ADVERTISEMENTS:
Here is an essay on ‘Law’ for class 11 and 12. Find paragraphs, long and short essays on ‘Law’ especially written for school and college students.
Essay on Law
Essay Contents:
- Essay on the Essence and Definition of Law
- Essay on the Various Theories of Law
- Essay on the Relation between Law and Morality
- Essay on the Nature of Law or Different Schools of Law
- Essay on the Sources of Law
- Essay on the International Law
- Essay on the Marxian View of Law
Essay # 1. Essence and Definition of Law:
In ordinary parlance law means the rules which guide human action. In every community there is a body of customary ways for carrying social activities. These are clear-cut and definite. Otherwise, a good deal of time would have been wasted to meet the friction.
These are a kind of unwritten code enforced by religious authorities or by the pressure of public opinion. These social standards sometimes assume greater significance for the purpose of the general welfare that some penalty is necessary for those who violate these customary laws. Then these customs cease to be purely social customs and assume political nature and become the laws of the land. These laws then virtually become the commands of the society. Their violations are met with penalty.
In modern states law is an enactment made by the state. It is backed by coercion or force. Its violation is punishable by the courts. It stands for the will of the state. It exists to realise the purpose of the state. It regulates the rights and duties of the citizens towards one another and also towards the state.
It is the medium of the state to fulfill its promises to the people. It represents the sociological needs of the society. It reflects the political, social and economic relationship in the state.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
There are various definitions handed down by the political scientists.
Roscoe Pound’s definition of law is:
“Law constitutes a body of principle recognised or enforced by public and regular tribunals in the administration of justice.”
In the same vein Salmond wrote:
ADVERTISEMENTS:
“Law is the body of principles recognised and applied by state in the administration of justice.”
Similar is the view of John Erskine:
“Law is the command of a sovereign, containing a common rule of life for his subjects, and obliging them to obedience.”
Woodrow Wilson defined law as:
“Law is that portion of the established thought and habit which has gained distinct and formal recognition in the shape of uniform rules backed by the authority and power of government.”
According to Thomas Hill Green:
“The law is a system of rights and obligations which the state enforces.”
Essay # 2. Various Theories of Law:
There are three schools of law. They are the analytical school, the historical school and the sociological school.
John Austin is the spokesman of the analytical school. This school underlines the fact that law is the command of a sovereign and is obeyed by the people because they are afraid of the coercive authority of the state. The historical school is headed by Sir Henry Maine. His view is that law is the result of a slow and lengthy social process and not made by the arbitrary will of a sovereign.
Hugo Krabbe who is the leader of the sociological school maintained that law is the expression of one of many judgments of values which human beings by disposition and nature are prone to make. Rule of law, which is a unique feature of British jurisprudence, is born in England as a human reaction to the sense of justice. The rule of law is a purely internal human affair and is not a result of external authority.
Essay # 3. Relation between Law and Morality:
Here we shall discuss the similarity between law and morality and then point out the difference between law and morality.
Similarity between Law and Morality:
There is a close relation between law and morality. Law is by and large based on the moral ethos of society.
They act and react upon each other. The ideal of law is to project general welfare and to promote the moral perfection of the individual.
The state must endeavour to make such laws that will heighten the moral standard of the people. So the laws of the state are rather the standard of morality of that time.
Thus Plato’s Republic which is a book on politics is at the same time a good treatise on morality. In ancient India Dharma would stand for both law and morality. Thus law is not only the command of the sovereign but a code of moral conduct also.
Without the moral support of the people a law cannot be enforced. So we find that law against the dowry has not been successful because a vast majority of the people in India does not morally support it.
In this context Thomas Hill Green pointed out “In attempting to enforce an unpopular law, a government may be doing more harm than good by creating and spreading the habit of disobedience to law. The total cost of such an attempt may well be greater than the total gain.”
Difference between Law and Morality:
The following are some of the points of difference between law and morality:
Law:
1. Law is concerned with the external human conduct and does not regulate with the inner motives. Law does not take notice of the inner motives of a man notice of the inner motives of a man notice of the inner motives of a man.
2. Law is uniform for all and it does not vary from man to man.
3. Law is precise and definite. Every state has a common forum of law.
4. There is a definite organ in every state for making law. The violator of law is punished by the state.
5. Law belongs to the subject of jurisprudence.
Morality:
1. Morality is concerned with both the inner motives and external actions of a man. So the scope of morality is wider than that of law.
