Chapter 1
Introduction to Law and Legal Systems
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
After reading this chapter, you should be able to do the following:
1. Distinguish
... [Show More] different philosophies of law—schools of legal thought—and
explain their relevance.
2. Identify the various aims that a functioning legal system can serve.
3. Explain how politics and law are related.
4. Identify the sources of law and which laws have priority over other laws.
5. Understand some basic differences between the US legal system and
other legal systems.
Law has different meanings as well as different functions. Philosophers have
considered issues of justice and law for centuries, and several different approaches,
or schools of legal thought, have emerged. In this chapter, we will look at those
different meanings and approaches and will consider how social and political
dynamics interact with the ideas that animate the various schools of legal thought.
We will also look at typical sources of “positive law” in the United States and how
some of those sources have priority over others, and we will set out some basic
differences between the US legal system and other legal systems.
8
1.1 What Is Law?
Law is a word that means different things at different times. Black’s Law Dictionary
says that law is “a body of rules of action or conduct prescribed by controlling
authority, and having binding legal force. That which must be obeyed and followed
by citizens subject to sanctions or legal consequence is a law.”Black’s Law Dictionary,
6th ed., s.v. “law.”
Functions of the Law
In a nation, the law can serve to (1) keep the peace, (2) maintain the status quo, (3)
preserve individual rights, (4) protect minorities against majorities, (5) promote
social justice, and (6) provide for orderly social change. Some legal systems serve
these purposes better than others. Although a nation ruled by an authoritarian
government may keep the peace and maintain the status quo, it may also oppress
minorities or political opponents (e.g., Burma, Zimbabwe, or Iraq under Saddam
Hussein). Under colonialism, European nations often imposed peace in countries
whose borders were somewhat arbitrarily created by those same European nations.
Over several centuries prior to the twentieth century, empires were built by Spain,
Portugal, Britain, Holland, France, Germany, Belgium, and Italy. With regard to the
functions of the law, the empire may have kept the peace—largely with force—but it
changed the status quo and seldom promoted the native peoples’ rights or social
justice within the colonized nation.
In nations that were former colonies of European nations, various ethnic and tribal
factions have frequently made it difficult for a single, united government to rule
effectively. In Rwanda, for example, power struggles between Hutus and Tutsis
resulted in genocide of the Tutsi minority. (Genocide is the deliberate and
systematic killing or displacement of one group of people by another group. In
1948, the international community formally condemned the crime of genocide.) In
nations of the former Soviet Union, the withdrawal of a central power created
power vacuums that were exploited by ethnic leaders. When Yugoslavia broke up,
the different ethnic groups—Croats, Bosnians, and Serbians—fought bitterly for
home turf rather than share power. In Iraq and Afghanistan, the effective blending
of different groups of families, tribes, sects, and ethnic groups into a national
governing body that shares power remains to be seen.
Law and Politics
In the United States, legislators, judges, administrative agencies, governors, and
presidents make law, with substantial input from corporations, lobbyists, and a
Chapter 1 Introduction to Law and Legal Systems
9
diverse group of nongovernment organizations (NGOs) such as the American
Petroleum Institute, the Sierra Club, and the National Rifle Association. In the fifty
states, judges are often appointed by governors or elected by the people. The
process of electing state judges has become more and more politicized in the past
fifteen years, with growing campaign contributions from those who would seek to
seat judges with similar political leanings.
In the federal system, judges are appointed by an elected official (the president) and
confirmed by other elected officials (the Senate). If the president is from one party
and the other party holds a majority of Senate seats, political conflicts may come up
during the judges’ confirmation processes. Such a division has been fairly frequent
over the past fifty years.
In most nation-states1
(as countries are called in international law), knowing who
has power to make and enforce the laws is a matter of knowing who has political
power; in many places, the people or groups that have military power can also
command political power to make and enforce the laws. Revolutions are difficult
and contentious, but each year there are revolts against existing political-legal
authority; an aspiration for democratic rule, or greater “rights” for citizens, is a
recurring theme in politics and law.
