Eternal Law

In the beginning, eternal God gave creation eternal Law. On earth, Let the earth bring forthafter his kind. The Law of kind after his kind, help, me, to mind. Thou shalt not sow thy vineyard with divers seeds: all, thy vineyard be defiled. After, the Fall continues, law. When Satan transgressed with Eve, a-dul-ter-y. By his deception, she bore, Cain, out of kind. Adam knew defiled Eve, then... an Abel find. By the law is the knowledge of sin. Thus, truly Were they separated from God by.. a-dul-ter-y. With law defining sin, Adam and Eve, knew their transgression. With God imputing sin to them, ordained, was the law; Because sin is not imputed.. when.. there.. is.. no.. law. Animal blood gave temporary Atonement, till Christs mission, Made Atonement sure, covering Adam kinds.. transgression. Praise GOD, for law, for by revealing sin points to Sal-va-tion. The law was my schoolmaster to bring me unto Christ, that I might be justified by faith in Jesus. the Christ. Law of the LORD is perfect converting the soul, from creation, Thank you LORD, with Faith in the Christ, I, have Sal-va-tion. So a good thing thy law ever continues, after, the Cross. As Jesus came not to destroy, nor ever ever sev-er. Now, animal sacrifices are gone, eternally forever. So! Do wemake void the law through faith? Our loss, God forbid: yea, we establish law, even ever post Cross. These thy perfect laws O God did announce eternally, thy ways: Commandments, statutes, and judgments Law is good, Holy, truth, perfect, just, light. I should obey. But I would-Keep the whole law; offend in one, am guilty of all In my days, Let not me by one sin fall. But, fully be thy eternal law my ways.

Natural law
Natural law, or the law of nature (Latin: lex naturalis), is a system of law that is purportedly determined by nature, and thus universal.[1] Classically, natural law refers to the use of reason to analyze human nature both social and personal and deduce binding rules of moral behavior from it. Natural law is often contrasted with the positive law of a given political community, society, or state.[2] In legal theory, on the other hand, the interpretation of positive law requires some reference to natural law. On this understanding of natural law, natural law can be invoked to criticize judicial decisions about what the law says but not to criticize the best interpretation of the law itself. Some scholars use natural law synonymously with natural justice or natural right (Latin ius naturale),[3] while others distinguish between natural law and natural right.[1] Although natural law is often conflated with common law, the two are distinct in that natural law is a view that certain rights or values are inherent in or universally cognizable by virtue of human reason or human nature, while common law is the legal tradition whereby certain rights or values are legally cognizable by virtue of judicial recognition or articulation.[4] Natural law theories have, however, exercised a profound influence on the development of English common law,[5][full citation needed] and have featured greatly in the philosophies of Thomas Aquinas, Francisco Surez, Richard Hooker, Thomas Hobbes, Hugo Grotius, Samuel von Pufendorf, John Locke, Francis Hutcheson, Jean Jacques Burlamaqui, and Emmerich de Vattel. Because of the intersection between natural law and natural rights, it has been cited as a component in the United States Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States, as well as in the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. Declarationism states that the founding of the United States is based on Natural law. The use of natural law, in its various incarnations, has varied widely through its history. There are a number of different theories of natural law, differing from each other with respect to the role that morality plays in determining the authority of legal norms. This article deals with its usages separately rather than attempt to unify them into a single theory. Plato This section possibly contains original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding inline citations. Statements consisting only of original research may be removed. (May 2011) Although Plato does not have an explicit theory of natural law (he almost never uses the phrase natural law except in Gorgias 484 and Timaeus 83e), his concept of nature, according to John Wild, contains some of the elements found in many natural law theories.[6] According to Plato we live in an orderly universe.[7] At the basis of this orderly universe or nature are the forms, most fundamentally the Form of the Good, which Plato describes as "the brightest region of Being".[8] The Form of the Good is the cause of all things and when it is seen it leads a person to act wisely.[9] In the Symposium, the Good is closely identified with the Beautiful.[10] Also in the Symposium, Plato describes how the experience of the Beautiful by Socrates enables him to resist the temptations of wealth and sex.[11] In the Republic, the ideal community is, "...a city which would be established in accordance with nature."[12]

Aristotle Plato (left) and Aristotle (right), a detail of The School of Athens, a fresco by Raphael. Greek philosophy emphasized the distinction between "nature" (physis, ) on the one hand and "law", "custom", or "convention" (nomos, ) on the other. What the law commanded varied from place to place, but what was "by nature" should be the same everywhere. A "law of nature" would therefore have had the flavor more of a paradox than something that obviously existed.[1] Against the conventionalism that the distinction between nature and custom could engender, Socrates and his philosophic heirs, Plato and Aristotle, posited the existence of natural justice or natural right (dikaion physikon, , Latin ius naturale). Of these, Aristotle is often said to be the father of natural law.[3] Aristotle's association with natural law may be due to the interpretation given to his works by Thomas Aquinas.[13] But whether Aquinas correctly read Aristotle is a disputed question. According to some, Aquinas conflates the natural law and natural right, the latter of which Aristotle posits in Book V of the Nicomachean Ethics (Book IV of the Eudemian Ethics). According to this interpretation, Aquinas's influence was such as to affect a number of early translations of these passages in an unfortunate manner, though more recent translations render them more literally.[14] Aristotle notes that natural justice is a species of political justice, viz. the scheme of distributive and corrective justice that would be established under the best political community; were this to take the form of law, this could be called a natural law, though Aristotle does not discuss this and suggests in the Politics that the best regime may not rule by law at all.[15] The best evidence of Aristotle's having thought there was a natural law comes from the Rhetoric, where Aristotle notes that, aside from the "particular" laws that each people has set up for itself, there is a "common" law that is according to nature.[16] Specifically, he quotes Sophocles and Empedocles: Universal law is the law of Nature. For there really is, as every one to some extent divines, a natural justice and injustice that is binding on all men, even on those who have no association or covenant with each other. It is this that Sophocles' Antigone clearly means when she says that the burial of Polyneices was a just act in spite of the prohibition: she means that it was just by nature: "Not of to-day or yesterday it is, But lives eternal: none can date its birth." And so Empedocles, when he bids us kill no living creature, says that doing this is not just for some people while unjust for others: "Nay, but, an all-embracing law, through the realms of the sky Unbroken it stretcheth, and over the earth's immensity."[17] Some critics believe that the context of this remark suggests only that Aristotle advised that it could be rhetorically advantageous to appeal to such a law, especially when the "particular" law of one's own city was averse to the case being made, not that there actually was such a law;[3] Moreover, they claim that Aristotle considered two of the three candidates for a universally valid, natural law provided in this

