If the law lacks morality, and principles that ensure justice, and fairness is it even a law at all? . Yes it may be in a book of laws, signed by congress, and enforced by superiors, but the question still remains is a law actually a law if it doesn’t ensure the best interest of all people ? . Is a unjust law one that doesn’t bind lawmakers to obey ?.
In that way the resulting combining of the two legal systems can only improve their common goal of designing a fair and just legal system which can provide legal certainty and protection to all citizens and legal persons. The civil law and common law systems are the results of two different methods to the legal process, even that their aim is the equivalent function. There are many circumstances where the identical legal term have distinct meanings, or where different
Men make laws to instill order in a society and prevent chaos in any shape or form. Naturally, laws will always be somewhat unjust because it is impossible to consistently construct laws that directly and equally benefit all members of a society. There will always be a majority that makes the laws and a minority that has to obey the laws. Although laws are usually the standard of morality by which we live by, they must be disobeyed in certain situations. These situations are, but not limited to, an undemocratic formation of aforementioned laws, laws that are inherently unjust according to human law which can be synonymous with God’s law.
Throughout the history of mankind, society has defined itself by law and the order that law creates. “Laws are the binding rules of conduct or action which the vast majority of the society has to abide”. Justice on the other hand is rather an abstract concept. There is no right or wrong definition of justice, but is rather agreed upon the concept of being fair and equal. Many would assume that the sole purpose of law is to establish justice, which seems like a wonderful philosophical theory but is slightly difficult to follow.
Just and unjust laws are created to “better the world” when in reality some people are hurt in the process, which is why individuals agree with Dr. King’s assertions. The significance of just laws is that they are fair to everyone and people based on their gender, race, ethnicity or color are not discriminated. The text states, “A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God”(King, paragraph sixteen). What this quote is trying to say is that if a law creates peace and equality, then it means that it is just. A law is considered fair if it applies to everyone no matter their skin color or gender.
Laws are created by humans so that there exists a certain order in society and to make sure justice is prevalent. Are the people who are making the laws infallible? Are they free of prejudices and biases? Do they always pass laws which are just to every person in society? The answers to all those questions is 'NO '.
Is justice fair? A question presented many times throughout history, and people have always had contradicting opinions. Although people all argue whether or not it’s fair, they can all agree that justice is important. Justice is a theme present in many forms of literature and media, but what people don’t realize is that the only reason people value justice for its ability to make them look good. People only value justice or morality when they can be scrutinized.
INTRODUCTION It is the most common perception of people to prosecute and punish those who commit war crimes or atrocities against humanity, nonetheless they should be given a fair trial. A fair trial, free from judicial bias and political pressures is a legal right. The fairness is not only the prerogative of the victims but also the accused for it is an important component of the mandate to the International Court of Justice. To interpret fairness one requires a more holistic concept not just limiting to judicial proceeding but one that effectively helps parties realise their rights under the Rome Statute. The concept of fairness in international criminal law is derived from its predecessor, international human rights law.
How human rights shall be protected by law, as according to law equality is a right of every individual, this statement is a matter of concern as we see today; the equality is widely neglected. (Ewing, 2001) People are discriminated on the basis of sex, caste, creed, minorities etc. So while being independent and free, not everyone enjoys equality. All humans are born equal and without any discrimination of caste, creed or color but equality is still in question. Equal rights for all is a social agenda which clearly does not mean that law supports inequality rather it says that every human is created equal and the practices of discrimination that we are facing is because of the unfair treatment of one individual by another.
Something moral may not be legal. Here if we see then it would be contrary to the courts functions these days, if there is a incident which is moral in nature but is against the law or is not legal then he does not say which type of justice has more value. There can be moral justice, legal justice, ethical justice, traditional justice, religious justice etc., and much more but he is silent on the fact that what would happen on these occasions. In India we follow the slogan of satyameva jayate, which means that truth shall prevail. If we consider this punishing an individual is injustice to him, the philosophy proposed by amartya sen is quiet on the fact what would happen if there is contrast between truth and justice?