KEY TAKEAWAY
Law is the result of political action, and the political landscape is vastly
different from nation to nation. Unstable or authoritarian governments
often fail to serve the principal functions of law.
EXERCISES
1. Consider Burma (named Myanmar by its military rulers). What political
rights do you have that the average Burmese citizen does not?
2. What is a nongovernment organization, and what does it have to do with
government? Do you contribute to (or are you active in) a
nongovernment organization? What kind of rights do they espouse,
what kind of laws do they support, and what kind of laws do they
oppose?
1. The basic entities that
comprise the international
legal system. Countries, states,
and nations are all roughly
synonymous. State can also be
used to designate the basic
units of federally united states,
such as in the United States of
America, which is a nationstate.
Chapter 1 Introduction to Law and Legal Systems
1.1 What Is Law? 10
1.2 Schools of Legal Thought
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
1. Distinguish different philosophies of law—schools of legal thought—and
explain their relevance.
2. Explain why natural law relates to the rights that the founders of the US
political-legal system found important.
3. Describe legal positivism and explain how it differs from natural law.
4. Differentiate critical legal studies and ecofeminist legal perspectives
from both natural law and legal positivist perspectives.
There are different schools (or philosophies) concerning what law is all about.
Philosophy of law is also called jurisprudence2
, and the two main schools are legal
positivism3
and natural law4
. Although there are others (see Section 1.2.3 "Other
Schools of Legal Thought"), these two are the most influential in how people think
about the law.
Legal Positivism: Law as Sovereign Command
As legal philosopher John Austin concisely put it, “Law is the command of a
sovereign.” Law is only law, in other words, if it comes from a recognized authority
and can be enforced by that authority, or sovereign5—such as a king, a president,
or a dictator—who has power within a defined area or territory. Positivism is a
philosophical movement that claims that science provides the only knowledge
precise enough to be worthwhile. But what are we to make of the social phenomena
of laws?
We could examine existing statutes6—executive orders, regulations, or judicial
decisions—in a fairly precise way to find out what the law says. For example, we
could look at the posted speed limits on most US highways and conclude that the
“correct” or “right” speed is no more than fifty-five miles per hour. Or we could
look a little deeper and find out how the written law is usually applied. Doing so, we
might conclude that sixty-one miles per hour is generally allowed by most state
troopers, but that occasionally someone gets ticketed for doing fifty-seven miles
per hour in a fifty-five miles per hour zone. Either approach is empirical, even if not
rigorously scientific. The first approach, examining in a precise way what the rule
itself says, is sometimes known as the “positivist” school of legal thought. The
second approach—which relies on social context and the actual behavior of the
2. The philosophy of law. There
are many philosophies of law
and thus many different
jurisprudential views.
3. A jurisprudence that focuses
on the law as it is—the
command of the sovereign.
4. A jurisprudence that
emphasizes a law that
transcends positive laws
(human laws) and points to a
set of principles that are
universal in application.
5. The authority within any
nation-state. Sovereignty is
what sovereigns exercise. This
usually means the power to
make and enforce laws within
the nation-state.
6. Legislative directives, having
the form of general rules that
are to be followed in the
nation-state or its subdivisions.
Statutes are controlling over
judicial decisions or common
law, but are inferior to (and
controlled by) constitutional
law.
Chapter 1 Introduction to Law and Legal Systems
11
principal actors who enforce the law—is akin to the “legal realist” school of thought
(see Section 1.2.3 "Other Schools of Legal Thought").
Positivism has its limits and its critics. New Testament readers may recall that King
Herod, fearing the birth of a Messiah, issued a decree that all male children below a
certain age be killed. Because it was the command of a sovereign, the decree was
carried out (or, in legal jargon, the decree was “executed”). Suppose a group seizes
power in a particular place and commands that women cannot attend school and
can only be treated medically by women, even if their condition is life-threatening
and women doctors are few and far between. Suppose also that this command is
carried out, just because it is the law and is enforced with a vengeance. People who
live there will undoubtedly question the wisdom, justice, or goodness of such a law,
but it is law nonetheless and is generally carried out. To avoid the law’s impact, a
citizen would have to flee the country entirely. During the Taliban rule in
Afghanistan, from which this example is drawn, many did flee.