passage to be wrong.[1] Aristotle's theoretical paternity of the natural law tradition is consequently disputed. Stoic natural law The development of this tradition of natural justice into one of natural law is usually attributed to the Stoics. The rise of natural law as a universal system coincided with the rise of large empires and kingdoms in the Greek world.[18][full citation needed] Whereas the "higher" law Aristotle suggested one could appeal to was emphatically natural, in contradistinction to being the result of divine positive legislation, the Stoic natural law was indifferent to the divine or natural source of the law: the Stoics asserted the existence of a rational and purposeful order to the universe (a divine or eternal law), and the means by which a rational being lived in accordance with this order was the natural law, which spelled out action that accorded with virtue.[1] As the English historian A. J. Carlyle (18611943) notes: There is no change in political theory so startling in its completeness as the change from the theory of Aristotle to the later philosophical view represented by Cicero and Seneca.... We think that this cannot be better exemplified than with regard to the theory of the equality of human nature."[19] Charles H. McIlwain likewise observes that "the idea of the equality of men is the profoundest contribution of the Stoics to political thought" and that "its greatest influence is in the changed conception of law that in part resulted from it.[20] Natural law first appeared among the stoics who believed that God is everywhere and in everyone. Within humans is a "divine spark" which helps them to live in accordance with nature. The stoics felt that there was a way in which the universe had been designed and natural law helped us to harmonise with this. Cicero Marcus Tullius Cicero Cicero wrote in his De Legibus that both justice and law derive their origin from what nature has given to man, from what the human mind embraces, from the function of man, and from what serves to unite humanity.[21] For Cicero, natural law obliges us to contribute to the general good of the larger society.[22] The purpose of positive laws is to provide for "the safety of citizens, the preservation of states, and the tranquility and happiness of human life." In this view, "wicked and unjust statutes" are "anything but 'laws,'" because "in the very definition of the term 'law' there inheres the idea and principle of choosing what is just and true."[23] Law, for Cicero, "ought to be a reformer of vice and an incentive to virtue."[24] Cicero expressed the view that "the virtues which we ought to cultivate, always tend to our own happiness, and that the best means of promoting them consists in living with men in that perfect union and charity which are cemented by mutual benefits."[22] Cicero influenced the discussion of natural law for many centuries to come, up through the era of the American Revolution. The jurisprudence of the Roman Empire was rooted in Cicero, who held "an

extraordinary grip . . . upon the imagination of posterity" as "the medium for the propagation of those ideas which informed the law and institutions of the empire."[25] Cicero's conception of natural law "found its way to later centuries notably through the writings of Saint Isidore of Seville and the Decretum of Gratian."[26] Thomas Aquinas, in his summary of medieval natural law, quoted Cicero's statement that "nature" and "custom" were the sources of a society's laws.[27] The Renaissance Florentine chancellor Leonardo Bruni praised Cicero as the man "who carried philosophy from Greece to Italy, and nourished it with the golden river of his eloquence."[28] The legal culture of Elizabethan England, exemplified by Sir Edward Coke, was "steeped in Ciceronian rhetoric."[29] The Scottish moral philosopher Francis Hutcheson, as a student at Glasgow, "was attracted most by Cicero, for whom he always professed the greatest admiration."[30] More generally in eighteenth-century Great Britain, Cicero's name was a household word among educated people.[30] Likewise, "in the admiration of early Americans Cicero took pride of place as orator, political theorist, stylist, and moralist."[31] The British polemicist Thomas Gordon "incorporated Cicero into the radical ideological tradition that travelled from the mother country to the colonies in the course of the eighteenth century and decisively shaped early American political culture."[32] Cicero's description of the immutable, eternal, and universal natural law was quoted by Burlamaqui[33] and later by the American revolutionary legal scholar James Wilson.[34] Cicero became John Adams's "foremost model of public service, republican virtue, and forensic eloquence."[35] Adams wrote of Cicero that "as all the ages of the world have not produced a greater statesman and philosopher united in the same character, his authority should have great weight."[36] Thomas Jefferson "first encountered Cicero as a schoolboy learning Latin, and continued to read his letters and discourses as long as he lived. He admired him as a patriot, valued his opinions as a moral philosopher, and there is little doubt that he looked upon Cicero's life, with his love of study and aristocratic country life, as a model for his own."[37] Jefferson described Cicero as "the father of eloquence and philosophy."[38] Christian natural law This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (April 2009) See also: Biblical law in Christianity and Christian ethics Some early Church Fathers, especially those in the West, sought to incorporate natural law into Christianity. The most notable among these was Augustine of Hippo, who equated natural law with man's prelapsarian state; as such, a life according to nature was no longer possible and men needed instead to seek salvation through the divine law and grace of Jesus Christ. In the Twelfth Century, Gratian equated the natural law with divine law. A century later, St. Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologiae I-II qq. 90106, restored Natural Law to its independent state, asserting natural law as the rational creature's participation in the eternal law.[39] Yet, since human reason could not fully comprehend the Eternal law, it needed to be supplemented by revealed Divine

law. (See also Biblical law in Christianity.) Meanwhile, Aquinas taught that all human or positive laws were to be judged by their conformity to the natural law. An unjust law is not a law, in the full sense of the word. It retains merely the 'appearance' of law insofar as it is duly constituted and enforced in the same way a just law is, but is itself a 'perversion of law.'[40] At this point, the natural law was not only used to pass judgment on the moral worth of various laws, but also to determine what the law said in the first place. This principle laid the seed for possible societal tension with reference to tyrants.[41] The natural law was inherently teleological and deontological in that although it is aimed at goodness, it is entirely focused on the ethicalness of actions, rather than the consequence. The specific content of the natural law was therefore determined by a conception of what things constituted happiness, be they temporal satisfaction or salvation. The state, in being bound by the natural law, was conceived as an institution directed at bringing its subjects to true happiness. In the 16th century, the School of Salamanca (Francisco Surez, Francisco de Vitoria, etc.) further developed a philosophy of natural law. After the Church of England broke from Rome, the English theologian Richard Hooker adapted Thomistic notions of natural law to Anglicanism. There are five important principles: to live, to learn, to reproduce, to worship God, and to live in an ordered society.[citation needed] Those who see biblical support for the doctrine of natural law often point to Paul's Epistle to the Romans: "For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another. (Romans 2:1415). The intellectual historian A. J. Carlyle has commented on this passage, "There can be little doubt that St Paul's words imply some conception analogous to the 'natural law' in Cicero, a law written in men's hearts, recognized by man's reason, a law distinct from the positive law of any State, or from what St Paul recognized as the revealed law of God. It is in this sense that St Paul's words are taken by the Fathers of the fourth and fifth centuries like St Hilary of Poitiers, St Ambrose, and St Augustine, and there seems no reason to doubt the correctness of their interpretation."[42] English jurisprudence Heinrich A. Rommen remarked upon "the tenacity with which the spirit of the English common law retained the conceptions of natural law and equity which it had assimilated during the Catholic Middle Ages, thanks especially to the influence of Henry de Bracton (d. 1268) and Sir John Fortescue (d. cir. 1476)."[43] Bracton's translator notes that Bracton "was a trained jurist with the principles and distinctions of Roman jurisprudence firmly in mind"; but Bracton adapted such principles to English purposes rather than copying slavishly.[44] In particular, Bracton turned the imperial Roman maxim that "the will of the prince is law" on its head, insisting that the king is under the law.[45] The legal historian Charles F. Mullett has noted Bracton's "ethical definition of law, his recognition of justice, and finally his devotion to natural rights."[46] Bracton considered justice to be the "fountain-head" from which "all rights arise."[47] For his definition of justice, Bracton quoted the twelfth-century Italian jurist Azo:

