m Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigation Jump to search

This article is about a system of rules. For the social science or theory of law, see Jurisprudence.
For a document passed by legislature, see statutory law. For other uses, see Law
(disambiguation).
"Legal" and "Legal concept" redirect here. For other uses, see Legal (disambiguation).

Iustitia ("Lady Justice") is a symbolic personification of the coercive power of a tribunal: a

sword representing state authority, scales representing an objective standard, and a blindfold
indicating that justice should be impartial.[1]

Law is commonly understood as a system of rules that are created and enforced through social or
governmental institutions to regulate conduct,[2] although its precise definition is a matter of
longstanding debate.[3][4][5] It has been variously described as a science[6][7] and the art of justice.[8]
[9][10]
State-enforced laws can be made by a collective legislature or by a single legislator,
resulting in statutes, by the executive through decrees and regulations, or established by judges
through precedent, normally in common law jurisdictions. Private individuals can create legally
binding contracts, including arbitration agreements that may elect to accept alternative arbitration
to the normal court process. The formation of laws themselves may be influenced by a
constitution, written or tacit, and the rights encoded therein. The law shapes politics, economics,
history and society in various ways and serves as a mediator of relations between people.

Legal systems vary between countries, with their differences analysed in comparative law. In
civil law jurisdictions, a legislature or other central body codifies and consolidates the law. In
common law systems, judges make binding case law through precedent,[11] although on occasion
case law may be overturned by a higher court or the legislature.[12] Historically, religious law
influenced secular matters,[13] and is still used in some religious communities.[14][15] Sharia law
based on Islamic principles is used as the primary legal system in several countries, including
Iran and Saudi Arabia.[16][17]
Law's scope can be divided into two domains. Public law concerns government and society,
including constitutional law, administrative law, and criminal law. Private law deals with legal
disputes between individuals and/or organisations in areas such as contracts, property,
torts/delicts and commercial law.[18] This distinction is stronger in civil law countries, particularly
those with a separate system of administrative courts;[19][20] by contrast, the public-private law
divide is less pronounced in common law jurisdictions.[21][22]

Law provides a source of scholarly inquiry into legal history,[23] philosophy,[24] economic
analysis[25] and sociology.[26] Law also raises important and complex issues concerning equality,
fairness, and justice.[27][28]

Contents
 1 Philosophy of law
o 1.1 What is the law?
 2 History
 3 Legal systems
o 3.1 Civil law
 3.1.1 Socialist law
o 3.2 Common law and equity
o 3.3 Religious law
 3.3.1 Canon law
 3.3.2 Sharia law
 4 Legal methods
 5 Legal institutions
o 5.1 Judiciary
o 5.2 Legislature
o 5.3 Executive
o 5.4 Military and police
o 5.5 Bureaucracy
o 5.6 Legal profession
o 5.7 Civil society
 6 Areas of law
o 6.1 International law
o 6.2 Constitutional and administrative law
o 6.3 Criminal law
o 6.4 Contract law
o 6.5 Torts and delicts
o 6.6 Property law
o 6.7 Equity and trusts
o 6.8 Further disciplines
 7 Intersection with other fields
 o 7.1 Economics
o 7.2 Sociology
 8 See also
 9 References
o 9.1 Citations
o 9.2 Sources
 10 External links

Philosophy of law
Main articles: Philosophy of law and Jurisprudence
But what, after all, is a law? [...] When I say that the object of laws is always general, I mean that
law considers subjects en masse and actions in the abstract, and never a particular person or
action. [...] On this view, we at once see that it can no longer be asked whose business it is to
make laws, since they are acts of the general will; nor whether the prince is above the law, since
he is a member of the State; nor whether the law can be unjust, since no one is unjust to himself;
nor how we can be both free and subject to the laws, since they are but registers of our wills.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau, The Social Contract, II, 6.[29]

The philosophy of law is commonly known as jurisprudence. Normative jurisprudence asks

"what should law be?", while analytic jurisprudence asks "what is law?" John Austin's utilitarian
answer was that law is "commands, backed by threat of sanctions, from a sovereign, to whom
people have a habit of obedience".[30] Natural lawyers on the other side, such as Jean-Jacques
Rousseau, argue that law reflects essentially moral and unchangeable laws of nature. The
concept of "natural law" emerged in ancient Greek philosophy concurrently and in connection
with the notion of justice, and re-entered the mainstream of Western culture through the writings
of Thomas Aquinas, notably his Treatise on Law.

