CONCEPT OF LAW AND JUSTICE (original) (raw)
Related papers
THE CONCEPT OF LAW AND JUSTICE
Prizren Social Science Journal, 2020
From the views and changes that have followed the dynamism of our society, undoubtedly, law and justice have played a crucial role as a very abstract term that has been consumed almost from the first beginnings of human society to our modern days. Beyond the events and circumstances that societies in the past have had and organized by defining and choosing the way of life, and often times the right has been personalized by a certain group of people, or by a military division that has given rights and has created justice, in certain interests and for personal and charismatic purposes it has been denied a certain part of society, and has often been deformed in scandalous ways by reflecting, on the fact that the giver of this right has often been pointed out to be the man, but this convulsion in no case has lasted long, and often this theory has remained unrealized, reflecting that right is something natural and that the individual gains at the moment of birth and enjoys it to death, this divergence and complexity of the way of perceiving the law has often resulted in wars and the acquisition of this vital right. Through this paper we will draw philosophical and legal paradigms, analyzing from a retrospective way of the application of law and the applicability of justice, as an important mechanism of regulation of social relations. Law and justice have a common path of development, one by regulating the way of life of the people, that is, by issuing norms and the other by giving justice to the relative complexity and cohesion of interpersonal relations.
The Oxford Handbook of Demosthenes, 2018
This is a synthesis of what I think about the role of law and justice in the Athenian trial, with a (non-exclusive) focus on Demosthenes.
This Research Paper is an attempt to answer the following questions of jurisprudence in a manner- thoughtful and lucid. What is Justice? What are the various forms of justice? What is the difference between 'Corrective Justice' and 'Distributive Justice'? How is "law in accordance with justice" different from "justice in accordance with law"? What is the difference between 'A Law' and 'The Law'? How is 'Conventional Morality' different from 'Critical Morality'? Is 'law' in breach of 'morals' - an unjust law? How are 'Natural Rights', 'Civil Rights' and 'Legal Rights' inter-connected? What is the difference between 'Natural Justice' and 'Legal Justice'?
Disputes between Law and Justice
Journal of Law Policy and Globalization, 2013
The consequence of identifying justice with law is that seeking justice becomes constrained and it becomes limited only to the formulation of law. Although it is possible to approach justice from the 'legal-formal' aspect, justice cannot be reduced to law. Once justice is reduced to law, seeking justice outside the legal system ceases. The assumption that justice is identical to law is misleading, as justice is assumed to be inherent in the law itself. On the other hand, it is dangerous to make a distinct separation between law and justice. Law obtains its validity through its positive form, which is derived from the sovereign authority. The implication of this is that law is the law itself, altogether separate from justice, whereby an emphasis is placed only on its formal manifestation. However, law is not justice. Law is a calculable element, while justice is incalculable in concrete terms. Law is a tool for approaching justice. Therefore, law cannot possibly surpass justice, because assuming that law surpasses justice would be as stating that the tool colonizes its objective.
The Concept of Law and Its Conceptions
Ratio Juris, 2006
In this paper, I make an attempt to look for a thin and general concept of law that, as far as possible, should be neutral to the more substantial views of legal moralism and legal positivism, so that it is acceptable from both points of view. With this aim in view, I shall begin with a few remarks on concept formation and name a list of necessary requirements on an appropriate concept of law. On this basis, I intend to discuss a number of contemporary legal theories in view to their respective interpretations of the concept of law. Finally, I want to propose a definition of law that not only satisfies the requirements of the concept of law, but is also general enough to be compatible with both camps of legal thinking.
Encyclopedia of Business Ethics and Society
Justice, Theories of The question "What is justice" is the first problem addressed by Plato's Republic. It has remained a central question in all moral, legal and political thought. There are narrow and broad uses of the terms 'just' and 'justice.' In its narrowest sense, justice is close to lawfulness, and a just act is a legal one, meaning primarily that it is not illegal. Another narrow use is procedural, with the sense that certain decision-making procedures deliver a product that a state calls justice. In its broader senses, which are of the greatest interest to philosophers and other theorists, justice is thought of as an attribute either of acts, including transactions and decisions; of conditions, including rules and laws; or of entities, including persons, gods, societies and states. Aristotle held that the creation and maintenance of justice was the most important task of the state. A just state was ruled in the interests of the whole population, while an unjust state was ruled in the interests of its ruling class. Aristotle distinguished between distributive and commutative justice. The first deals with the distribution of rights, benefits, costs and responsibilities within a class, for example, among citizens of a state, among family members or among stakeholders in a corporation. The second, now widely known as retributive justice, deals with the treatment of individual persons or interests, for example, in a transaction or in meting out punishment. This second way of thinking about justice involves consideration of what people deserve according to some standard, such as law or precedence. Poetic justice, in which one unexpectedly gets what he or she deserves, is a notion of retributive justice. The distributive notion of justice involves, as Aristotle has it, treating equals equally and unequals according to their relevant inequality so that, for example, juveniles and adults are accorded differing rights and responsibilities with regard to alcohol, marriage, driving and voting. Injustice would clearly arise from treating a member of one class according to the rules laid down for the other class. Today theorists are unlikely to assert that there are two distinct conceptions involved in our thinking about justice, though most will agree that we have notions about justice that can be at odds with one another. Each of several employees might deserve all of the bonus dollars available in a given year, but it might still seem more just to divide the money among them. In that case, the desire for a kind of distribution is apparently at odds with the desire to give what is deserved. Some contemporary theorists emphasize the notion of distributive justice while others emphasize individual rights, and thus the retributive notion of justice. The concept of social justice takes justice as the attribute of a society in which a certain pattern of distribution is roughly realized throughout its most important institutions. In order to discover the right distributions, John Rawls attempts to produce a hypothetical social contract. His basic idea is that a contract made under certain constraints will guarantee justice. Discovering these constraints involves assuming a "veil of ignorance"we choose social arrangements from behind this veil by supposing that we must enter the world our policy choices create, though we are ignorant about how we will enter it, meaning that we might enter it in any condition of wealth or poverty,
If we want to be fair judges of all situations, first of all, we must convince ourselves that none of us are without fault. "seneca"