"'Justice is the constant and unfailing will to give to each his right.'"[48] Bracton's work was the second legal treatise studied by the young apprentice lawyer Thomas Jefferson.[49] Fortescue stressed "the supreme importance of the law of God and of nature" in works that "profoundly influenced the course of legal development in the following centuries."[50] The legal scholar Ellis Sandoz has noted that "the historically ancient and the ontologically higher laweternal, divine, naturalare woven together to compose a single harmonious texture in Fortescue's account of English law."[51] As the legal historian Norman Doe explains: "Fortescue follows the general pattern set by Aquinas. The objective of every legislator is to dispose people to virtue. It is by means of law that this is accomplished. Fortescue's definition of law (also found in Accursius and Bracton), after all, was 'a sacred sanction commanding what is virtuous [honesta] and forbidding the contrary.'"[52] Fortescue cited Leonardo Bruni for his statement that "virtue alone produces happiness."[53] Christopher St. Germain's Doctor and Student was a classic of English jurisprudence,[54] and it was thoroughly annotated by Thomas Jefferson.[55] St. Germain informs his readers that English lawyers generally don't use the phrase "law of nature," but rather use "reason" as the preferred synonym.[56][57] Norman Doe notes that St. Germain's view "is essentially Thomist," quoting Thomas Aquinas's definition of law as "an ordinance of reason made for the common good by him who has charge of the community, and promulgated."[58] Sir Edward Coke was the preeminent jurist of his time.[59] Coke's preeminence extended across the ocean: "For the American revolutionary leaders, 'law' meant Sir Edward Coke's custom and right reason."[60] [61] Coke defined law as "perfect reason, which commands those things that are proper and necessary and which prohibits contrary things."[62] For Coke, human nature determined the purpose of law; and law was superior to any one man's reason or will.[63] Coke's discussion of natural law appears in his report of Calvin's Case (1608): "The law of nature is that which God at the time of creation of the nature of man infused into his heart, for his preservation and direction." In this case the judges found that "the ligeance or faith of the subject is due unto the King by the law of nature: secondly, that the law of nature is part of the law of England: thirdly, that the law of nature was before any judicial or municipal law: fourthly, that the law of nature is immutable." To support these findings, the assembled judges (as reported by Coke, who was one of them) cited as authorities Aristotle, Cicero, and the Apostle Paul; as well as Bracton, Fortescue, and St. Germain.[64] As early as the thirteenth century, it was held that "the law of nature...is the ground of all laws"[65] and by the Chancellor and Judges that "it is required by the law of nature that every person, before he can be punish'd, ought to be present; and if absent by contumacy, he ought to be summoned and make default.".[66][67] Further, in 1824, we find it held that "proceedings in our Courts are founded upon the law of England, and that law is again founded upon the law of nature and the revealed law of God. If the right sought to be enforced is inconsistent with either of these, the English municipal courts cannot recognize it."[68] American jurisprudence

The U.S. Declaration of Independence states that it has become necessary for the United States to assume "the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them". Some early American lawyers and judges perceived natural law as too tenuous, amorphous and evanescent a legal basis for grounding concrete rights and governmental limitations.[4] Natural law did, however, serve as authority for legal claims and rights in some judicial decisions, legislative acts, and legal pronouncements.[69] Robert Lowry Clinton argues that the U.S. Constitution rests on a common law foundation and the common law, in turn, rests on a classical natural law foundation.[70] Islamic natural law Ab Rayhn al-Brn, an Islamic scholar and polymath scientist, understood natural law as the survival of the fittest. He argued that the antagonism between human beings can only be overcome through a divine law, which he believed to have been sent through prophets. This is also the position of the Ashari school, the largest school of Sunni theology.[71] Averroes (Ibn Rushd), in his treatise on Justice and Jihad and his commentary on Plato's Republic, writes that the human mind can know of the unlawfulness of killing and stealing and thus of the five maqasid or higher intents of the Islamic sharia or to protect religion, life, property, offspring, and reason. The concept of natural law entered the mainstream of Western culture through his Aristotelian commentaries, influencing the subsequent Averroist movement and the writings of Thomas Aquinas.[72] The Maturidi school, the second largest school of Sunni theology, posits the existence of a form of natural law. Abu Mansur al-Maturidi stated that the human mind could know of the existence of God and the major forms of 'good' and 'evil' without the help of revelation. Al-Maturidi gives the example of stealing, which is known to be evil by reason alone due to man's working hard for his property. Killing, fornication, and drinking alcohol were all 'evils' the human mind could know of according to al-Maturidi. The concept of Istislah in Islamic law bears some similarities to the natural law tradition in the West, as exemplified by Thomas Aquinas. However, whereas natural law deems good what is self-evidently good, according as it tends towards the fulfilment of the person, istislah calls good whatever is connected to one of five "basic goods". Al-Ghazali abstracted these "basic goods" from the legal precepts in the Qur'an and Sunnah: they are religion, life, reason, lineage and property. Some add also "honour". Ibn Qayyim Al-Jawziyya also posited that human reason could discern between 'great sins' and good deeds.[citation needed] Hobbes Thomas Hobbes By the 17th Century, the Medieval teleological view came under intense criticism from some quarters. Thomas Hobbes instead founded a contractualist theory of legal positivism on what all men could agree upon: what they sought (happiness) was subject to contention, but a broad consensus could form around what they feared (violent death at the hands of another). The natural law was how a rational human being, seeking to survive and prosper, would act. Natural law, therefore, was discovered by considering humankind's natural rights, whereas previously it could be said that natural rights were discovered by considering the natural law. In Hobbes' opinion, the only way natural law could prevail

was for men to submit to the commands of the sovereign. Because the ultimate source of law now comes from the sovereign, and the sovereign's decisions need not be grounded in morality, legal positivism is born. Jeremy Bentham's modifications on legal positivism further developed the theory. As used by Thomas Hobbes in his treatises Leviathan and De Cive, natural law is "a precept, or general rule, found out by reason, by which a man is forbidden to do that which is destructive of his life, or takes away the means of preserving the same; and to omit that by which he thinks it may best be preserved."[73] According to Hobbes, there are nineteen Laws. The first two are expounded in chapter XIV of Leviathan ("of the first and second natural laws; and of contracts"); the others in chapter XV ("of other laws of nature"). The first Law of nature is that every man ought to endeavour peace, as far as he has hope of obtaining it; and when he cannot obtain it, that he may seek and use all helps and advantages of war. The second Law of nature is that a man be willing, when others are so too, as far forth, as for peace, and defence of himself he shall think it necessary, to lay down this right to all things; and be contented with so much liberty against other men, as he would allow other men against himself. The third Law is that men perform their covenants made. In this law of nature consisteth the fountain and original of justice... when a covenant is made, then to break it is unjust and the definition of injustice is no other than the not performance of covenant. And whatsoever is not unjust is just. The fourth Law is that a man which receiveth benefit from another of mere grace, endeavour that he which giveth it, have no reasonable cause to repent him of his good will. Breach of this law is called ingratitude. The fifth Law is complaisance: that every man strive to accommodate himself to the rest. The observers of this law may be called sociable; the contrary, stubborn, insociable, froward, intractable. The sixth Law is that upon caution of the future time, a man ought to pardon the offences past of them that repenting, desire it. The seventh Law is that in revenges, men look not at the greatness of the evil past, but the greatness of the good to follow. The eighth Law is that no man by deed, word, countenance, or gesture, declare hatred or contempt of another. The breach of which law is commonly called contumely. The ninth Law is that every man acknowledge another for his equal by nature. The breach of this precept is pride. The tenth law is that at the entrance into the conditions of peace, no man require to reserve to himself any right, which he is not content should be reserved to every one of the rest. The breach of this precept is arrogance, and observers of the precept are called modest.

