Legal Theory Lexicon

Legal Theory Lexicon 039: Primary and Secondary Rules

Introduction Most law students begin to notice that there is a fundamental difference between the kinds of legal rules that come up in torts & criminal law, on the one hand, and the sorts of legal rules that arise in contracts, on the other. The rules of criminal law seem to define standards of conduct; they are about what you can and cannot do, or more precisely, rules that forbid certain conduct and then attach punishments for disobedience. The rules of contract law are different. It's true that contract remedies do provide sanctions (or prices) for breaking contracts, but much of contract law is about making contracts, that is about how to make new law. In criminal law (and torts), the state makes up the rules of conduct. In contract law, the contracting parties are empowered to create their own rules of conduct.

Once you've seen this distinction, you might then become interested in what legal theorists have to say about it. One of the most important views of this distinction was advanced by the great legal philosopher H.L.A. Hart, who classified the rules of tort and criminal law as "primary rules," and the rules of contract law as "secondary rules." This post is an introduction to the Hart's distinction between primary and secondary rules. As always, the Legal Theory Lexicon is aimed at law students, especially first-year law students, with an interest in legal theory.

The Distinction Between Primary and Secondary Rules Hart's basic idea is quite simple. Primary rules are rules of conduct; they tell you what your are legally obligated to do (or refrain from) and what consequences attach to obedience or disobedience. Thus, the criminal law rules that prohibit theft, forbid certain conduct and provide for penalties for violating the prohibition. Technically, the class of secondary rules includes everything except primary rules. For example, secondary rules are legal rules that allow for the creation, extinction, and alteration of secondary rules; secondary rules are power-conferring rules. Thus, contract law empowers individuals and firms to make contracts; contracts themselves are usually collections of primary rules.

More precisely, primary rules are rules that govern primary conduct, and secondary rules are rules that govern primary or secondary rules. Thus, the distinction between primary and secondary rules is just a bit different than the difference between duty-imposing and power-conferring rules: duty-imposing rules impose duties, whereas power-conferring rules confer power. This leaves open the possibility that some rules can regulate other rules, but do so by imposing duties. For example, a secondary rule might impose a duty to legislate in a certain way or a prohibition on certain kinds of rule creation.

Some more examples may help:

Examples of Primary Rules

• Criminal prohibitions.
• Tort rules.
• The individual right to freedom of speech.
• The provisions of contracts that define the primary obligations of the parties.
• The environmental law rule that forbids discharge of toxic substances in rivers and streams.

Examples of Secondary Rules

• Contract law rules that enable parties to form contracts.
• The rules that allow testators to create a will.
• The constitutional rules that confer legislative powers on Congress.
• The statute that authorizes the Supreme Court to promulgate rules of practice and procedure for the federal courts.

The Practical Importance of Secondary Rules One of the really nifty things about Hart's introduction of the distinction between primary and secondary rules was his account as to why secondary rules are important. We can certainly imagine a system in which there were primary rules, but no secondary rules. This would be a system of customary law. Certain actions would be required; others would be taboo. But there would be no mechanism by which the set of obligations could be changed. Of course, customary law need not be completely static. It is is possible that customs might gradually change over time, but this process would require a change in social norms. It could not be legislated. Secondary rules enable relatively more rapid legal change at a lower cost. Moreover, secondary rules enable individuals to create customized primary rules that govern their private relationships or privately owned resources.

Conclusion The distinction between primary rules of conduct and other, secondary rules is a crucial member of the legal theorist's toolbox. My own experience has been that I use this distinction to understand legal problems and arguments, but that it rarely plays a direct role in my own work. Primary and secondary rules are everywhere, and you need to understand the differenced between them, but you don't necessarily need to use the distinction when you construct normative legal arguments.

One more thing. The place to go for a really thorough understanding of the distinction between primary and secondary rules is H.L.A. Hart's magnificent book, The Concept of Law--in my opinion, the most important work of legal theory in the twentieth century.

Links & Resources

K.K. Lee, Hart's Primary and Secondary Rules, 78 Mind 561 (1968) (link is to JSTOR, which may require an account or fee).

D. Gerber, Levels of Rules and Hart's Concept of Law, 81 Mind 102 (1972) (link is to JSTOR, which may require an account or fee).

(This entry was last revised on June 3, 2007.)

