Sociology of law is a diverse field of study that explores the interaction of law with society and straddles jurisprudence, philosophy of law, social theory, and more specialized topics such as criminology. [235] Institutions of social construction, social norms, dispute resolution, and legal culture are key areas for study in this area of knowledge. The sociology of law is sometimes considered a sub-discipline of sociology, but its links to the academic discipline of law are equally strong, and it is best regarded as a transdisciplinary and multidisciplinary study that focuses on the theorization and empirical study of legal practices and experiences as social phenomena. In the United States, the field is generally referred to as legal and social studies; in Europe, it is more commonly referred to as social law studies. Initially, jurists and philosophers of law were suspicious of the sociology of law. Kelsen attacked one of its founders, Eugen Ehrlich, who wanted to highlight the differences and connections between the positive law that lawyers learn and apply, and other forms of “law,” or social norms, that govern daily life and generally prevent conflicts from reaching lawyers and courts. [236] Contemporary sociological research is strongly interested in how law develops outside of discrete state jurisdictions, is produced through social interaction in many types of social arenas, and acquires a variety of (often competing or contradictory) sources of authority in community networks, sometimes within nation-states, but increasingly also at the transnational level. [237] With respect to the state framework, the difference between policies and laws is to define the principles and establish those principles that must be followed. According to the Education and Training Unit for Democracy and Development, one of the guidelines is an overview of the things the government organization plans to do, as well as broad outlines of the principles and means the government will use to achieve them.
However, laws establish procedures, ethics and principles that people must adhere to. In short, politics sets a goal, while laws are the means or methods to achieve that goal. At the same time, there is concern about the mentality fostered by the overemphasis on the rule of law. In its most extreme form, the rule of law can lead to the capacity for independent moral thinking among public servants (e.g., judges: see cover 1975) or ordinary members of a community, making them anxious about uncertainty and distrust of their own judgments or the individual judgments of others (see Henderson 1990). Sometimes it is important, in the interest of clear and courageous moral judgment, not to exaggerate the importance of something being required by law. Other concerns about the mentality fostered by the rule of law include concerns about legalism and the tendency to formalize or overload relationships that are designed to be healthier in more informal terms. It`s not just about legalizing the personal domain; It is also a question of understanding, for example, the damage that can be caused to the relationships between public servants (such as social workers) and vulnerable clients by replacing the introduction of rigid rules to replace relatively informal professional standards (Simon, 1983). These assertions about the rule of law and ideology are complex and require careful consideration. Does the rule of law necessarily imply manipulation in the name of the capitalist order? Given its formal virtues and its agnosticism as to the content of the law, the rule of law seems innocent of accusations of capitalist bias or partiality of any kind. As Raz says, the virtue of the rule of law is like the virtue of a sharp knife; it allows the law to fulfill its function, whatever it may be (Raz 1979). Moreover, it is difficult to see how the rule of law itself is involved in a project of deception. For example, the generality of the law does not necessarily imply specific obligations relating to the organization of the economy or society; Nor does it spread lies or error.
Nevertheless, it is true that the proceduralism of the rule of law can be used for ideological purposes in order to distract social criticism and prevent radical change. And if advocates of the rule of law place sufficient emphasis on procedural justice, it can reduce the likelihood that more substantive notions of justice will succeed. Historically, societies governed by the rule of law tended to be structured by capitalist markets, suggesting an affinity between the two groups of institutions. The rule of law can have an ideological effect, even if it is not ideological in nature. “Winning hearts and minds” is in fact only a poetic way of saying “gaining political legitimacy in the perception of people affected by a system of government”. On the other hand, as we have seen, Joseph Raz (1979 [1977]: 211) is famous for insisting that “the rule of law is only one of the virtues that a legal system can possess and by which it should be judged”, and that we should not try to read in other reflections on democracy. Human rights and social justice. These considerations, he said, are best understood as independent dimensions of evaluation. Tom Bingham said this in his book on the rule of law in response to Raz: The next area that needs to be addressed is the role of legitimacy. Not legal legitimacy, external recognition of the effectiveness of a government, or external recognition of the legality of its right to govern. This seems to be the goal in the West, and frankly, for the purposes of the uprising is widely controversial. In fact, the fact that this focus on legal legitimacy is contentious obscures the damage caused by focusing too much on externally recognized legal legitimacy, as it too often leads to streamlining efforts to put and/or maintain in power a government that makes foreign parties happy, which, however, in the eyes of the people who are actually affected by this government, is widely perceived as a lack of political/popular legitimacy.
Simply put, political legitimacy is a recognition of the right of a system of government to influence its own life. This can apply to formal or informal systems, as well as internal or external systems. All those who influence their own lives through their governance are, of course, evaluated by people around the world for this critical factor. Getting involved in the company, subjecting human behavior to rules, includes . a commitment to the sight that man . a responsible agent capable of understanding and following the rules. Any deviation from the principles of the inner morality of the law is an affront to the dignity of the human person as a responsible agent. Judging his actions according to unpublished or retrospective laws or ordering him to do an impossible act means. your indifference to his powers of self-determination. (Fuller 1964:162) The executive power in a legal system serves as the center of the political authority of the state.
In a parliamentary system, as in Britain, Italy, Germany, India and Japan, the executive is known as the cabinet and consists of members of the legislature. The executive is headed by the head of government, whose office holds power under the confidence of the legislative power. Since popular elections designate political parties to govern, the leader of a party can move from one election to another. [139] [xxvi] see 357 U. at p. 463, which states, “It is important to remember that the petitioner does not claim a right to absolute immunity from state investigations and no right to disregard the laws of Alabama.” This should be considered in parallel with Judge Harlan`s conclusion in a subsequent case against the Communist Party of the United States, in which he stated that active membership in an organization advocating the violent overthrow of the U.S. government was not protected by the concept of freedom of association (367 U.S. 228-230). The discussion on the definition has been hampered by the feeling that the term is legal in nature and is better described in these terms. This is expressly not the case.
The view presented in this article is that ROL is rather a socio-political phenomenon and that its core lies in the interaction between society and the threat or use of force – not in the structure of the code, courts or state constitution, but achieved and maintained by their actions. In short, it can be said that the rule of law exists in all areas where the government has acquired a monopoly on the use of force and where the association of citizens is uninhibited. The state of affairs can be understood as a feeling of mutual trust in which the people, renouncing their ability to commit legitimate violence between themselves or depriving them of their ability, have a free hand to organize, since the regime does not consider this behavior to be threatening.