The eleventh law is that if a man be trusted to judge between man and man, that he deal equally between them. The twelfth law is that such things as cannot be divided, be enjoyed in common, if it can be; and if the quantity of the thing permit, without stint; otherwise proportionably to the number of them that have right. The thirteenth law is the entire right, or else...the first possession (in the case of alternating use), of a thing that can neither be divided nor enjoyed in common should be determined by lottery. The fourteenth law is that those things which cannot be enjoyed in common, nor divided, ought to be adjudged to the first possessor; and in some cases to the first born, as acquired by lot. The fifteenth law is that all men that mediate peace be allowed safe conduct. The sixteenth law is that they that are at controversie, submit their Right to the judgement of an Arbitrator. The seventeenth law is that no man is a fit Arbitrator in his own cause. The eighteenth law is that no man should serve as a judge in a case if greater profit, or honour, or pleasure apparently ariseth [for him] out of the victory of one party, than of the other. The nineteenth law is that in a disagreement of fact, the judge should not give more weight to the testimony of one party than another, and absent other evidence, should give credit to the testimony of other witnesses. Hobbes's philosophy includes a frontal assault on the founding principles of the earlier natural legal tradition,[74] disregarding the traditional association of virtue with happiness,[75] and likewise redefining "law" to remove any notion of the promotion of the common good.[76] Hobbes has no use for Aristotle's association of nature with human perfection, inverting Aristotle's use of the word "nature." Hobbes posits a primitive, unconnected state of nature in which men, having a "natural proclivity...to hurt each other" also have "a Right to every thing, even to one anothers body";[77] and "nothing can be Unjust" in this "warre of every man against every man" in which human life is "solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short."[78] Rejecting Cicero's view that men join in society primarily through "a certain social spirit which nature has implanted in man,"[79] Hobbes declares that men join in society simply for the purpose of "getting themselves out from that miserable condition of Warre, which is necessarily consequent...to the naturall Passions of men, when there is no visible Power to keep them in awe."[80] As part of his campaign against the classical idea of natural human sociability, Hobbes inverts that fundamental natural legal maxim, the Golden Rule. Hobbes's version is "Do not that to another, which thou wouldst not have done to thy selfe."[81] Cumberland's rebuttal of Hobbes

The English cleric Richard Cumberland wrote a lengthy and influential attack on Hobbes's depiction of individual self-interest as the essential feature of human motivation. Historian Knud Haakonssen has noted that in the eighteenth century, Cumberland was commonly placed alongside Hugo Grotius and Samuel Pufendorf "in the triumvirate of seventeenth-century founders of the 'modern' school of natural law."[82] The eighteenth-century philosophers Shaftesbury and Hutcheson "were obviously inspired in part by Cumberland."[83] Historian Jon Parkin likewise describes Cumberland's work as "one of the most important works of ethical and political theory of the seventeenth century."[84] Parkin observes that much of Cumberland's material "is derived from Roman Stoicism, particularly from the work of Cicero, as "Cumberland deliberately cast his engagement with Hobbes in the mould of Cicero's debate between the Stoics, who believed that nature could provide an objective morality, and Epicureans, who argued that morality was human, conventional and self-interested."[85] In doing so, Cumberland deemphasized the overlay of Christian dogma (in particular, the doctrine of "original sin" and the corresponding presumption that humans are incapable of "perfecting" themselves without divine intervention) that had accreted to natural law in the Middle Ages. By way of contrast to Hobbes's multiplicity of laws, Cumberland states in the very first sentence of his Treatise of the Laws of Nature that "all the Laws of Nature are reduc'd to that one, of Benevolence toward all Rationals."[86] He later clarifies: "By the name Rationals I beg leave to understand, as well God as Man; and I do it upon the Authority of Cicero." Cumberland argues that the mature development ("perfection") of human nature involves the individual human willing and acting for the common good.[87] For Cumberland, human interdependence precludes Hobbes's natural right of each individual to wage war against all the rest for personal survival. However, Haakonssen warns against reading Cumberland as a proponent of "enlightened self-interest." Rather, the "proper moral love of humanity" is "a disinterested love of God through love of humanity in ourselves as well as others."[88] Cumberland concludes that actions "principally conducive to our Happiness" are those that promote "the Honour and Glory of God" and also "Charity and Justice towards men."[89] Cumberland emphasizes that desiring the well-being of our fellow humans is essential to the "pursuit of our own Happiness."[90] He cites "reason" as the authority for his conclusion that happiness consists in "the most extensive Benevolence," but he also mentions as "Essential Ingredients of Happiness" the "Benevolent Affections," meaning "Love and Benevolence towards others," as well as "that Joy, which arises from their Happiness."[91] Liberal natural law This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (April 2009) Hugo Grotius Liberal natural law grew out of the medieval Christian natural law theories and out of Hobbes' revision of natural law, sometimes in an uneasy balance of the two. Hugo Grotius based his philosophy of international law on natural law. In particular, his writings on freedom of the seas and just war theory directly appealed to natural law. About natural law itself, he

wrote that "even the will of an omnipotent being cannot change or abrogate" natural law, which "would maintain its objective validity even if we should assume the impossible, that there is no God or that he does not care for human affairs." (De iure belli ac pacis, Prolegomeni XI). This is the famous argument etiamsi daremus (non esse Deum), that made natural law no longer dependent on theology. However, German church-historians Ernst Wolf and M. Elze disagreed and claimed that Grotius' concept of natural law did have a theological basis.[92] In Grotius' view, the Old Testament contained moral precepts (e.g. the Decalogue) which Christ confirmed and therefore were still valid. Moreover, they were useful in explaining the content of natural law. Both biblical revelation and natural law originated in God and could therefore not contradict each other.[93] In a similar way, Samuel Pufendorf gave natural law a theological foundation and applied it to his concepts of government and international law.[94] John Locke incorporated natural law into many of his theories and philosophy, especially in Two Treatises of Government. There is considerable debate about whether his conception of natural law was more akin to that of Aquinas (filtered through Richard Hooker) or Hobbes' radical reinterpretation, though the effect of Locke's understanding is usually phrased in terms of a revision of Hobbes upon Hobbesean contractualist grounds. Locke turned Hobbes' prescription around, saying that if the ruler went against natural law and failed to protect "life, liberty, and property," people could justifiably overthrow the existing state and create a new one.[95] While Locke spoke in the language of natural law, the content of this law was by and large protective of natural rights, and it was this language that later liberal thinkers preferred. Political philosopher Jeremy Waldron has pointed out that Locke's political thought was based on "a particular set of Protestant Christian assumptions."[96] To Locke, the content of natural law was identical with biblical ethics as laid down especially in the Decalogue, Christ's teaching and exemplary life, and St. Paul's admonitions.[97] Locke derived the concept of basic human equality, including the equality of the sexes ("Adam and Eve"), from Genesis 1, 2628, the starting-point of the theological doctrine of Imago Dei.[98] One of the consequences is that as all humans are created equally free, governments need the consent of the governed.[99] Thomas Jefferson, arguably echoing Locke, appealed to unalienable rights in the Declaration of Independence, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."[100] The Lockean idea that governments need the consent of the governed was also fundamental to the Declaration of Independence, as the American Revolutionaries used it as justification for their separation from the British crown.[101] The Belgian philosopher of law Frank van Dun is one among those who are elaborating a secular conception [2] of natural law in the liberal tradition. Libertarian theorist Murray Rothbard argues that "the very existence of a natural law discoverable by reason is a potentially powerful threat to the status quo and a standing reproach to the reign of blindly traditional custom or the arbitrary will of the State apparatus."[102] Ludwig von Mises states that he relaid the general sociological and economic foundations of the liberal doctrine upon utilitarianism, rather than natural law, but R.A. Gonce argues that "the reality of the argument constituting his system overwhelms his denial."[103] David Gordon