Hugo Grotius, the founder of a purely rationalistic system of natural law, argued that law arises
from both a social impulse—as Aristotle had indicated—and reason.[31] Immanuel Kant believed
a moral imperative requires laws "be chosen as though they should hold as universal laws of
nature".[32] Jeremy Bentham and his student Austin, following David Hume, believed that this
conflated the "is" and what "ought to be" problem. Bentham and Austin argued for law's
positivism; that real law is entirely separate from "morality".[33] Kant was also criticised by
Friedrich Nietzsche, who rejected the principle of equality, and believed that law emanates from
the will to power, and cannot be labeled as "moral" or "immoral".[34][35][36]

In 1934, the Austrian philosopher Hans Kelsen continued the positivist tradition in his book the
Pure Theory of Law.[37] Kelsen believed that although law is separate from morality, it is
endowed with "normativity", meaning we ought to obey it. While laws are positive "is"
statements (e.g. the fine for reversing on a highway is €500); law tells us what we "should" do.
Thus, each legal system can be hypothesised to have a basic norm (Grundnorm) instructing us to
obey. Kelsen's major opponent, Carl Schmitt, rejected both positivism and the idea of the rule of
law because he did not accept the primacy of abstract normative principles over concrete
political positions and decisions.[38] Therefore, Schmitt advocated a jurisprudence of the
exception (state of emergency), which denied that legal norms could encompass all of the
political experience.[39]

Bentham's utilitarian theories remained dominant in law until the 20th century.

Later in the 20th century, H. L. A. Hart attacked Austin for his simplifications and Kelsen for his
fictions in The Concept of Law.[40] Hart argued law is a system of rules, divided into primary
(rules of conduct) and secondary ones (rules addressed to officials to administer primary rules).
Secondary rules are further divided into rules of adjudication (to resolve legal disputes), rules of
change (allowing laws to be varied) and the rule of recognition (allowing laws to be identified as
valid). Two of Hart's students continued the debate: In his book Law's Empire, Ronald Dworkin
attacked Hart and the positivists for their refusal to treat law as a moral issue. Dworkin argues
that law is an "interpretive concept",[41] that requires judges to find the best fitting and most just
solution to a legal dispute, given their constitutional traditions. Joseph Raz, on the other hand,
defended the positivist outlook and criticised Hart's "soft social thesis" approach in The
Authority of Law.[42] Raz argues that law is authority, identifiable purely through social sources
and without reference to moral reasoning. In his view, any categorisation of rules beyond their
role as authoritative instruments in mediation are best left to sociology, rather than jurisprudence.
[43]

What is the law?

Main article: Analytical jurisprudence

There have been several attempts to produce "a universally acceptable definition of law". In
1972, Baron Hampstead suggested that no such definition could be produced.[44] McCoubrey and
White said that the question "what is law?" has no simple answer.[45] Glanville Williams said that
the meaning of the word "law" depends on the context in which that word is used. He said that,
for example, "early customary law" and "municipal law" were contexts where the word "law"
had two different and irreconcilable meanings.[46] Thurman Arnold said that it is obvious that it is
impossible to define the word "law" and that it is also equally obvious that the struggle to define
that word should not ever be abandoned.[47] It is possible to take the view that there is no need to
define the word "law" (e.g. "let's forget about generalities and get down to cases").[48]

One definition is that law is a system of rules and guidelines which are enforced through social
institutions to govern behaviour.[2] In The Concept of Law Hart argued law is a "system of rules";
[49]
Austin said law was "the command of a sovereign, backed by the threat of a sanction";[30]
Dworkin describes law as an "interpretive concept" to achieve justice in his text titled Law's
Empire;[41] and Raz argues law is an "authority" to mediate people's interests.[42] Holmes said,
"The prophecies of what the courts will do in fact, and nothing more pretentious, are what I mean
by the law."[50] In his Treatise on Law Aquinas argues that law is a rational ordering of things
which concern the common good that is promulgated by whoever is charged with the care of the
community.[51] This definition has both positivist and naturalist elements.[52]