“Law is the command of the sovereign” John Austic.Discuss extensively the characteristics of the sovereign and the criticismsagainst this position.

John Austin's theory of law, often referred to as "Legal Positivism," posits that law is the command of the sovereign. According to Austin, a sovereign is a determinate and common superior, not in the habit of obedience to a like superior, and receives habitual obedience from the bulk of a given society.

Characteristics of the Sovereign according to Austin:

1. Determinate: The sovereign is a definite and identifiable entity. It could be an individual or a group of individuals.

2. Superior: The sovereign is superior to all other individuals in the society. It has the power to command and enforce obedience.

3. Habitual Obedience: The sovereign receives habitual obedience from the majority of the society. This obedience is not occasional but regular and continuous.

4. No Like Superior: The sovereign does not obey any other superior power. It is the ultimate authority in a given society.

Criticisms against Austin's theory:

1. Overemphasis on Coercion: Critics argue that Austin's theory overemphasizes the coercive power of law and the sovereign. Law is not just about commands backed by threats; it also involves the conferring of rights and privileges.

2. Neglect of Moral Elements: Austin's theory is criticized for neglecting the moral elements of law. He separates law and morality, which many legal philosophers disagree with.

3. Inadequate Definition of Sovereign: Critics argue that Austin's definition of sovereign is inadequate. In many modern democratic societies, power is not concentrated in a single sovereign but is distributed among various institutions.

4. Difficulty in Identifying the Sovereign: In complex modern societies, it is often difficult to identify who the sovereign is. For example, in a constitutional democracy, is the sovereign the constitution, the people, or the government?

5. Neglect of International Law: Austin's theory is also criticized for neglecting international law. According to Austin, since international law lacks a sovereign, it is not true law. However, this view is widely rejected by most legal philosophers and practitioners today.

In conclusion, while Austin's theory provides a clear and straightforward understanding of law, it is not without its criticisms and limitations. It is, however, still a significant contribution to legal philosophy.