notes, "When most people speak of natural law, what they have in mind is the contention that morality can be derived from human nature. If human beings are rational animals of such-and-such a sort, then the moral virtues are...(filling in the blanks is the difficult part)."[104] However, a secular critique of the natural law doctrine was stated by Pierre Charron in his De la sagesse (1601): "The sign of a natural law must be the universal respect in which it is held, for if there was anything that nature had truly commanded us to do, we would undoubtedly obey it universally: not only would every nation respect it, but every individual. Instead there is nothing in the world that is not subject to contradiction and dispute, nothing that is not rejected, not just by one nation, but by many; equally, there is nothing that is strange and (in the opinion of many) unnatural that is not approved in many countries, and authorized by their customs." Contemporary Christian understanding This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (April 2009) Thomas Aquinas The Catholic Church holds the view of natural law set forth by Thomas Aquinas,[105] particularly in his Summa Theologica, and often as filtered through the School of Salamanca. This view is also shared by some Protestant churches,[106] and was delineated by C.S. Lewis in his works Mere Christianity and The Abolition of Man.[107] The Catholic Church understands human beings to consist of body and mind, the physical and the nonphysical (or soul perhaps), and that the two are inextricably linked.[108] Humans are capable of discerning the difference between good and evil because they have a conscience.[109] There are many manifestations of the good that we can pursue. Some, like procreation, are common to other animals, while others, like the pursuit of truth, are inclinations peculiar to the capacities of human beings.[110] Some contemporary Catholic theologians, such as John Wijngaards, dispute the Magisterium's interpretation of Natural Law as applied to specific points of sexual ethics, such as in the areas of contraceptives and homosexual unions.[111] To know what is right, one must use one's reason and apply it to Aquinas' precepts. This reason is believed to be embodied, in its most abstract form, in the concept of a primary precept: "Good is to be sought, evil avoided."[112] St. Thomas explains that: there belongs to the natural law, first, certain most general precepts, that are known to all; and secondly, certain secondary and more detailed precepts, which are, as it were, conclusions following closely from first principles. As to those general principles, the natural law, in the abstract, can nowise be blotted out from men's hearts. But it is blotted out in the case of a particular action, insofar as reason is hindered from applying the general principle to a particular point of practice, on account of concupiscence or some other passion, as stated above (77, 2). But as to the other, i.e., the secondary precepts, the natural law can be blotted out from the human heart, either by evil persuasions, just as in

speculative matters errors occur in respect of necessary conclusions; or by vicious customs and corrupt habits, as among some men, theft, and even unnatural vices, as the Apostle states (Rm. i), were not esteemed sinful.[113] However, while the primary and immediate precepts cannot be "blotted out", the secondary precepts can be. Therefore, for a deontological ethical theory they are open to a surprisingly large amount of interpretation and flexibility. Any rule that helps man to live up to the primary or subsidiary precepts can be a secondary precept, for example: Drunkenness is wrong because it injures one's health, and worse, destroys one's ability to reason, which is fundamental to man as a rational animal (i.e. does not support self-preservation). Theft is wrong because it destroys social relations, and man is by nature a social animal (i.e. does not support the subsidiary precept of living in society). Natural moral law is concerned with both exterior and interior acts, also known as action and motive. Simply doing the right thing is not enough; to be truly moral one's motive must be right as well. For example, helping an old lady across the road (good exterior act) to impress someone (bad interior act) is wrong. However, good intentions don't always lead to good actions. The motive must coincide with the cardinal or theological virtues. Cardinal virtues are acquired through reason applied to nature; they are: According to Aquinas, to lack any of these virtues is to lack the ability to make a moral choice. For example, consider a man who possesses the virtues of justice, prudence, and fortitude, yet lacks temperance. Due to his lack of self-control and desire for pleasure, despite his good intentions, he will find himself swaying from the moral path.

Positive law
Positive law (lat. ius positum) is the term generally used to describe man-made laws which oblige or specify an action. It also describes the establishment of specific rights for an individual or group. Etymologically, the name derives from the verb to posit. The concept of positive law is distinct from "natural law", which comprises inherent rights, conferred not by act of legislation but by "God, nature or reason."[1] Positive law is also described as the law that applies at a certain time (present or past) at a certain place, consisting of statutory law, and case law as far as it is binding. More specifically, positive law may be characterized as "law actually and specifically enacted or adopted by proper authority for the government of an organized jural society."[2] lex humana versus lex posita[ Thomas Aquinas himself conflated man-made law (lex humana) and positive law (lex posita or ius positivum").[3][4][5] However, there is a subtle distinction between them. Whereas human-made law regards law from the position of its origins (i.e. who it was that posited it), positive law regards law from the position of its legitimacy. Positive law is law by the will of whomever made it, and thus there can equally be divine positive law as there is man-made positive law. (More literally translated, lex posita is posited rather than positive law.)[3] In the Summa contra Gentiles Thomas himself writes of divine positive law where he says "si autem lex sit divinitus posita, auctoritate divina dispensatio fieri potest." (SCG, lb. 3 cap. 125)[3] Latin-English translation: "If, however, the law has been divinely placed, it can be done by divine authority."[6] Martin Luther also acknowledged the idea of divine positive law, as did Juan de Torquemada.[7] Thomas Mackenzie divided the law into four parts, with two types of positive law: divine positive law, natural law, the positive law of independent states, and the law of nations.[8] The first, divine positive law, "concerns the duties of religion" and is derived from revelation. He contrasted it with divine natural law, which is "recognized by reason alone, without the aid of revelation".[8] The third, the positive law of independent states, is the law posited by "the supreme power in the state". It is, in other words, manmade positive law.[9] Thomas Aquinas has little difficulty with the idea of both divine positive law and human positive law, since he places no requirements upon the person who posits law that exclude either humans or the divine.[5] However, for other philosophers the idea of both divine and human positive law has proven to be a stumbling block. Thomas Hobbes and John Austin both espoused the notion of an ultimate sovereign. Where Thomism (and indeed Mackenzie) divided sovereignty into the spiritual (God) and the temporal (Mackenzie's "supreme power in the state"), both Hobbes and Austin sought a single, undivided, sovereign as the ultimate source of the law. The problem that this causes is that a temporal sovereign cannot exist if humans are subject to a divine positive law, but if divine positive law does not apply to all humans then God cannot be sovereign either. Hobbes and Austin's answer to this is to deny the existence of divine positive law, and to invest sovereignty in humans, that are however subject

