What is the nature of law or what is the essence of law is a long disputed question. Various Greek thinkers have already raised several questions on the topic and the answer is still not clear. That does not mean that there is no clear answer but there is not a complete answer which can be claimed to be absolute. Also, this question has preoccupied Jurisprudence and philosophy of law. Immanuel Kant, Hegel and Grotius are eminent jurists. They regarded law neither as command of the sovereign nor a product of consciousness rather based on rationality and reasonableness. Many centuries ago, it was believed that according to Christianity, God and Old Testaments created the law. Law was a set of rules written by God. People believed in Divine power. Also, it was believed that only if the laws are considered to be sacred then it will be followed. This now poses another question that What if law proves to be inefficient and no justice is provided? What will be the situation if law turns out to be biased? Also, every single person has his own definition for the three-letter word. Even the judges that make law, give judgements according to time.

S]urvival has still a special status in relation to human conduct and in our thought about it, which parallels the prominence and the necessity ascribed to it in . . . Natural Law. For it is not merely that an overwhelming majority of men do wish to live, even at the cost of hideous misery, but that this is reflected in whole structures of our thought and language . . . We could not subtract the general wish to live and leave intact concepts like danger and safety, harm and benefit, need and function, disease and cure; for these are ways of simultaneously describing and appraising things by reference to the contribution they make to survival which is accepted as an aim." Most importantly, the author leaves fully open the possibility that he is completely wrong in his findings on law. This allows his writing to be still relevant today, and pave the way for you to write your story on what you feel law is. Dun Dun DUNNNNNNNN.Brasenose College, Oxford. He authored The Concept of Law one of the seminal works of English-language jurisprudence. He passed away in 1992. Law is the product of social consciousness.” This social consciousness started even before sovereignty. It started from the very beginning of the society. Sir Henry Maine, Edmund Burke are the renowned jurists. Abbott, Kenneth W.; Keohane, Robert O.; Moravcsik, Andrew; Slaughter, Anne-Marie; Snidal, Duncan (2000). "The Concept of Legalization" (PDF). International Organization. 54 (3): 401–419. doi: 10.1162/002081800551271. ISSN 1531-5088. S2CID 16285815. Archived from the original on 2005-01-20.

Por otro lado, Max Weber, con su meticulosa mirada sociológica, proporciona a Hart una lente para entender el derecho en su contexto social. Hart adopta de Weber la idea del derecho como un tipo de autoridad racional-legal, distinguiéndolo de otras formas de poder. La visión weberiana sobre la legitimidad y la burocracia resuena en el análisis de Hart sobre cómo las reglas son reconocidas y aplicadas en una comunidad. desirable from the moral point of view to adopt. 2.1.5 Constructive Interpretation of Legal Practice Thus, there is a need for a body to make laws for everyone keeping aside the biases. Also, Supreme court of India, in July 2018, passed a judgement ensuring that justice is the law’s business and not mob’s. Furthermore, the Indian constitution guarantees justice for all. Law is not a mistress, law is a spouse . It stays with you, wherever you go. Law is an invisible force that controls every human being. Law connects us like Life and Water (LAW). All these statements gives the idea that law is universal. There are two kinds of law. One is based on justice , the other one is based on control. The latter part is in use today. “Might is right” principle is followed. It is retribution instead of restoration which should be followed.Not only does the rule of law entail such basic requirements about how the law should be enacted in society, it also implies certain qualities about the characteristics and content of the laws themselves. In particular, laws should be open and clear, general in form, universal in application, and knowable to all. Moreover, legal requirements must be such that people are able to be guided by them; they must not place undue cognitive or behavioral demands on people to follow. Thus, the law should be relatively stable and comprise determinate requirements that people can consult before acting, and legal obligations should not be retroactively established. Furthermore, the law should remain internally consistent and, failing that, should provide for legal ways to resolve contradictions that can be expected to arise. Now, this poses a question what if the new king is inefficient? No one had the right to remove the king.

This school of law emphasises a lot on what courts may do rather than the abstract ideas. Law exists as a matter of reality. Primary rules are rules, or laws, that govern general societal conduct. Thus, primary rules construct legal obligations and consequences when they are disobeyed. A good example of primary rule is the law against murder; it prohibits a person from killing and attaches consequences for committing, attempting to commit, and conspiring to commit the crime. [14] Secondary rules [ edit ] Rules of adjudication were intended to remedy the inefficiency of its diffused social pressure. Rules of adjudication empower individuals to make authoritative determinations of the question whether, on a particular occasion, a primary rule has been broken. [22] Rules of adjudication govern the election and procedure of the judiciary. However, intermingled with who adjudicates is what laws they adjudicate. [23] Under that logic, rules of adjudication, like rules of change, must also be supplemented by rules of recognition of some sort. Thus, “the rule which confers jurisdiction will also be a rule of recognition, identifying the primary rules through the judgments of the courts and these judgments will become a 'source' of law.” [24] Other jurisprudential philosophers [ edit ] As a result, the definition changed over time. Later people started believing more in themselves than in the supreme commander. The meaning of law became closer to humans. The definition shifted its emphasis from God to lawmakers.

Participants from more than 85 countries have attended our bootcamps so far

Even in ancient times there were certain customs which acted as laws. In other words, it can be said that law can be called as the supreme force which acts as a catalyst between society and illegal practices. A reply to Ronald Dworkin, who criticized legal positivism in general and especially Hart's account of law in Taking Rights Seriously, A Matter of Principle, and Law's Empire.