Socio-psychological context of obedience to law in Anglo-American legal positivism: evolution of views

Context and relevance. Explanation of the processes of submission to the law is one of the key issues of legal theory influencing the formation of the mechanism of legal regulation. Domestic positivistic dogma of law demonstrates a limited understanding of the socio-psychological aspects of legal behavior. This circumstance determines the need to expand the theoretical substantiation of these processes, including through the experience of alternative legal doctrine. Objective. To analyze the evolution of models of submission to the law within the framework of Anglo-American legal positivism in the process of integrating the socio-psychological aspects of legal behavior. Materials. The views of key representatives of the direction demonstrate significant diversity from a simplified model of coercion to complex concepts that take into account the cognitive and social mechanisms of legal legitimacy and law-abiding behavior. The concepts under consideration demonstrate the dynamics of development along the transformation line: from the paradigm of fear of punishment to the acceptance of the law as a mandatory established normative practice, with the subsequent affirmation of the important role of rational recognition of authority and the significance of communicative practices and institutional trust. Results. It is concluded that these theoretical developments: firstly, reveal the socio-psychological foundations of legal behavior and legal consciousness; secondly, offer new approaches to maintaining law-abiding behavior and preventing deviant behavior. Conclusions. The obtained results have significant practical potential in the field of implementing interdisciplinary developments in the field of improving legal education and socialization, developing criteria for the professional activities of officials and increasing the effectiveness of legal influence through mechanisms of law enforcement.

1. Baranov, P.P. (2015). Positivistic legal thinking in jurisprudence, practice and everyday life of modern Russia. Russian Journal of Legal Studies (Moscow), 2(4), 7—14. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17816/RJLS18067
2. Borisova, S.E. (2016). Legal socialization of personality as a phenomenon of legal psychology. Psychology and Law, 6(4), 5—15. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17759/psylaw.2016060402
3. Varlamova, N.V. (2008). Legal positivism and rights of human being. Social Sciences and Contemporary World, 1, 156—166. (In Russ.). URL: https://www.elibrary.ru/ipkpsd (viewed: 28.07.2025).
4. Ilyina, O.Yu., Tumanova, L.V. (2023) Legal and Psychological Aspects of Judicial Fairness. Psychology and Law, 13(4), 216—226. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17759/psylaw.2023130415
5. Malko A.V., Lipinsky D.A., Zryachkin A.N., Musatkina A.A. (2022). Psychological Aspects of Deformations of Legal Consciousness and Legal Liability. Psychology and Law, 12(4), 140—153. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17759/psylaw.2022120411
6. Sorokin, V.V. (2019). Legal psychology in the system of law. Psychology and Law, 9(1), 111—121. https://doi.org/10.17759/psylaw.2019090108 (In Russ.).
7. Hart, H.L.A. (2007). The Concept of Law. from Engl. Saint Petersburg: Saint Petersburg State University Publ. (In Russ.). URL: https://elibrary.ru/vyozjl (viewed: 28.07.2025).
8. Austin, J. (1995). The Province of Jurisprudence Determined(W. Rumble, ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
9. Bix, B.H. (2009). On Philosophy in American Law: Analytical Legal Philosophy. In: F.J. Mootz III (Ed.), On Philosophy in American Law(pp. 99—105). New York: Cambridge University Press.
10. Gutmann, A., Thompson, D. (1996). Democracy and Disagreement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
11. Halpin, A. (2013). Austin’s Methodology? His Bequest to Jurisprudence. In: M. Freeman, P. Mindus (Eds.), The Legacy of John Austin’s Jurisprudence(pp. 14—40). Dordrecht: Springer.
12. Hershovitz, S. (2011). The Role of Authority. Philosophers’ Imprint, 11(7), 1— URL: http://hdl.handle.net/2027/spo.3521354.0011.007 (viewed: 28.07.2025).
13. MacCormick, N. (2007). Institutions of Law: An Essay in Legal Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
14. MacCormick, N. (2008). MacCormick On MacCormick. In: J.E. Fossum, A.J. Menendez (Eds.), The post-sovereign constellation, Law and politics in Neil MacCormick's theory of law(pp. 11—19). Oslo: ARENA.
15. MacCormick, N. (2005). Rhetoric and the Rule of Law: A Theory of Legal Reasoning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
16. MacCormick, N., Weinberger, O. (1986). An Institutional Theory of Law: New Approaches to Legal Positivism. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company.
17. Molin, E. (2016). Legitimate Legal Authority and the Obligation to Obey: An Analysis of Joseph Raz´s Arguments on Legitimate Authority: Thesis. Uppsala University.
18. Postema, G. (2012). Legal Positivism: Early Foundations. In: A. Marmor (Ed.), The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Law(pp. 31—48). New York: Routledge.
19. Raz, J. (1985). Authority and Justification. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 14(1), 3— URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2265235 (viewed: 28.07.2025).
20. Raz, J. (1999). Practical Reason and Norms. New York: Oxford University Press.
21. Raz, J. (1986). The Morality of Freedom. New York: Oxford University Press.
22. Summers, R.S. (1966). The New Analytical Jurists. New York University Law Review, 41(5), 861— URL: https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/facpub/1126/ (viewed: 28.07.2025).
23. Tyler, T.R. (2006) Why People Obey the Law. Princeton. NJ: Princeton University Press.
24. White, P.D. (1982). Law and Moral Obligation (reviewing The Authority of Law: Essays on Law and Morality by Joseph Raz). The University of Chicago Law Review, 49(1), 249— URL: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/uclrev/vol49/iss1/9/ (viewed: 28.07.2025).