to divine natural law. The temporal authority is sovereign, and responsible for translating divine natural law into human positive law.[10] Government professor James Bernard Murphy of Dartmouth College explains: "although our philosophers often seek to use the term positive to demarcate specifically human law, the term and concept are not well suited to do so. All of divine law is positive in source, and much of it is positive in content *+."*5+ Legal positivism This term is also sometimes used to refer to the legal philosophy legal positivism, as distinct from the schools of natural law and legal realism. In this sense, the term is often used in relation to the United States Code, portions of which restate Acts of Congress (i.e., positive law), while other portions have themselves been enacted and are thus positive law.[citation needed] With respect to the broader sense, various philosophers have put forward theories contrasting the value of positive law relative to natural law. The normative theory of law, as put forth by the Brno school, gave pre-eminence to positive law because of its rational nature. Classical liberal and libertarian philosophers usually favor natural law over legal positivism. Positive law, to French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau, was freedom from internal obstacles.[citation needed] Among the foremost proponents of legal positivism in the twentieth century was Hans Kelsen, both in his European years prior to 1940, and in his American years following 1940 until his death in the 1970s.

Environmental law
Earth jurisprudence Environmental crime Environmental engineering law Environmental impact assessment Environmental justice Intergenerational equity Land use Market-based instruments (ecotaxes) Polluter pays principle Public trust doctrine War impact Environmental law is a collective term describing international treaties (conventions), statutes, regulations, and common law or national legislation (where applicable) that operates to regulate the interaction of humanity and the natural environment, toward the purpose of reducing the impacts of human activity. The topic may be divided into two major subjects: pollution control and remediation, and resource conservation, individual exhaustion. The limitations and expenses that such laws may impose on commerce, and the often unquantifiable (non-monetized) benefit of environmental protection, have generated and continue to generate significant controversy. Given the broad scope of environmental law, no fully definitive list of environmental laws is possible. The following discussion and resources give an indication of the breadth of law that falls within the "environmental" metric. History Pure water has been an issue in many antique societies and therefore one can admittedly argue that the first legal rules on environmental issues are pretty old - they are clearly originating from Roman law rules and were also applied in the Middle Ages in Europe. While it is possible to identify early legal structures that would today fall into the "environmental" law metric - for example the common law recognition of private and public rights to protect interests in land, such as nuisance, or post-industrial revolution human health protections - the concept of "environmental law" as a separate and distinct body of law is a 20th Century development.[1] The recognition that the natural environment was fragile and in need of special legal protections, the translation of that recognition into legal structures, and the development of those structures into a larger body of "environmental law" did not occur until about the 1960s. At that time, numerous influences - including a growing awareness of the unity and fragility of the biosphere following mankind's first steps into outer space (see, for example, the Blue Marble), increased public concern over the impact of industrial activity on natural resources and human health (see, for example, the 1969 Cuyahoga River fire), the increasing strength of the regulatory state, and more broadly the advent and success of environmentalism as a political movement - coalesced to produce a huge new body of law in a relatively short period of time. While the modern history of environmental law is one of continuing controversy, by the end of the 20th Century, environmental law had been established as a component of the legal landscape in all developed nations of the world, many developing ones, and the larger project of international law.. Controversy

Environmental law is often the source of controversy. Notably, the early history of national environmental regulation in the United States (at the time the world leader in environmental regulation) was marked by relative political unity. The National Environmental Policy Act (1969), the Clean Air Act (1970), the Clean Water Act (1972), and the Endangered Species Act (1973) all were enacted with broad bipartisan support, and ultimately signed into law by Republican President Richard Nixon. Even then, however, critics raised concerns regarding the need for such laws and the costs involved in implementing them. Richard Nixon himself initially vetoed the Clean Water Act, citing its projected costs, though he was ultimately overridden by Congress.[2] Debates over the necessity, fairness, cost, and need for environmental regulation continue to this day. Necessity The necessity of directly regulating a particular activity due to the activity's environmental consequences is often a subject of debate. These debates may be scientific. For example, scientific uncertainty fuels the ongoing debate over greenhouse gas regulation and is a major factor in the debate over whether to ban pesticides.[3] Cost It is very common for regulated industry to argue against environmental regulation on the basis of cost. Indeed, in the U.S. estimates of the environmental regulation's total costs reach 2% of GDP,[4] and any new regulation will arguably contribute in some way to that burden. Difficulties arise, however, in performing cost-benefit analysis. The value of a healthy ecosystem is not easily quantified, nor the value of clean air, species diversity, etc. Furthermore environmental issues may gain an ethical or moral dimension that would discount cost. Effectiveness Environmental interests will often criticize environmental regulation as inadequately protective of the environment. Furthermore, strong environmental laws do not guarantee strong enforcement. Nonetheless; the cost benefit analysis for society at large, between having laws that protect citizens from toxic or dangerous living and work conditions (such as those that existed in the early industrial 1900's) clearly comes down on the side of regulation. Environmental law by country Africa According to the International Network for Environmental Compliance and Enforcement (INECE), the major environmental issues in Africa are drought and flooding, air pollution, deforestation, loss of biodiversity, freshwater availability, degradation of soil and vegetation, and widespread poverty. *5+ The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is focused on the growing urban and industrial pollution, water quality, electronic waste and indoor air from cookstoves. *6+ They hope to provide enough aid on concerns regarding pollution before their impacts are contaminate the African environment as well as the global environment. By doing so, they intend to protect human health,