Legal Theory Lexicon 038: The Internal Point of View

Introduction How can we look at a legal system? H.L.A. Hart famously deployed the distinction between external and internal perspectives on a legal system in his famous book, The Concept of Law. This post provides a very brief introduction to this distinction for law students (especially first-year law students) with an interest in legal theory.

Internal and External What is the difference between internal and external perspectives on the law? Obviously, we are dealing with a metaphor here. The idea is that one can look at the law from the inside or from the outside. Even if you have never encountered this distinction before, the intuitive idea is fairly clear. The internal point of view is the perspective of participants in the system. Thus, the internal point of view is paradigmatically the point of view of legal officials (such a judges). The external point of view is the perspective of outsiders. Thus, the external point of view is paradigmatically the point of view of a sociologist or anthropologist from a different culture, who observes the legal system.

Here are some examples:

--Doctrinal theories (e.g. a theory of the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution) are usually stated from the internal point of view. This is the kind of theory that law students usually encounter early in their legal education.
--Causal theories (e.g. a public-choice theory that explains why a particular area of law has come to be the way it is) are usually stated from the external point of view. In first-year law school courses, causal theories are usually stated in a very compact, even off-hand form. There may be a brief classroom discussion of the causal forces that shaped a particular legal doctrine, but it is fairly rare actually to read social science literature on topics like this.

The General Significance of the Internal Point of View The idea of the internal point of view plays a particular role in H.L.A. Hart's theory of law, but this post is about a related but distinct topic--the more general role that the internal/external distinction plays in legal theory. Newbie legal theorists need to know this distinction in order to avoid a very serious mistake in theory development. That mistake is to slide between the internal and external point of view. This mistake is actually quite easy to make. The theorist is working within the internal point of view--describing a particular legal doctrine from the point of view of lawyers and judges who work within the constraints of the doctrine. Then, the theorist slides into an explanation as to how the law came to be the way it is--describing the operation of political or economic pressures--and then slides back to the doctrinal level--drawing the conclusion that the law should be interpreted differently in light of the causal explanation. Arguments like this can be made to work, but unless the relationship between the causal explanation and the doctrinal consequence is explained carefully, this kind of move can easily involve a category mistake. Causal explanations (of how the law has come to be the way it is) are usually irrelevant from the internal point of view.

Rules and the Internal Point of View The internal point of view may have additional significance to legal theorists. One can argue that legal rules cannot be described from a purely external point of view. Huh? Imagine that you are an anthropologist from Mars, observing an earthly legal system. You would be able to note various regularities in behavior, but so long as you stuck to the purely external point of view, you would not be able to say anything about the content of the laws. In order to do that, you would need to ask the question "What is the meaning of the these legal texts and actions?" And to say anything about meaning, you would need to assume (at least hypothetically) something like the internal point of view. You would need to ask the question, "What does these behaviors are markings mean to those who are inside the practice of law?"

If this argument is correct, then important consequences follow. Legal theorists are interested in legal theory. If the internal point of view is a necessary prerequisite for understanding the legal significance of the behavior of legal actors, then it would seem to follow that all legal theory requires that the theorist be able to assume the internal point of view at the stage where the theorist describes the legal phenomenon that are the object of study.

Let me give an example of this rather abstract point. Suppose you want to develop a causal theory of tort law. You want to argue that there is an economic explanation of the emergence of negligence (as opposed to strict liability) as the primary standard of care in tort. The details of the theory don't matter, but let's assume you believe that inefficient legal standards create incentives for litigation and that a quasi-evolutionary process leads to the selection of efficient standards. And of course, you would need to argue that negligence is efficient. This theory is primarily stated from the external point of view, but it also relies on the legal meaning of the distinction between "negligence" and "strict liability"--concepts that can only be understood from the legal point of view.

The central idea here is that the external point of view can describe the behavior of legal actors, but the internal point of view is required to understand the meaning of legal actions.

Conclusion The distinction between the internal and external point of views is one of the basic ideas in legal theory. When you first begin to construct theories about the law, you should ask yourself, "Am I looking at this area of the law from the internal point of view or am I taking a perspective that is external to the law?" For more on theory construction, you might also want to look at an earlier post in the Legal Theory Lexicon series: Legal Theory Lexicon 016: Positive and Normative Legal Theories,

Bibliography

Dennis Patterson, Explicating the Internal Point of View (Southern Methodist University Law Review, Vol. 52, 2006).

Scott Shapiro, What is the Internal Point of View?

(This entry was last revised on May 27, 2007.)