2. Every man has a different moral obligation. It varies from man to man, age to age and circumstances to circumstances.
3. Morality is vague and indefinite. There is no authority to enforce morality.
4. Morality is never made by any organ. There is no force to punish the breaker of morality. There is no element of compulsion in morality.
5. The branch of knowledge that deals with morality is called ethics.
Essay # 4. Nature of Law or Different Schools of Law:
1. Analytical School of Jurists:
John Austin, Jean Bodin, Thomas Hobbes and Niccolo Machiavelli are the principal exponents of this school. Of them Austin ranks preeminent so much so that this school is very often referred to as the Austinian school of jurists.
The analytical school believes that there are two axioms of law. First axiom is that law is the command of a determinate human superior to an inferior. The second point is that law is the essence of the state and it is obeyed because of the fear of punishment.
The above two axioms of the analytical school when analysed develops on the following lines. First, law is a creation by a determinate sovereign political authority which may be a single person or a body of persons. Secondly, the coercive power of the state is the sanction behind law. Law is obeyed by the people because breach of law is followed by punishment.
Criticism:
This analytical school is subjected to scathing criticism. First, it is not correct that law is the creation of anybody. On the other hand, law is mostly the result of customs, conventions, equity and decisions in the courts of law. Customs which regulate the social order existed long before the state came into being. Even when the state came into being the legislature therein simply codified the customs and traditions.
It is common knowledge that no sovereign made these customs. Simply because the state has capacity to command, it does not follow from this that the sovereign political authority is the only source of law. What is true is that the sovereign commands those laws which are in accordance with the spirit of time backed by the public opinion. Law is the necessity of the state.
Secondly, it is not correct that laws are obeyed because of fear of punishment. In actuality laws are obeyed because these are useful for the general welfare of the community. If law is obeyed out of fear, how do the people then disobey law? Are the law-breakers not afraid of punishment? There is no logistic connection between these two aspects of the matter. The people obey the laws because laws are essential for the all-round development of the community. The people have a moral obligation to abide by the laws of the land.
Thirdly, the historical school of jurists represented by Sir Henry Maine and Fredrich Karl Savigny outright reject the analytical school’s view that law is the will of the sovereign enforced by the coercive power of the state.
2. Historical School of Jurists:
Sir Henry Maine and Savigny are the principal advocates of the historical school. This school thinks that law is self-created and self-executed. One should study law in the background of environments, religious influence, moral canons and economic forces prevalent at a particular time in a particular region.
The function of the state is not to create law but to realise and enforce it. No sovereign can throat upon the people a law which is unacceptable to them. This aspect of the matter has been lost sight of by the analytical school
3. Sociological School:
Hugo Krabbe and Leon Duguit are the standard bearers of this school. According to Krabbe- “Law is totality of rules which spring from man’s feeling or sense of right.” Law is independent of and above the state. Duguit’s view is that law is simply the name for the rules of conduct which control men in the society.
Laws are obeyed not because these are commands of the sovereign or because disobedience is punished by force but because they spring from the necessities of social life. Sanction behind law is a psychological factor, not the brute force. The sociological school is a subjective approach as against the objective one. It totally ignores the coercive element.
Essay # 5. Sources of Law:
There are various sources of law. Of them the most important are customs, religion, equity, judicial decisions, scientific discussion and legislation.
1. Customs:
Custom is a very vital source of law. It is the customs, traditions and usages that played a great role in the primitive society.
When a particular method is invented and put into practice it is imitated by others and it gets a large following. In this way, a custom comes into being. It is just like a path being made by constantly beating on the field by the walkers. In the primitive society these customs were in wide acceptance since these were conducive to the well-being of the people at large.
These customs were a ceaseless flow from one generation to another. These were matured by the lapse of time and in the modern period these were codified. The entire mass of common law of England is a good example of the customary law.
2. Religion:
In the past the social order was in the hands of the priest community and so religion constituted a very powerful source of law. In ancient India the Brahmins were the most dominant class. Similarly, the Pontiffs and the clergy held sway in ancient Rome and ancient England respectively.
