1. What is the province of jurisprudence for Austin?

How did he distinguish the

province of jurisprudence from those others related to it?

The province of jurisprudence for Austin is the science of positive law1. He defined positive law as a rule
laid down for the guidance of an intelligent being by an intelligent being having power over
him1. He distinguished the province of jurisprudence from those others related to it, such as morality,
religion, and natural law, by arguing that positive law is independent of them and should be
studied empirically rather than normatively12. He also claimed that the sovereign, who is the source of
positive law, could not be legally limited by any other law, but only by popular opinion.

2. What are the two classes of human laws? Which among the two classes of laws is the
province of jurisprudence?

According to Austin, human laws are laws set by men for men1. He divided human laws into two
classes: positive law and positive morality2. Positive law is the law that is laid down by a
sovereign or a political superior, or by someone acting under their authority. Positive morality is
the law that is not laid down by a sovereign or a political superior, but by other persons or
bodies, such as custom, religion, or international law2.
Austin claimed that the province of jurisprudence is only concerned with positive law, and not
with positive morality2. He argued that positive law is the proper subject of legal science,
because it can be studied empirically and analytically, without reference to moral or religious
values. Positive morality, on the other hand, is not a matter of fact, but of opinion or sentiment,
and therefore cannot be the object of scientific inquiry23.

3. What does law as a species of command mean? Is it merely an expression of desire?

law as a species of command is a definition of law proposed by John Austin, an English jurist
and legal philosopher. He argued that laws are rules, which he defined as a type of
command. More precisely, laws are general commands issued by a sovereign to members of an
independent political society, and backed up by credible threats of punishment or other adverse
consequences (“sanctions”) in the event of non-compliance1.
According to Austin, commands always involve three things2:

 a desire concerning someone’s behavior

 an expression of that desire
 the power to inflict an evil or harm upon the person who disobeys the command

Therefore, law as a species of command is not merely an expression of desire, but also an
expression of authority and power. Austin claimed that this definition of law can distinguish
positive law from morality, religion, and natural law, which are not commands issued by a
sovereign34.

4.For Austin, what is the source of duty to follow the law?

For Austin, the source of duty to follow the law is the sanction that is attached to the law. Austin
defined law as a species of command, which he said always involves three things:

 a desire concerning someone’s behavior

 an expression of that desire
 a sanction, threatened harm for non-compliance

According to Austin, the sanction is what distinguishes a command from a request, and what
makes a person obliged to obey the command. The sanction is also what makes a law different
from a moral rule, which may not have any external enforcement. Austin argued that the duty to
follow the law is not based on morality, religion, or natural law, but on the fear of punishment or
other adverse consequences from the sovereign who has the power to impose the sanction.

5. Are laws conferring rights absolutely considered as laws?

According to Austin’s theory of law, laws conferring rights are not absolutely considered as
laws. Austin defined law as a species of command, which he said always involves three things:

 a desire concerning someone’s behavior

 an expression of that desire
 a sanction, threatened harm for non-compliance

Austin argued that laws conferring rights are not commands, but permissions or authorizations.
They do not impose any duty or obligation on the person who has the right, but only grant him or
her some power or privilege. Therefore, they do not have any sanction attached to them, and they
are not enforced by the sovereign12.
However, Austin’s theory of law has been criticized by many legal philosophers, such as H.L.A.
Hart, who pointed out that laws conferring rights are not mere permissions, but also impose
duties on others to respect those rights. Hart also argued that laws are not only commands, but
also rules that can be recognized and followed by the members of a legal system without the
need of a sovereign or a sanction3.
For more details on Austin’s theory of law and its criticisms, you can read his book The Province
of Jurisprudence Determined, or some of the online summaries and analyses23. I hope this helps
you understand Austin’s view of laws conferring rights.