particularly vulnerable populations such as children and the poor. *6+ In order to accomplish these goals in Africa, EPA programs are focus on strengthening the ability to enforce environmental laws as well as public compliance to them. Other programs work on developing stronger environmental laws, regulations, and standards.[6] Egypt The Environmental Protection Law outlines the responsibilities of the Egyptian government to preparation of draft legislation and decrees pertinent to environmental management, collection of data both nationally and internationally on the state of the environment, preparation of periodical reports and studies on the state of the environment, formulation of the national plan and its projects, preparation of environmental profiles for new and urban areas, and setting of standards to be used in planning for their development, and preparation of an annual report on the state of the environment to be prepared to the President."[7] Brazil The Brazilian government created the Ministry of Environment in 1992 in order to develop better strategies of protecting the environment, use natural resources sustainably, and enforce public environmental policies. The Ministry of Environment has authority over policies involving environment, water resources, preservation, and environmental programs involving the Amazon.[8] Canada The Department of the Environment Act establishes the Department of the Environment in the Canadian government as well as the position Minister of the Environment. Their duties include the preservation and enhancement of the quality of the natural environment, including water, air and soil quality; renewable resources, including migratory birds and other non-domestic flora and fauna; water; meteorology;"[9] The Environmental Protection Act is the main piece of Canadian environmental legislation that was put into place March 31, 2000. The Act focuses on respecting pollution prevention and the protection of the environment and human health in order to contribute to sustainable development."[10] Other principle federal statutes include the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, and the Species at Risk Act. When provincial and federal legislation are in conflict federal legislation takes precedence, that being said individual provinces can have their own legislation such as Ontario's Environmental Bill of Rights, and Clean Water Act.[citation needed] Ecuador With the enactment of the 2008 Constitution, Ecuador became the first country in the world to codify the Rights of Nature. The Constitution, specifically Articles 10 and 71-74, recognizes the inalienable rights of ecosystems to exist and flourish, gives people the authority to petition on the behalf of ecosystems, and requires the government to remedy violations of these rights. The rights approach is a break away from traditional environmental regulatory systems, which regard nature as property and legalize and manage degradation of the environment rather than prevent it.[11]

The Rights of Nature articles in Ecuador's constitution are part of a reaction to a combination of political, economic, and social phenomena. Ecuador's abusive past with the oil industry, most famously the classaction litigation against Chevron, and the failure of an extraction-based economy and neoliberal reforms to bring economic prosperity to the region has resulted in the election of a New Leftist regime, led by President Rafael Correa, and sparked a demand for new approaches to development. In conjunction with this need, the principle of "Buen Vivir," or good livingfocused on social, environmental and spiritual wealth versus material wealthgained popularity among citizens and was incorporated into the new constitution.[12] The influence of indigenous groups, from whom the concept of "Buen Vivir" originates, in the forming of the constitutional ideals also facilitated the incorporation of the Rights of Nature as a basic tenet of their culture and conceptualization of "Buen Vivir." [13] United States Considered in terms of historical precedence and worldwide emulation, the United States has been a world leader in the development and implementation of environmental law. While subject to criticism at home and abroad on issues of protection, enforcement, over-regulation, and imposition of externalities, the country remains an important source of environmental legal expertise and experience. Sources Laws from every stratum of the laws of the United States pertain to environmental issues. The United States Congress has passed a number of landmark environmental regulatory regimes, but many other federal laws are equally important, if less comprehensive. Concurrently, the legislatures of the fifty states have passed innumerable comparable sets of laws.[14] These state and federal systems are foliated with layer upon layer of administrative regulation. Meanwhile, the U.S. judicial system reviews not only the legislative enactments, but also the administrative decisions of the many agencies dealing with environmental issues. Where the statutes and regulations end, the common law begins.[15] Federal regulation Consistent with the federal statutes that they administer, U.S. federal agencies promulgate regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations that fill out the broad programs enacted by Congress. Primary among these is Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, containing the regulations of the Environmental Protection Agency. Other import CFR sections include Title 10 (energy), Title 18 (Conservation of Power and Water Resources), Title 21 (Food and Drugs), Title 33 (Navigable Waters), Title 36 (Parks, Forests and Public Property), Title 43 (Public Lands: Interior) and Title 50 (Wildlife and Fisheries). Judicial decisions The federal and state judiciaries have played an important role in the development of environmental law in the United States, in many cases resolving significant controversy regarding the application of federal environmental laws in favor of environmental interests. The decisions of the Supreme Court in cases such as Calvert Cliffs Coordinating Committee v. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (broadly reading

the procedural requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act), Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill (broadly reading the Endangered Species Act), and, much more recently, Massachusetts v. EPA (requiring EPA to reconsider regulation of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act) have had policy impacts far beyond the facts of the particular case. See also: List of environmental lawsuits Common law The common law of tort is an important tool for the resolution of environmental disputes that fall beyond the confines of regulated activity. Prior to the modern proliferation of environmental regulation, the doctrines of nuisance (public or private), trespass, negligence, and strict liability apportioned harm and assigned liability for activities that today would be considered pollution and likely governed by regulatory regimes.[16] These doctrines remain relevant, and most recently have been used by plaintiffs seeking to impose liability for the consequences of global climate change.[17] The common law also continues to play a leading role in American water law, in the doctrines of riparian rights and prior appropriation. Administration In the United States, responsibilities for the administration of environmental laws are divided between numerous federal and state agencies with varying, overlapping and sometimes conflicting missions. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is the most well-known federal agency, with jurisdiction over many of the country's national air, water and waste and hazardous substance programs.[18] Other federal agencies, such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Park Service pursue primarily conservation missions,[19] while still others, such as the United States Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management, tend to focus more on beneficial use of natural resources.[20] Federal agencies operate within the limits of federal jurisdiction. For example, EPA's jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act is limited to "waters of the United States". Furthermore in many cases federal laws allow for more stringent regulation by states, and of transfer of certain federally mandated responsibilities from federal to state control. U.S. state governments, therefore, administering state law adopted under state police powers or federal law by delegation, uniformly include environmental agencies.[21] The extent to which state environmental laws are based on or depart from federal law varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Thus, while a permit to fill non-federal wetlands might require a permit from a single state agency, larger and more complex endeavorsfor example, the construction of a coal-fired power plantmight require approvals from numerous federal and state agencies. See also: List of environmental organizations#Government organizations Enforcement

In the United States, violations of environmental laws are generally civil offenses, resulting in monetary penalties and, perhaps, civil sanctions such as injunction. Many environmental laws also provide for criminal penalties for egregious violations. Environmental agencies often include separate enforcement offices, with duties including monitoring permitted activities, performing compliance inspections, issuing citations and prosecuting wrongdoing (civilly or criminally, depending on the violation). EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance is one such agency. Others, such as the United States Park Police, carry out more traditional law enforcement activities. Adjudicatory proceedings for environmental violations are often handled by the agencies themselves under the strictures of administrative law. In some cases, appeals are also handled internally (for example, EPA's Environmental Appeals Board). Generally, final agency determinations may subsequently be appealed to the appropriate court. Other environmental law enforcement agencies include: Fora Verde, a branch of the Brazilian Armed Forces which was established decades ago to protect against environmental crimes.[22] Green Police, an environmental task force in New Jersey.[23] Veteran Environmental Patrol of Israel started fielding uniformed officers in 2001.[23] Education and training Environmental law courses are offered as elective courses in the second and third years of JD study at many American law schools. Curricula vary: an introductory course might focus on the "big five" federal statutesNEPA, CAA, CWA, CERCLA and RCRA (or FIFRA)and may be offered in conjunction with a natural resources law course. Smaller seminars may be offered on more focused topics. Some U.S. law schools also offer an LLM or JSD specialization in environmental law. Additionally, several law schools host legal clinics that focus on environmental law, providing students with an opportunity to learn about environmental law in the context of real world disputes involving actual clients.[24] U.S. News & World Report has consistently ranked Vermont Law School, Lewis & Clark Law School, and Pace University School of Law as the top three Environmental Law programs in the United States, with Lewis & Clark and Vermont frequently trading the top spot.[25] Many American law schools host student-published law journals. The environmental law reviews at Yale, Harvard, Stanford, Columbia, NYU and Lewis & Clark Law School are regularly the most-cited such publications.[26] International environmental lawyers often receive specialized training in the form of an LL.M. degree at U.S. institutions, after having a first law degree often in another country from where they got their first law degree. Asia

