Legal Positivists And Natural Law

1966 Words8 Pages
‘An unjust law cannot be a valid law’ In the light of Natural Law and Positivist theories, assess the accuracy of the above statement. To what extent are legal positivists and natural law theorists accurate in terms of the idea that ‘an unjust law cannot be a valid law’? In this essay i will attempt to define the concept of the validity of law in relation to both natural law theorists and positivist theorists. For the purpose of this essay I will define validity of a law as ”Having legal force; effective or binding” (The Free Dictionary). The main reason for the continual debate between both theories is that they are both very similar although they may appear to be at contrary ends of each spectrum. Natural law theorists believe that in order for a law to be valid it must have some moral principle therefore if laws which are enacted in statues have no authority, they are not moral. Whereas positivists support and emphasise the importance of a division between morality and law. I will begin by outlining both theories. I will then move onto asses the accuracy of the following statement, ‘An unjust law cannot be a valid law’ this includes establishing the similarities and differences of both theories; in order to do this effectively it is essential that a thorough understanding of both theories has been developed. Finally I will summarise my findings, An unjust law cannot be a valid law - true or false? The first question we need to address in order to be able to assess this
Get Access