The positive-law school of legal thought would recognize the lawmaker’s command
as legitimate; questions about the law’s morality or immorality would not be
important. In contrast, the natural-law school of legal thought would refuse to
recognize the legitimacy of laws that did not conform to natural, universal, or
divine law. If a lawmaker issued a command that was in violation of natural law, a
citizen would be morally justified in demonstrating civil disobedience. For example,
in refusing to give up her seat to a white person, Rosa Parks believed that she was
refusing to obey an unjust law.
Natural Law
The natural-law school of thought emphasizes that law should be based on a
universal moral order. Natural law was “discovered” by humans through the use of
reason and by choosing between that which is good and that which is evil. Here is
the definition of natural law according to the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy:
“Natural law, also called the law of nature in moral and political philosophy, is an
objective norm or set of objective norms governing human behavior, similar to the
positive laws of a human ruler, but binding on all people alike and usually
understood as involving a superhuman legislator.”Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy,
s.v. “natural law.”
Both the US Constitution and the United Nations (UN) Charter have an affinity for
the natural-law outlook, as it emphasizes certain objective norms and rights of
individuals and nations. The US Declaration of Independence embodies a naturallaw philosophy. The following short extract should provide some sense of the deep
beliefs in natural law held by those who signed the document.
Chapter 1 Introduction to Law and Legal Systems
1.2 Schools of Legal Thought 12
The Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States
of America
July 4, 1776
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to
dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to
assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which
the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the
opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel
them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that
they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among
these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights,
Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the
consent of the governed.…
The natural-law school has been very influential in American legal thinking. The
idea that certain rights, for example, are “unalienable” (as expressed in the
Declaration of Independence and in the writings of John Locke) is consistent with
this view of the law. Individuals may have “God-given” or “natural” rights that
government cannot legitimately take away. Government only by consent of the
governed is a natural outgrowth of this view.
Civil disobedience—in the tradition of Henry Thoreau, Mahatma Gandhi, or Martin
Luther King Jr.—becomes a matter of morality over “unnatural” law. For example,
in his “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” Martin Luther King Jr. claims that obeying an
unjust law is not moral and that deliberately disobeying an unjust law is in fact a
moral act that expresses “the highest respect for law”: “An individual who breaks a
law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of
imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its
injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.…One who breaks an
unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the
penalty.”Martin Luther King Jr., “Letter from Birmingham Jail.”
Legal positivists, on the other hand, would say that we cannot know with real
confidence what “natural” law or “universal” law is. In studying law, we can most
Chapter 1 Introduction to Law and Legal Systems
1.2 Schools of Legal Thought 13
effectively learn by just looking at what the written law says, or by examining how
it has been applied. In response, natural-law thinkers would argue that if we care
about justice, every law and every legal system must be held accountable to some
higher standard, however hard that may be to define.
It is easier to know what the law “is” than what the law “should be.” Equal
employment laws, for example, have specific statutes, rules, and decisions about
racial discrimination. There are always difficult issues of interpretation and
decision, which is why courts will resolve differing views. But how can we know the
more fundamental “ought” or “should” of human equality? For example, how do we
know that “all men are created equal” (from the Declaration of Independence)?
Setting aside for the moment questions about the equality of women, or that of
slaves, who were not counted as men with equal rights at the time of the
declaration—can the statement be empirically proven, or is it simply a matter of a
priori knowledge? (A priori means “existing in the mind prior to and independent of
experience.”) Or is the statement about equality a matter of faith or belief, not
really provable either scientifically or rationally? The dialogue between natural-law
theorists and more empirically oriented theories of “what law is” will raise similar
questions. In this book, we will focus mostly on the law as it is, but not without also
raising questions about what it could or should be.
Other Schools of Legal Thought
The historical school of law believes that societies should base their legal decisions
today on the examples of the past. Precedent would be more important than moral
arguments.