The Asian Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Network (AECEN) is an agreement between 16 Asian countries dedicated to improving cooperation with environmental laws in Asia. These countries include Cambodia, China, Indonesia, India, Maldives, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Nepal, Philippines, Pakistan, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Vietnam, and Lao PDR.[27]

China See also: Ministry of Environmental Protection of the People's Republic of China According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "China has been working with great determination in recent years to develop, implement, and enforce a solid environmental law framework. Chinese officials face critical challenges in effectively implementing the laws, clarifying the roles of their national and provincial governments, and strengthening the operation of their legal system."[28] Explosive economic and industrial growth in China has led to significant environmental degradation, and China is currently in the process of developing more stringent legal controls.[29] The harmonization of Chinese society and the natural environment is billed as one of the country's top national priorities.[30] Japan The Basic Environmental Law is the basic structure of Japans environmental policies replacing the Basic Law for Environmental Pollution Control and the Nature Conservation Law. The updated law aims to address global environmental problems, urban pollution by everyday life, loss of accessible natural environment in urban areas and degrading environmental protection capacity in forests and farmlands.*31+ The three basic environmental principles that the Basic Environmental Law follows are the blessings of the environment should be enjoyed by the present generation and succeeded to the future generations, a sustainable society should be created where environmental loads by human activities are minimized, and Japan should contribute actively to global environmental conservation through international cooperation.*31] From these principles, the Japanese government have established policies such as environmental consideration in policy formulation, establishment of the Basic Environment Plan which describes the directions of long-term environmental policy, environmental impact assessment for development projects, economic measures to encourage activities for reducing environmental load, improvement of social infrastructure such as sewerage system, transport facilities etc., promotion of environmental activities by corporations, citizens and NGOs, environmental education, and provision of information, promotion of science and technology."[31] Middle East The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is working with countries in the Middle East to improve environmental governance, water pollution and water security, clean fuels and vehicles, public participation, and pollution prevention.*32+

Vietnam Vietnam is currently working with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on dioxin remediation and technical assistance in order to lower methane emissions. On March 2002, the U.S and Vietnam signed the U.S.-Vietnam Memorandum of Understanding on Research on Human Health and the Environmental Effects of Agent Orange/Dioxin.[33] Europe European Union The European Union issues secondary legislation on environmental issues that are valid throughout the EU (so called regulations) and many directives that must be implemented into national legislation from the 27 member states (national states). Examples are the Regulation (EC) No. 338/97 on the implementation of CITES or the Directive 92/43/EEC on Fauna-Flora-Habitat. EU legislation is ruled in Article 249 Treaty for the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). Topics for common EU legislation Cooperation for the environment with third countries (other than EU member states) Civil protection Russia The Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment of the Russian Federation makes regulation regarding conservation of natural resources, including the subsoil, water bodies, forests located in designated conservation areas, fauna and their habitat, in the field of hunting, hydrometeorology and related areas, environmental monitoring and pollution control, including radiation monitoring and control, and functions of public environmental policy making and implementation and statutory regulation."[34] Oceania The main concerns on environmental issues in the Oceanic Region are illegal releases of air and water pollutants, illegal logging/timber trade, illegal shipment of hazardous wastes, including e-waste and ships slated for destruction, and insufficient institutional structure/lack of enforcement capacity.*35+ The Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environmental Programme (SPREP) is an international organization between Australia, the Cook Islands, FMS, Fiji, France, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru, New Zealand, Niue, Palau, PNG, Samoa, Solomon Island, Tonga, Tuvalu, USA, and Vanuatu. The SPREP was established in order to provide assistance in improving and protecting the environment as well as assure sustainable development for future generations.[36] Australia The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 is the center piece of environmental legislation in the Australian Government. It sets up the legal framework to protect and manage nationally and internationally important flora, fauna, ecological communities and heritage

places.*37+ It also focuses on protecting world heritage properties, national heritage properties, wetlands of international importance, nationally threatened species and ecological communities, migratory species, Commonwealth marine areas, Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, and the environment surrounding nuclear activities.[37] New Zealand Main article: New Zealand environmental law The Ministry for the Environment and Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment were established by the Environment Act 1986. These positions are responsible for advising the Minister on all areas of environmental legislation. A common theme of New Zealands environmental legislation is sustainably managing natural and physical resources, fisheries, and forests. The Resource Management Act 1991 is the main piece of environmental legislation that outlines the governments strategy to managing the environment, including air, water soil, biodiversity, the coastal environment, noise, subdivision, and land use planning in general.*38+ Environmental treaties Pollution, scarce resources, wild animals and plants do not respect political boundaries, making treaties an important aspect of environmental law. Numerous legally binding international agreements now encompass a wide variety of issue-areas, from terrestrial, marine and atmospheric pollution through to wildlife and biodiversity protection. While the bodies that proposed, argued, agreed upon and ultimately adopted existing international agreements vary according to each agreement, certain conferences, including 1972's United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, 1983's World Commission on Environment and Development, 1992's United Nations Conference on Environment and Development and 2002's World Summit on Sustainable Development have been particularly important. Organizing principles International environmental law's development has included the statement and adoption of a number of important guiding principles. As with all international law, international environmental law brings up questions of sovereignty, legal reciprocity ("comity") and even perhaps the Golden Rule. Other guiding principles include the polluter pays principle, the precautionary principle, the principle of sustainable development, environmental procedural rights, common but differentiated responsibilities, intragenerational and intergenerational equity, "common concern of humankind", and common heritage. Treaties, protocols, conventions, etc. International environmental agreements are generally multilateral (or sometimes bilateral) treaties (a.k.a. convention, agreement, protocol, etc.). The majority of such conventions deal directly with specific environmental issues. There are also some general treaties with one or two clauses referring to

environmental issues but these are rarer.[citation needed] There are about 1000 environmental law treaties in existence today; no other area of law has generated such a large body of conventions on a specific topic.[citation needed] Protocols are subsidiary agreements built from a primary treaty. They exist in many areas of international law but are especially useful in the environmental field, where they may be used to regularly incorporate recent scientific knowledge. They also permit countries to reach agreement on a framework that would be contentious if every detail were to be agreed upon in advance. The most widely known protocol in international environmental law is the Kyoto Protocol, which followed from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Organizations, institutions, bodies, etc. Multilateral environmental agreements are sometimes creating an International Organization, Institution or Body that implements the agreement. Major examples are the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) and the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN).

Alfelor Sr. Memorial College Del Gallego, Camarines Sur

Project in English 7
(Technical Report and Writing I)
Submitted By:

NATAO, MARIFER V. Student

Submitted To:
MR. LEONITO A. GARCIA SR. Instructor

Alfelor Sr. Memorial College Del Gallego, Camarines Sur

Project in P.S. 108

NATAO, MARIFER V. Student

Submitted To:
MR. LEONITO A. GARCIA SR. Instructor