Samenvatting
Samenvatting Grondslagen van het recht
Literatuur, Hoorcollege, Arresten en Werkgroepen
[Meer zien]Voorbeeld 4 van de 44 pagina's
Voorbeeld 4 van de 44 pagina's
In winkelwagengesponsord bericht van onze partner
Verkoper
Volgen
Voorbeeld van de inhoud
Week 1 Natuurrecht, cultuurrecht,positief recht
Chapter 1
Not every legal system, in accordance with the law, is also legitimate, in keeping with
principles of justice. Some rights are not given by the state, in fact the state only exists to
protect these rights, right to life for example. Antigone. A figure from greek mythology, didn't
want to comply with a law laid upon him if it was in collision with the ‘divine law’ laid upon
him by the gods, this is the Divine Command theory: it states that God has laid down certain
norms that can be viewed as the highest principles of morality. This ratio comes with a big
problem, we find one in theoterorism, people can disregard any law simply by saying God
didn’t intend it that way. The law given to us by God is also called natural law, it exists on its
own, is immutable and applies everywhere. A few points that natural law proponents believe
are:
1. There exists a law possessed of absolute validity
2. This law can be inferred from human nature or reality
3. To know this law, human reasoning suffices
4. A substantive test to natural law is required for the application of positive law
5. Positive law that does not pass this test isn’t valid
6. The test consists of an assortment of speculative and metaphysical ideas.
Thomas Aquinas and Sir William Blackstone are both important natural law proponents.
Thomas Aquinas’s philosophy is inspired by Aristotle who was a student of Plato’s.
Plato’s mentor was Socrates, he believed one's beauty is conceived by the partaking in
beauty, therefore something is just because of its partaking in Justice. Plato believes in
absolute beauty, greatness, horror etc. He also believes that there is an invisible and visible
reality. The latter is always changing, the first is always the same. Some, Aristotle, don’t
want to think in this abstract reality and follow nature as a teleological order, a seed is an
immanent flower, it builds on the purpose of things. Thomas deceived the inclinatio
naturalis from this, all elements of nature have purpose, this idea was based in the divine
plan of god, the lex eaterna. Though man has liberty and can therefore forsake the lex
eaterna, the lex eaterna that applies to man is therefore special, lex naturalis.
The core of natural law, primary natural law consist of 4 rules:
1. The search for truth about god
2. Living in community with others
3. The union of man and woman in matrimony
4. the upbringing of children
Thomas identifies the ten commandments as a secondary natural law which should be
considered a priori. These contents of natural law are metaphysical, it can be determined
independent of experience.
Thomas calls natural law a touchstone for positive law, a foundation to build from. If a law
exists which conflicts with natural law it is a reflection of power, not justice of the
,government, and citizens should not be bound by it. Thomas does state that people will
do well to obey conflicting laws to sustain legal certainty.
Ideas of natural law have become weaker because of the scientific revolutions, development
of concrete thinking and legal positivism. Hans Kelsen is a persistent legal positivist in that
he wants to destroy natural law. Kelsen’s approach to the legal system is purely formal. He
believes in a hierarchy in norms, the lower norm depends on the higher one, at the end is
the constitution which gains its authority from the people that accept it. Kelsen disagrees
with this, he states that the ‘Grundnorm’ gives the constitution power and this is an
assumed norm.
Kelsen’s main objections to natural law are as follows:
1. Natural law derive the normative from the factual
2. Natural law principles are practically useless
3. Natural law principles cannot be legitimized because they are expressions of
emotion
Kelsen distinguishes Sein, the world of causal law, and Sollen, world of norms. Natural
law turns the norms derived from the divine will into law that manifests behavior of nature, it
turns Sollen into Sein. The is-ought fallacy occurs when the assumption is made
that because things are a certain way, they should be that way Kelsen states that
factual relationships in nature cannot be a source of a norm. He thinks that you need to
import values to extract norms, for example the natural law against suicide comes from the
urge of self preservation but this urge is not always equally strong, people commit suicide,
so this should also be considered natural.
Kelsen states that natural law is just empty phrases, Plato gives retribution als the identity
of justice, but what is retribution? To each its own can be capitalist, socialist, autocratic
depending on the definition of ‘its own’. Do unto others as you would have others do unto
you, but what to do when one violates this rule, noone wants to be punished so should there
be no punishments?