The legal realist school flourished in the 1920s and 1930s as a reaction to the
historical school. Legal realists pointed out that because life and society are
constantly changing, certain laws and doctrines have to be altered or modernized in
order to remain current. The social context of law was more important to legal
realists than the formal application of precedent to current or future legal disputes.
Rather than suppose that judges inevitably acted objectively in applying an existing
rule to a set of facts, legal realists observed that judges had their own beliefs,
operated in a social context, and would give legal decisions based on their beliefs
and their own social context.
The legal realist view influenced the emergence of the critical legal studies (CLS)
school of thought. The “Crits” believe that the social order (and the law) is
dominated by those with power, wealth, and influence. Some Crits are clearly
influenced by the economist Karl Marx and also by distributive justice theory (see
Chapter 2 "Corporate Social Responsibility and Business Ethics"). The CLS school
Chapter 1 Introduction to Law and Legal Systems
1.2 Schools of Legal Thought 14
believes the wealthy have historically oppressed or exploited those with less wealth
and have maintained social control through law. In so doing, the wealthy have
perpetuated an unjust distribution of both rights and goods in society. Law is
politics and is thus not neutral or value-free. The CLS movement would use the law
to overturn the hierarchical structures of domination in the modern society.
Related to the CLS school, yet different, is the ecofeminist school of legal thought.
This school emphasizes—and would modify—the long-standing domination of men
over both women and the rest of the natural world. Ecofeminists would say that the
same social mentality that leads to exploitation of women is at the root of man’s
exploitation and degradation of the natural environment. They would say that male
ownership of land has led to a “dominator culture,” in which man is not so much a
steward of the existing environment or those “subordinate” to him but is charged
with making all that he controls economically “productive.” Wives, children, land,
and animals are valued as economic resources, and legal systems (until the
nineteenth century) largely conferred rights only to men with land. Ecofeminists
would say that even with increasing civil and political rights for women (such as the
right to vote) and with some nations’ recognizing the rights of children and animals
and caring for the environment, the legacy of the past for most nations still
confirms the preeminence of “man” and his dominance of both nature and women.
KEY TAKEAWAY
Each of the various schools of legal thought has a particular view of what a
legal system is or what it should be. The natural-law theorists emphasize the
rights and duties of both government and the governed. Positive law takes
as a given that law is simply the command of a sovereign, the political power
that those governed will obey. Recent writings in the various legal schools of
thought emphasize long-standing patterns of domination of the wealthy
over others (the CLS school) and of men over women (ecofeminist legal
theory).
Chapter 1 Introduction to Law and Legal Systems
1.2 Schools of Legal Thought 15
EXERCISES
1. Vandana Shiva draws a picture of a stream in a forest. She says that in
our society the stream is seen as unproductive if it is simply there,
fulfilling the need for water of women’s families and communities, until
engineers come along and tinker with it, perhaps damming it and using
it for generating hydropower. The same is true of a forest, unless it is
replaced with a monoculture plantation of a commercial species. A
forest may very well be productive—protecting groundwater; creating
oxygen; providing fruit, fuel, and craft materials for nearby inhabitants;
and creating a habitat for animals that are also a valuable resource. She
criticizes the view that if there is no monetary amount that can
contribute to gross domestic product, neither the forest nor the river
can be seen as a productive resource. Which school of legal thought does
her criticism reflect?
2. Anatole France said, “The law, in its majesty, forbids rich and poor alike
from sleeping under bridges.” Which school of legal thought is
represented by this quote?
3. Adolf Eichmann was a loyal member of the National Socialist Party in
the Third Reich and worked hard under Hitler’s government during
World War II to round up Jewish people for incarceration—and eventual
extermination—at labor camps like Auschwitz and Buchenwald. After an
Israeli “extraction team” took him from Argentina to Israel, he was put
on trial for “crimes against humanity.” His defense was that he was “just
following orders.” Explain why Eichmann was not an adherent of the
natural-law school of legal thought.
Chapter 1 Introduction to Law and Legal Systems
1.2 Schools of Legal Thought 16
1.3 Basic Concepts and Categories of US Positive Law [Show Less]