The realist theorist Henkin (1993, p.214) convinced that “law is a major force in the world”. Legal

The Development of Political ideas of the rule of laws and illegitimacy western of tyranny go all the way to ancient Greek and Roman philosophy

Sanctions are only appealed to in the event that there is a breach. It therefore follows that the opinion of Hart is that various form of law cannot be explained in a single expression as orders backed with threats of sanction. Thus, in contradiction with Austin’s viewpoint, Hart formulated a dual system which contains two types of rules, primary rules (duty-imposing) and secondary rules (power-conferring). Primary rules are generally duty-imposing, which embodies non-optional rules of obligation. It often concerned with standard of behavior as requirement to do or to abstain from performing an act. On the other hand, secondary rules are ancillary to primary rules the former conferring right to introduce, to vary the primary rules and to determine the mode in which their violation could be determined (judicial process). Such secondary rules are rather regulatory or facilitative than coercive in nature. In short, Austin’s catch all theory of seeing law as command back with sanction leave no room for right, privileges given to subject of Sovereignty which does not constitute non optional

Navigating the criminal justice can be a difficult process for offenders, witnesses, and victims. Moreover, the hardest process of the whole system is the laws. Laws are designed to both protect offenders from injusticely actions and protecting the victims as well as the public. Therefore, depending on the crime, situations, and laws applied could be a complex outcome for all parties that are involved in the proceedings. As a result, it’s two understandings about the called “Law on the Books” and “Law in Action” which these two concepts are understanding what the law says and how the law work in real life.

There are two approaches that can be adopted as to what would amount to a legal system. On the one hand are theories that treat the concepts of law and legal systems having certain moral dimensions-on this view, a body of rules might be said to count as a legal system only if it is aimed at the common good or enforcement of justice. The other approach, which is a characteristic of legal positivism, offers an account of law and legal systems that is morally neutral in character. Legal systems are characterized on this view, by the existence of certain types of institutional arrangements rather than by moral purposes they may or may not serve.

International law is defined as a set of rules that countries follow in dealing with one another. Since there is no world government, there is no

The social constructs of law relate it to be something of complexity, where one’s rights and protections are imagined to be difficult to find. The law is an historic and modern aspect of the world, ensuring uniformity. It is important for the law to become not only a creator, but also a product of its environment. For society to accept the law and for its effectiveness, it must be made in ways reflect societal values.

When comparing apples to pears, one is not making a fair comparison, but a disproportionate comparison. Often times when international law is discussed or attempts are made to understand international law; many often attempt to compare international law with existing laws such as national law or domestic law. Making such disproportionate comparisons leads to many misconceived notions and attitudes toward international law. For an adequate comparison of international law to other laws, one should look closely at the available facts. This essay will demonstrate the vitality of international law, in a world of nations which continue to increase in interdependence.

From time to time there arises a school of legal thought which undermines the errors of the past and establish truth. In the 21st centaury, this movement has been ongoing under the name of American Legal Realism. Legal realism, is a school of legal thought that is opposed to the dominant mechanical conception of adjudication and conventional view. The realists insist that on considering how courts really decide cases, it can be revealed that the decisions are not primarily based on law, but on the judge’s sense of what is “fair”. Least to say, those who agree with this theory claim that the judge himself is who creates the law. This paper will discuss theories of American legal realism discussed by theorists: Oliver Wendell Holmes and Jerome Frank. Secondly, the paper will focus on a few significant objections that one might have against the theory. To conclude, a strong opinion disagreeing with the objections against legal realism is depicted.

The book Rough Justice clearly explains the struggle between power and justice in the realms of international law. The international criminal court was established on the principle that all the perpetrators of crimes against humanity, war crimes, and genocides should be subjected to investigations irrespective of ethnicity, nationality or political affiliation. The ICC was also expected to operate fairly in an international legal and political system. The international court is also required to operate in a straightforward manner without portraying any favoritism. The states were also required to avoid the actions of ICC if they wished by not ratifying the Rome Statute: thus, voluntarism remains an important principle of the international law.

In his book, Neil Boyd says that “Law is a vitally important force. It is the skeleton that structures our economic, social, and political lives” (Boyd 5). One can answer questions only after understanding different perspectives of legal philosophy, such as natural law, positivism, legal pragmatism, and feminism. Questions such as: Are the natural law dead as argued by Roger Cotterrell? Does Hatfield provide compelling reasons, if he rejects Cottrell’s argument on the natural law? Equally good, Will it aid our understanding of the different position of legal philosophy by contrasting values of natural laws with other three perspectives of law? Let us discuss it below.

Gradually since starting high school I have become more curious about notions of "right" and "wrong", in a world where such distinctions are not always apparent or obvious. I have lived in the UK, Kuwait and the USA, and observed that each country has different laws and systems that influence people’s way of life and outlook on society. This is the reason behind my interest in law, specifically international law. Attending school in three different countries has provided me with an eclectic insight into the nature of different cultures and political systems, which I find more fascinating as I grow older.

There are several reasons why international law is not the most effective way to achieve

This article discusses the conceptions of legal normativity, both moral and “strictly legal” conceptions. According to Spaak, regarding the normative force of legal justification, legal positivists can still embrace the moral idea and not be in conflict with their generally held belief in the “strictly legal” concept of law. In Torben Spaak’s opinion, there is a reason to desire legal positivism; he explains this through introducing the concept of jurisprudence. When discussing the nature of law, Spaak states, “that while the moral conception is what is likely favored on a smaller scale, the strictly legal conception is more appealing because it is broader,” (478). Spaak is arguing, his belief that “validity-based explanations come nearer to the truth,”(483) rather than belief-based explanations. He concludes that we are to prefer legal positivism over natural law theory. “That is why in this article I have been concerned with the law itself rather than our views about it.”(483)

The International Court of Justice (ICJ), also known as the World Court, is the paramount court of international law. Nevertheless, there appear to be power discrepancies within the ICJ. When looking at the structure and history of the ICJ, one can observe the advantages of major powers within the court. States look to the ICJ as an impartial arbitrator, but the ICJ seems to be significantly more partial than one may expect it to be. If major powers are favored in the court, weaker states will lose faith in the supreme judicial organ of global law. The ICJ serves a critical role in international law and thus it must fairly proceed in disputes brought forth by any member state. This is not the case and there is an imbalance of power in the ICJ system as major powers heavily influence the structure, decision-making, and compliance measures. Specifically, The United Nations Security Council has the utmost influence in the United Nations (UN) and thus has serious power inside the ICJ. The major powers can influence decisions in a variety of ways, such as through their constant

It is noteworthy that the legal and political systems are fundamentally different in the first place due to the diverse perspectives of the world, and they have developed into two separate entities with their own purposes and model in the society. Therefore, it is unlikely that they share common philosophy and practices. However, like most other disciplines in the society, sometimes law and politics overlap to achieve a common goal, sometimes they complement each other and at other times, they contradict each other. For example, the differentiation of adversaries has no ground in the law and politics dominates over the rule of law when this occurs. Therefore, the goals, philosophy and practices in both systems do not entirely agree, hence reasoning in both systems must be different also.