A school of analytical jurisprudence known as legal positivism was predominantly created in the 18th and 19th centuries by legal philosophers like John Austin. Empiricism supplied the theoretical groundwork for such changes to occur while Bentham and Austin established legal positivist theory.
Legal positivism, which generally consists of the Social Fact Thesis, the Conventionality Thesis, and the Separability Thesis, is in opposition to all varieties of naturalism. The Pedigree Thesis and the Social Fact Thesis both contend that it is a necessary reality that some types of social facts eventually determine the legal legitimacy of a claim.
legal positivism contends that all laws are merely the simple expression of the intent of the authority that enacted them. Hence, no law can be viewed as a manifestation of a higher morality or higher principles, to which individuals can refer when they disagree with the law. It is a view that law is a social construction. The making of laws is not an endeavour to achieve any higher moral or social ideals, but only an exercise in sheer force and an assertion of authority. In light of this, it is possible to state from a positivist perspective that “legal principles or laws are valid not because they are based in moral or natural law, but because they are proclaimed by governing power and are embraced by society as it is”.