With the passing of time the religious injunctions deepened in the society. Thus the code of Manu, the Koran and the Bible became the guide of the Hindu law, the Muslim law and the Christian law respectively. The laws of marriage and succession were regulated by the religious codes.
3. Judicial Decisions:
In the course of deciding a case the judges lay certain new laws, because all new cases cannot be decided by the old laws alone. These new rulings are necessary to clarify the ambiguities. The common law of England is by and large a collection of judge-made laws. The judges also contribute in the law-making in a different way.
When a judge finds it difficult to come to a decision with the help of the existing laws of the land, he decides the case on the basis of conscience which is called equity. The term equity is a unique feature of judicial law-making. There is a separate court in England called the Court of Chancery. This is the highest organisation of the administration of equity. So this court is very often referred to as the Court of King’s or Queen’s conscience.
4. Commentaries of Eminent Jurists:
Distinguished legal luminaries who wrote commentaries on law contribute to the making of laws. Thus Sir Edward Coke, Sir William Blackstone and Halsbury are the eminent jurists who have influenced the laws of England. Their views are used by the lawyers in the course of their arguments and the judges also take judicial notice of them.
According to R. N. Gilchrist:
“The commentator by collecting, comparing and logically arranging legal principles, customs, decisions and laws lays down guiding principles for possible cases.”
5. Legislation:
In modern states the largest number of law- making takes place in the legislature. As a matter of fact, in the modern state the legislatures are absorbing all other sources of Law.
In this context Woodrow Wilson rightly observed-
“All means of formulating laws tend to be swallowed up in the one great, deep and broadening sense, legislation.”
Thus customs, religion, equity are now very insignificant sources of law.
Conclusion:
The above list does not constitute the source of law. As a matter of fact, the consensus or the common consent of the community is the only source of law. Thus customs, religion, legislature are not strictly speaking so many sources of law. These are sources of law only insofar as these are common consent of the community.
These are rather so many channels of common consent. There are at the same time different stages in the development of law. In this conclusion we have just accepted the view of Francis Lawrence Oppenheim.
Essay # 6. International Law:
As man cannot live in isolation of other men, a state also cannot live within its closed world. A state has to keep contact with other states. If municipal laws are there to determine the relation of one citizen with other, the international law is there to regulate the relation between one state and others. It is but natural that there may arise conflicts and disputes between the states; and the scope of the international law is to sort out these differences. International law is the law between the states. It regulates their rights and duties.
The English utilitarian Jeremy Bentham was the first to coin the term international law. R. N. Gilchrist defined international law as “that body of rules which civilised states observe in their dealings with each other, these rules being enforced by each particular state according to its own moral standards or convenience.”
J. L. Brierly called it – “The body of rules and principles of action which are binding upon civilised states in their relations with one another.” Paul Lawrence called it “the rules which determine the conduct of the general body of civilised states in their mutual dealings.”
For Francis Lawrence Openheim it is “the body of customary and conventional rules which are considered legally binding by civilised states in their intercourse with each other.” The states, by nature being mutually interdependent, have to abide by these international norms. They were not made in one stroke. They evolved bit by bit through tradition and conventions and got the recognition and acceptance by the states.
Whether International Law is really a Law:
It is a disputed matter as to whether international law can be called law in the real sense of the term. To find an answer to it one is inclined to know the definition of law which John Austin called a command of a determinate human superior to an inferior. His followers called the analytical school are of the view that international law cannot be called law for the following reasons.
We are enumerating these as the grounds for not calling international law really a law:
I. It is not the Command of a Determinate Human Superior:
If law is the command of the sovereign, apparently there is no sovereign to command the international law.
II. International Law has no Backing of a Coercive Authority:
It is common knowledge that law is obeyed for fear of punishment. This aspect of fear and punishing authority are conspicuous by their absence in international law. So if a slate violates the international law, there will be no punishment for it. It is for this reason that Thomas Holland called international law “the vanishing point of jurisprudence.”
III. Absence of Courts to Interpret International Law:
Interpretation of law is an important must; otherwise wrong interpretation will lead to chaos and uncertainty. As a matter of fact, international law is everybody’s paradise because everybody can interpret it any way he likes. This serious lacuna goes in the minus side of international law falling within the field of law.
