Answer:Most people tend unreflectively to assume that laws belong to legal
systems. "Most educated people," writes H. L. A. Hart, "have the
idea that the laws in England form some sort of system, and that in
France or the United States or Soviet Russia and, indeed, in almost
every part of the world which is thought of as a separate 'country'
there are legal systems which are broadly similar in structure in spite
of important differences."' This includes for most people the assumption that laws differ from non-legal rules and principles. There are,
for example, moral rules and principles, social customs, constitutions
and regulations of voluntary associations, and so on, which are not
laws. Many legal philosophers have tried to justify this common assumption. Various criteria have been offered for demarcating the
limits of law, for testing whether or not a particular standard belongs
to a particular legal system. Various suggestions have been made concerning the importance of the distinction between what is legal and
what is not, and the ways in which, by preserving it, we promote our
understanding of law and society. For it has often been acknowledged
that the distinction is not an easy one to draw in precise terms, and
that any reasonable test would admit the presence of borderline cases.
Despite these difficulties many theorists have thought that the distinction is worth preserving, partly because it is not difficult to apply in
the majority of cases and partly because it seemed to them crucial for
Explanation:
