Introduction
Natural Law has no universally accepted definition or precise meaning. The phrase “natural law” in jurisprudence refers to those laws and principles that are considered to have come from a superior source other than any governmental or worldly authority. It is basically an a priori method that differs from an empirical method in that it accepts things or conclusions in relation to a subject as they are without the need for further investigation or observation, whereas an empirical or a posteriori approach attempts to discover the causes and reasons in relation to the subject matter. It represents the Physical Law of Nature, which is founded on moral principles and is universally applicable in all locations and circumstances. It’s been used many times to justify a change or to maintain the status quo, depending on the demands and requirements of the moment. For example, Locke utilised Natural Law to effect change, but Hobbes used it to protect the status quo. Natural Law underpins the notions of “Rule of Law” in England and India, as well as “due process” in the United States. Natural Law is everlasting and unchangeable, since it has been from the beginning of time, uncreated and unchangeable. Man does not create Natural Law; he simply discovers it. There is no external entity that enforces Natural Law. Natural Law is not enacted by legislation; it is the result of the teachings of philosophers, prophets, saints, and others, and so is a higher type of law. There is no official written code for Natural Law. In addition, there is no explicit penalty for breaking its rules, nor is there any specific reward for following them. Natural Law has an unchanging value that lasts forever. Natural Law is also known as Divine Law, Natural Law, God’s Law, and so on. The mandate of God enforced on humanity is known as the Divine Law. Natural Law is also known as the Law of Reason, since it is established by the reason that governs the universe, and it is directed to and understood by man’s logical nature. It is also known as the Universal or Common Law since it has universal validity, is the same everywhere and applies to all peoples, and is not limited to Athens. Finally, in modern times, it is referred to as “moral law,” as it is the manifestation of moral ideals. The Natural Law rejects any hard distinction between the ‘is’ and ‘ought’ aspects of law, believing that such a distinction is unnecessary and leads to legal ambiguity. The advocates of Natural Law believe that the concepts of “justice,” “right,” and “reason” are taken from man’s nature and the Law of Nature, and that this component of law cannot be totally eradicated. It is often regarded as an excellent legal source with invariant contents.
Natural Law’s Evolution, Growth, and Decline[1]
The content of ‘Natural Law’ has changed over time to meet the demands of the period and circumstances, as well as the purpose for which it was employed and the function it was expected to fulfil. As a result, the formation and development of ‘Natural Law’ has gone through a number of stages that may be examined roughly under the following headings:
- Ancient Period
- Medieval Period
- Renaissance Period
- Modern period
Ancient Period[2]
Heraclitus (530 – 470 B.C.)
Around the fourth century B.C., Greek philosophers created the notion of Natural Law. Heraclitus was the first Greek philosopher to identify I destiny, (ii) order, and (iii) reason as the three major characteristics of the Law of Nature. He claimed that nature is not a jumble of random objects, but rather that there is a precise relationship between them, as well as a specific order and rhythm to occurrences. One of the basic aspects of Natural Law, he claims, is ‘reason.’
Socrates (470 – 399 B.C.)
Socrates claimed that there is a Natural or Moral Law, just as there is a Natural Physical Law. ‘Human Insight’ states that a man is capable of distinguishing between good and wrong and appreciating moral values. The basis for judging the law is human ‘insight.’ Socrates did not dispute the Positive Law’s authority. According to him, it was the appeal of the ‘insight’ to obey it that compelled him to do so, and this may explain why he opted to swallow poison in adherence to the law rather than flee the jail. He argued that Natural Law was essential for the country’s security and stability, which was one of the era’s most pressing requirements. Plato, his student, agreed with him. But it is in Aristotle that we find ourselves.
Aristotle (384 – 322 B.C.)
Man is a part of nature in two ways, according to him: first, he is one of God’s creatures, and second, he has insight and reason by which he can create his will. Man can uncover the eternal principle of justice by his thinking. Because man’s reason is a part of nature, the law discovered through reason is referred to as “natural justice.” Positive Law should attempt to embrace the rules of ‘Natural Law,’ but it should be followed even if it does not contain the standard concept of Natural Law. Rather than breaking the law, it should be altered or amended. Slaves must accept their fate, he claimed, because slavery is a “natural” institution. Natural Law principles, according to Aristotle, arise from the human conscience rather than the human mind, and hence are far more valuable than Positive Law, which is the result of the human mind.
Natural Law in Roman System
The Romans did not stop at theoretical talks on ‘Natural Law,’ but went even further to give it a practical shape by changing their rigorous legal system into global living law. Through the split of Roman law into three different sections, namely ‘Jus civile,’ ‘Jus gentium,’ and ‘Jus naturale,’ Natural Law exerted a very constructive impact on Roman law. The civil law, known as ‘Jus civile,’ was only applied to Roman citizens, while the law, known as ‘Jus gentium,’ regulated both Roman citizens and foreigners. Though there was a widespread belief that natural law, which was founded on reason and conscience, was superior to Positive Law and that, in the event of a dispute, the latter should be ignored.
Natural Law in India
The Hindu legal system is one of the world’s oldest legal systems. They created a rational and comprehensive body of legislation from the beginning. The entire body of law is infused with a concept of ‘justice.’ However, frequent changes in the political structure and governance, as well as a series of foreign invasions, hampered its systematic and natural progress. Under foreign administration, the study of this legal system could not be given the attention it deserved. Many of its theories and principles are still unknown and unexplored. The questions of whether or not there was a concept of ‘Natural Law,’ and if there was, what was its authority and relationship to ‘Positive Law,’ cannot be answered with any clarity. In this regard, however, various principles and provisions can be mentioned. Law owes its existence to God, according to Hindu belief. The scriptures ‘Shruti’ and ‘Smritis’ contain the law. The king’s job is to merely carry out the law; he is obligated by it, and if he disobeys it, he will be disobeyed. When kings disobeyed the established law, they were dethroned and beheaded, according to the Puranas.
Medieval Period[3]
In the Middle Ages, Catholic thinkers and theologians developed a new conception of ‘Natural Law.’ They diverged from the orthodoxy of the early Christian Fathers, albeit giving it a theological foundation. Their viewpoints are more methodical and reasonable. The opinions of Thomas Acquinas can be considered indicative of the new theory. His social views are comparable to those of Aristotle. The state and social organisation are both natural occurrences. He described law as “an ordinance of reason made by him who has the care of the community and promulgated” for the general benefit. St. Thomas Aquinas divided laws into four categories: (1) external law, (2) natural law, which is revealed through “reason,” (3) divine law, or the law of Scriptures, and (4) human laws, which we today refer to as “Positive law.” The natural law is a portion of the divine law. It’s the portion that shows up in natural reasoning. St. Aquinas agreed with his predecessors that Natural Law is derived from “reason” and applied by humans to control their affairs and relationships. As a result, this Human Law, often known as “Positive Law,” must stay within the bounds of the system of which it is a part. It signifies that Positive Law must be consistent with the Scriptures’ Law. Positive Law is only valid to the extent that it is consistent with ‘Natural Law,’ and hence with ‘Eternal Law.’ He saw the Church as the last arbiter of Divine Law. As a result, it has the authority to rule on the goodness of Positive Law. Individual property ownership, which the early Christian Fathers thought evil, was justified by Thomas.
Renaissance Period[4]
The modern classical age, which is defined by rationalism and the introduction of new concepts in several domains of knowledge, can also be considered the renaissance period in the history of Natural Law development.
Hugo Grotius (1583 – 1645)
Grotius’ legal theory was founded on the concept of a “social contract.” In a nutshell, he believes that political society is founded on a “social compact.” Because the sovereign was given power solely for that purpose, it is his duty to protect the citizens. The sovereign is bound by what is known as ‘Natural Law.’ Man’s’reason’ can uncover the Law of Nature. He moved away from St. Thomas Aquinas’ scholastic idea of Natural Law and “reason,” focusing instead on “proper reason,” or man’s “self-supporting reason.” Now the question may arise: Should one disobey a monarch who does not operate in accordance with ‘Natural Law’ principles? Grotius felt that no matter how horrible a king is, it is the subjects’ responsibility to obey him. Hugo Grotius is rightfully regarded as the father of modern international law, as he inferred a number of ideas that set the path for the development of the field. He advocated for state equality and the freedom to govern both internal and foreign interactions.
Thomas Hobbes (1558 – 1679)
Prior to the ‘social compact,’ according to Hobbes, man lived in a chaotic state of perpetual anxiety. Life in the wilderness was “solitary, impoverished, nasty, brutish, and brief.” Men voluntarily entered into contract and gave their freedom to any mightiest power that could defend their lives and possessions in order to secure self-protection and escape sorrow and pain. During the British Civil War, his idea was used to promote the monarchy. In fact, it denoted a government that was stable and secure. Hobbes’ thesis weaves together individualism, materialism, utilitarianism, and absolutism.
John Locke (1632 – 1704)
The state of nature, according to Locke, was a glorious age, but property was unstable. Men joined into the “social compact” for the goal of protecting their possessions. Man does not renounce all of his rights under this compact, but only a portion of them, namely, the right to preserve order and execute natural law. The 19th century philosophy of ‘laissez faire’ arose from a belief in individual liberty in terms of economic activity, which was backed up by Locke’s thesis. Unlike Hobbes, who advocated for government authority, Locke advocated for individual liberty.
Jean Rousseau (1712 – 1778)
Rousseau argued that the concept of a “social contract” is only a speculative construct, not a historical actuality as Hobbes and Locke believed. Prior to the so-called “social contract,” life was joyous and men were treated equally. His ‘Natural Law’ theory is limited to individual liberty and equality. State, law, sovereignty, universal will, and other concepts are all interchangeable in his mind.
Immanuel Kant (1724 – 1804)
In the 18th century, Kant and Fichte bolstered the Natural Law theory and social contract idea. They emphasised that the social contract was founded on ‘reason,’ not on historical facts. Kant distinguished between Natural Rights and Acquired Rights, recognising only the former as being necessary for individual liberty. He advocated for the separation of powers and stated that the state’s role should be to protect the law. In his classic work Critique of Pure Reason, he introduced his famous Categorical Imperative thesis.
Modern Period[5]
Hostility to Natural Law in the Nineteenth Century
In the wake of 19th-century pragmatism, the Natural Law idea suffered a defeat. Bentham and Austin, the founders of analytical positivism, rejected Natural Law because it was unclear and deceptive. Austin and Bentham’s ideas entirely separated morality from the law. The popularity of Natural Law doctrines waned throughout the nineteenth century. The notions of ‘natural law’ reflected, to a large extent, the immense social, economic, and political upheavals that had occurred in Europe.
Jurists were drawn to historical and analytical methods to the study of law because they were more realistic. They signalled the start of a new era in legal thought. The ‘Natural Law’ doctrines had a hard time surviving in this new intellectual milieu. As a result, while solitary voices proclaiming the supremacy of ‘Natural Law’ might still be heard, the nineteenth century was generally antagonistic to ‘Natural Law’ beliefs.
Natural Law Revival in the Twentieth Century
A renaissance of ‘Natural Law’ beliefs occurred toward the close of the nineteenth century. It was for a variety of reasons: First, there was a backlash against 19th-century legal theories that inflated the importance of “positive law,” and theories that over-emphasized positivism failed to meet people’s expectations because they refused to embrace morality and “reason” as elements of law. Second, it was recognised that abstract thinking or a priori assumptions were not completely futile; third, the impact of materialism on society and changing socio-political conditions compelled legal thinkers in the twentieth century to seek out some value-oriented ideology that could prevent widespread moral degradation. The western culture was further disrupted by World War 1, prompting a need for a value-conscious judicial system. All of these elements combined to result in the resuscitation of Natural Law theory in a modified form that differed from the previous version. Rudolf Stammler, Prof. Rawls, Kohler, and others were key proponents of the restored Natural Law.
Rudolf Stammler (1856 – 1938)[6]
“Species of volition, others-regarding, self-authoritative, and inviolable,” Stammler characterised law. A just law, in his opinion, is the highest expression of man’s social life and attempts to protect individual liberty. According to him, the term “law of nature” refers to a “fair law” that harmonises the goals of society. The goal of legislation is not to defend one person’s will, but to bring everyone’s goals together.
Lon Luvois Fuller (1902 – 1978)[7]
He rejected Christian Natural Law ideas as well as rationalist Natural Rights doctrines from the 17th and 18th centuries. He did not believe in an absolute value system. His main affinities were with Aristotle. In the many Natural Law ideas, he discovered a “family resemblance” in the search for social order principles.
Conclusion
This quick examination of the content of ‘Natural Law’ has changed over time. It has been used to justify practically any ideology, including absolutism and individualism, as well as uprisings and violence. It has had a significant impact on the modification of positive law. The law is a tool for not only social control but also social advancement, and it must serve a purpose. A study of law would be incomplete if it did not include this component as well. The conceptions of ‘Natural Law’ have essentially been theories about the goals of law. The principles of ‘Natural Law’ have been enshrined in legal regulations in a variety of legal systems, and have become their guiding principles.
References:
[2] Development of Natural Law theory – iPleaders
[3] https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?filename=7&article=1002&context=naturallaw_proceedings&type=additional
[4] Renaissance Period of Natural Law (legalbites.in)
[5] Study and Revival of Natural Law in 19th Century by Geetanjali Shahi :: SSRN
[6] Stammler, Rudolf (1856–1938) | Encyclopedia.com
[7] https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1533&context=tcl
0 Comments