Therefore, it can be said that while the first set of rules impose duties, and deal with physical actions; the second set eventually bestows powers, which lead to physical actions that in turn lead to a creation of new duties, or a change in the existing ones. Most studies of law would be made easier if these sets of rules and the interrelationship between them were understood. (Hart, 81).

             .

             When law is taken as a coercive order, the human conduct that results is obligatory, and one example would explain this clearly. If a gunman, A orders victim B to hand over the money, or else he would shoot, then B is obliged to obey A. A becomes the sovereign who must be obeyed, and forces a certain mode of conduct on B, wherein B would be obliged to hand over the money, in order to avoid the unpleasant consequences, if he did not oblige. There is a subtle difference, however, between 'being obliged' and 'had an obligation'. (Hart, 82) Rules must be understood as being 'imposing obligations', when conformity is necessary, even though there may be no punishment for non-conformity, other than perhaps verbally expressed disapproval. The individual who does not conform may also be subjected to his own feelings of guilt and remorse for having disobeyed. (Hart, 86) .

             One particular image, which haunts all legal thought, is that of social pressure being a 'chain' that binds those with obligations in such a way that they may not be free to do whatever they want, an official or a group of representatives holding the other end of the chain. This image shows exactly what the duties and obligations under criminal law are. (Hart, 83) In a normal legal system, a sanction of some sort would be generally extracted for an offence, and it can be said that the offender risks being punished for his offence, and this means that the statement that says that the offender has an obligation and that he would suffer for disobedience would go together and are well connected.