Jurisprudence Showdown: Which one is correct?
jurisprudence general advanced mcq_debateSo me and my friend, Amit, we're like two peas in a pod when it comes to Juris. But yesterday, we got into a heated debate on this MCQ from our old paper. Question is: Which of the following best represents the essence of John Austin's Sovereign Theory? "A sovereign is a person or body who is recognized in the society as a ruler". B) "A sovereign is a person or body who exercises supreme authority over a territory". C) Both A and B. D) None of the above.
Amit says C, and I'm like, "No way, it's D". My thinking is Austin's theory is more about the will of the sovereign, not just about exercising authority or being a ruler. So I'm right, but Amit thinks otherwise. Now, community, tell us who's the sovereign here?
3 Comments
Dude, I'm totally with you that Black's view that law is the command of a sovereign power is outdated. But, Austin's view isn't entirely wrong. Think about it, if laws aren't passed by a legitimate authority, can they even be considered laws? I think it's more about the legitimacy and the ability to enforce, not just the source. What say you?
Bhai, yeh discussion bahut interesting hai, but yeh assumption ki jurisprudence ek showdown hai, sahi nahi hai. Ismein theory aur practices ka comparison hai. Jurisprudence karna yeh decide karna hai ki kya kanoon theek se karte hain ya nahin. So, correct ya incorrect, yeh decide karna hai ki kanoon theek se kaam kar rahe hain ya nahin.
Main toh bolunga, jurisprudence mein Kelsen ka theory sahi hai. Unka Pure Theory of Law, woh hai ki law apne ap mein aata hai, aur koi bhi court ya judiciary usse badle nahin sakata. Ismein social, political, economic factors ka koi role nahin hai. Lekin, mein feel karta hoon ki kritik aapke saath hain, aur Austin ka theory bhi kuch extent mein accurate hai.