My theory of the nature of Law can be encapsulated in the above diagram. Like Finnis, I believe that there are core and peripheral senses of what Law is. The core being that which we accept unequivocally as Law and a periphery as entities that share some characteristics of Law but not fully. This Aristotelian methodology of defining Law was adopted because it is believed that no single definition of Law can fully encompass the rich variety of Laws in society as well as the variety of ways in which it functions.
I agree with Alexy-Radbruch that law that is promulgated and legally valid in the institutional sense is, more often than not, Law. By virtue of fulfilling all the legal validity requirements, a law has an inherent value of legal certainty
…show more content…
The various factors can also have differing weights depending on the circumstance. For example if a law is manifestly unjust to a small group of people by requiring them to donate substantial amounts of blood every week whether they want to or not. But the law is necessary for the collective good of society as a whole because the blood is the cure for a disease that is wiping out vast numbers of the population. Under this model, the law would be seen as unjust for violating the bodily integrity of a group of people but retain its status as Law because of the greater common good that could result from it.
Unlike the Radbruch-Alexy model, various other factors can be taken into account apart from justice, purposiveness and legal certainty. This reflects the complexity of legal systems and our conception of Law as participants within it. This makes it a more accurate reflection of the social reality.
The blurry edges between the primary, secondary and ‘non-Law’ category indicate that the lines between them are not always clear and it is impossible to draw a fixed decision at the penumbra. Furthermore, the presence of a scale helps too indicate varying degrees of ‘Law’ even within the categories of primary and secondary and non-Law. This is thus a pictorial representation of how qualifying and classifying connections between the three categories could play
Is it better to follow laws that are unjust but right, or do the thing that is fair but are against the law? Socrates in Plato’s “The Crito” and Martin Luther King, Jr. in his “Letter from Birmingham Jail” answer this question from conflicting perspectives. According to Plato (427-423 BCE), Socrates believed that it is his duty to obey the law of his city, Athens, on all occasions, whereas King (1963) made the argument first put forth by St. Thomas Aquinas that “an unjust law is no law at all” (p. 69). One of these reasons for the differing opinions on this subject is due to the times and places in which these two men existed and came to their views on Civil disobedience.
Lastly, courts lack the resource to implement policies in line with their decisions. Thus, even when cases are won, “court decisions are often rendered useless” as litigants are left to the task of implementation (Rosenburg 21). Despite the Constrained Courts view that courts are insufficient in producing social change, “it does not deny the possibility” (Rosenburg 21). When the right factors are in place and certain conditions in favor of the case’s outcome, courts can be a powerful institution in promoting justice (Hall 2).
In a democracy, the rule of law defends the rights of citizens, upholds order, and bounds the power of government. All people are equal under the law. The rule of law. Martin Krygier, Professor of Law at the University of New South Wales, argues that there are four essential principles underlying the rule of law. They are universality of the scope of the law, clarity for all citizens, supportive and culturally appropriate institutions and an appropriate legal culture.
While there are many more concepts of law that the book mentions I feel that these are the most important concepts of law that somehow are the foundations of the legal system in the United
An unjust law would be considered the opposite, and go against any morals while also giving people in power the ability not to obey the law. “An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself” (King, 1963, p.
One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws” (MLK). An example would be gay rights laws. For much of time it has been illegal for people of the same sex to marry one another. Although this is a law, many people and even the United States Constitutional courts ruled that two people of the same sex should share the same right as anyone else to be able to share a love together and establish a bond such as marriage.
For example, the majority in a society may want to kill someone, however, if in that society, a person has a right to live as written in that society 's supreme law, they are protected from that majority will.
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.
The relationship between the law and society affects everyone and everything. How the law is written and how it is acted upon in society are two different things. It is imperative, therefore, that we as citizens pay attention to and understand the importance of the relationship between the law and society as it affects both our own lives and the lives of those around us. We engage in and witness the power of the law and society everyday. The law is personal, however, the law is also discretionary depending on where you look.
If a law is unjust in the only sense that injustice can be measured, natural
The Introduction The precedent is a decided legal case, which is used as a basis for deciding later similar cases. The English Law system is a legal system where the precedent has a great weight. This law system can be subdivided into two main interrelated branches: statute (or statutory) law and common law. Statute is an Act of Parliament, which starts its life as a bill, goes through the parliament, receives royal assent and becomes law.
Kelsen defines law as a type of norm. Therefore, it is subject to a normative order, which makes the “the specific meaning of an act of will directed at a definite human behavior”. Afterwards, Kelsen prescribes two conditions, which if fulfilled by any legal norm, it “is” a proper positive norm. The first condition is that: this norm should be “posited” to be created by an act of a human being, subsequently, any norm created by a god, by nature or by a superhuman being is not “positive” law. The second condition is: the legal norm must be effective which means that people should obey the legal norm and if not obeyed at least applied to them.
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.
Natural law theory states that there are laws that are immanent in nature and the man made laws should correspond as closely as possible. Man can’t produce natural laws but he can find and discover through his reasoning. If a law is contrary to a natural law then it is not a law. Laws should be related to morality. It is a concept of a body of moral principal that is same for all the man
Law is present in our daily life and in everything we do. We cannot think a second without law. Whatever we can see around us everything is connected with the law. Sometimes we can see it and sometimes we cannot see but feel it. Law is not just a thing to obey for yourself but making a peaceful society.