IV. International Law is a Negation of the Sovereignty of the State:
International law comes in conflict with the sovereignty of the state. A sovereign state has absolute authority internally and externally and does not recognise any outside authority or outside law. If the state has to shed its authority in view of the international law, the state will have to cut in its sovereign image. This will deny the sovereign status of the state-
But there is another school of writers who say that international law is really a law in the same sense in which municipal law is a law.
They advance the following grounds to call international law a real law:
i. Law is not always a work of a definite political authority:
The modern writers do not consider law made by a definite political authority. It is the fruit of the social needs of the community. It is a derivation from various sources like customs, religion and judicial decisions. In the same way, international law is derived from the specific needs of the states. So there is no problem for international law falling within the class of law.
ii. Law is obeyed not in fear of punishment:
Public opinion rather than fear of punishment from the coercive state is the basis of obedience of the law. This equally applies to international law. Even otherwise, the UNO takes military action and punishes the wrong-doers.
iii. Courts of law not absent in International Law:
There are international courts and tribunals to give correct interpretation of the international law. Mention may be made of the International Court of Justice, the Permanent Arbitration Court and the National Supreme Courts. That being the position, there is no reason why international law will be excluded from the purview of law.
iv. International Law is a Part of Municipal Law:
Many key countries of Europe like England and the USA regard the international law as good as the law of their own country. They will not make any law that may conflict with the international law. The international norms are signs of civilisation and all forward-looking countries take steps to imbibe the message of the international law.
v. International Law Shaping into Concrete Law:
Repelling the contention that international law is not exact or definite because it is not made by any definite authority, it may be said as a counterpoise that international law is on the process of getting codified. The Paris Peace Conference, the London Conference, the Brussels Conference and the Geneva Convention are pointers to this direction. Both the League of Nations and the UNO set up commissions to codify the international law and have succeeded to a large extent in that matter. So international law is heading for an exact code.
vi. Spontaneous Acceptance of International Law by the Modern States:
With the world becoming smaller because of improved means of communication and transport there is a tendency to go ahead for a world community, a world citizenship and even a world state. In such a developing spree the municipal law will take a back seat and its place will be taken up by the international law. So there is a rosy prospect for international law.
Essay # 7. Marxian View of Law:
The Marxian conception of law is a quite different cup of tea. The Marxists totally reject the theory that law is the expression of the general will of the people. They argue that law cannot express the will of the people when the state is bent upon promotion of interest of the class in power.
So law expresses only the will of the dominant class, which controls the means of production. The Marxists, however, believe that law will start to express the will of the people the moment the state will embrace socialism where there will be no class and where all will have equal status.
In other stages of socio-economic life, law will be used to meet the narrow ends of the possessing class.
So Marx said:
“Law is an expression of society’s general interests and needs as they emerge from a given material means of production.”
Since law acts through the courts, the latter cannot be impartial because the judges are appointed by the dominant class to protect their own interests.
In Marxist dictionary there is no independence of the judiciary. So Marx made it clear that law of the bourgeois state is a poisoned instrument to defend the interest of the exploiters.
The wealthy and propertied class makes the law to carry on its oppression on the working and poor class, who obey these laws as long as they have not the required strength to overthrow the bourgeois government. With the establishment of socialism in Russia and China, law became the will of the general people.
Criticism of Marxian View of Law:
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Karl Marx in his characteristic way gave the concept of law as an instrument of protecting the interest of the economically dominant class in the society and that law as the real expression of the general will of the people is to be found in a classless socialist state. No doubt the party in power tries to make those laws which are in keeping with their party programme.
But this is not the holistic picture of the law-making system. There are some laws which are basic and which continue forever irrespective of the fact which party is in the power or in the opposition. For example, the laws of contract, evidence, crime and punishment are continuing in all ages. Marx ignored this aspect of the matter of law.
Furthermore, Marx failed to give any importance to the constitution which is considered non-political, sacred and highest law of the land. For Marx, the constitution is also an instrument of the economically ruling class and that the judiciary is an institution of committed judges. This is not correct. The constitutional law is permanent and sacred and cannot be said to represent the ruling class.
Again, Marx overlooked the importance of the honest public opinion playing its role in the law-making of the country. He does not also take into account the great role played by referendum, initiative and recall which focus the will of the people in the law-making business.
Lastly, it is difficult to believe that socialism will ensure a judicial heaven where law will reflect the real will of the people. This had not happened in the former USSR or modem China.