we must know concerning Hart's concept of law is that he did not strictly go the way of other legal positivists. His intention is to install sanity and tolerance in our legal system. For him law and legal obligation do not differ and it is his belief that our acceptance of law and moral rules as one will in no small way restore confidence in our legal system.
Against the background that law and morality share the same boundary, Hart say; not only do law and morals share a vocabulary so that there are both legal moral obligations, duties, and rights; but all municipal legal systems reproduce the substance of certain fundamental moral requirements. Killing and the wanton use of violence are only the most obvious examples of the coincidence between the prohibition of law and morals. This means that issues found in law also involves issue of morality. Justice for example unites both law and morality. It entails that we do good and avoid evil and when we do this it is virtue and very righteous.
These facts suggest the view that law is best understood as a "branch" of morality or justice and that its congruence with the principles of morality or justice rather than it incorporation of order and threats is of its “essence”. What Hart want us to believe is that the essence of law is not what the legal positivists is advocating in terms of command of sovereign. If we take law as nothing but command backed by sanction, or something that has no connection with morality; automatically such laws will lead to certain normalities. It will also not be able to recognize certain aspects of law, which are themselves law. Such as power Conferring laws, International law, Natural law, customary law and Constitutional law. It will be improper to accept law only as a command by a sovereign backed by a threat of force.