Kelson also makes the point that natural law is highly subjective, not everyone puts
personal liberty on the top of their list. Kelson believes that absolute values cannot be
attained by the human mind, only a solution to the problem of justice.
Lon Fuller states that the Sein and Sollen jump is not unjustified, there are rules that a legal
system needs to survive. These rules are things like justice needs to be rules not individual
cases, laws must apply in future, legal rules must be intelligible etc. This is not the jump
between Sein and Sollen, there would be a jump if he states that these rules are featured in
all systems and therefore should be featured in legal systems.
John Austin states that if you say that laws that conflict with natural law are not law you
also make the is and ought fallacy, therefore these conflicting laws are just bad laws. This
comes with the predisposition that anything that isn’t positive, made by the government, law
is just morality. The problem is that not positive thinkers just don’t believe that.
Another critique on Kelsen is that the Clear cut distinction between Sein and Solon may not
be right. Wherever society is, there is law, Ubi societas, ibi ius.
A critique on Kelsen is that his critique is precise, in a subject where one can be inexact, can
one not live in a legal system with classical natural law. This could be possible if we avoid
,the is and ought fallacy, the vague statements and replace the rational justification with a
modest approach (traditionalism).
Chaïm perelman gives us examples of this classical natural law, Nuremberg gives us
general law principles as nullum crimen. He gives us legal principles, fundamental rights
and human rights as a normative consensus about the basic values, we call this cultural
law. It is neither in the realm of unchanging nature or in the realm of changeable human
products, it's somewhere in the middle, a spontaneously developed order.
Friedrich Hayek thinks this order is a result of human action not design. Some refuse to
consider true that which could not be derived from premises that held up as clear and
beyond any doubt. Hayek opposes this and thinks that many things came into being without
anyone consciously planning anything. Kelsen completely distinguishes the variable man
made products and the natural products, Hayek finds a place in between. Animal societies
are not invented but are an order. A path forms because people walk on grass, eventually
there is a path and people walk on that path, it goes from natural to artificial.
This view is called Traditionalism, without culture and tradition the norms cant be created.
David Hume gives the idea that through cooperation and a very long time norms come to
be the way they are. Edmund Burke states: the individual is foolish, the species is wise.
The distinction between natural law and positivism becomes apparent in nazi Germany, are
people who acted under Nazi law just or should they have disobeyed because the law went
against the natural law. The Germans chose the latter, the law’s legitimacy ends where it
starts to violate generally accepted principles of international law or natural law.
Gustav Radbruch initially believed that Sein and Sollen should be separated, this gives
that unjust law was still law, and he believed lex dura, sed lex. He believes that the judge
should consider what law is, not whether it's just. After the events in Germany he changed
his views, he believed that positive legislation ought not to conflict too much with
cultural law.
H.L.A Hart critique’s this stance, he believes that the separation of sein and sollen does
not mean that one is obliged to preach loyalty to malicious legislation. The situation in
Germany should be solved by making retroactive law, not ideal, but the best option.
Lon Fuller gives us 5 options of how to deal with minor war criminals (grudge informers):
1. Respect nazi law as valid
2. State nazi law as lawless anarchy
3. Judge each case to what extent it violates modern-day law
4. Adopt Hart’s way
5. Let citizens themselves find an option
Taking the position that not all law should be obeyed would enable judges to say that
something is just not law instead of saying it is too reprehensible to apply.
Only using cultural law to test law is also dangerous, what if the cultural is also bad, there
should still be the moral test. You should judge by extralegal (moral) standards and a
standard immanent to the law (legal values).
Summary
The base is natural law theory, based on Plato Aristotle and formulated by Thomas
Aquinas (theological order). Kelsen critique’s this stance by giving the sein and sollen
fallacy, subjective, and vague. Some things are right, some things remain defensible.
, Cultural law is defensible and is a spontaneously developed order and is therefore
traditionalist.
Chaïm Perelman gives us the base, Friedich Hayek states order is a result of human
action not design, and David hume states its an collective not individual accomplishment.
Cultural law:
Status: No absolute validity, not random
Source: Tradition
Knowledge instrument: Society throughout centuries
Function: touchstone for positive law
Content: collection of reasonably delineated principles.
Thomas Anguish: Teleological order
Kelsen: Natural law derive the normative from the factual
a. Natural law principles are practically useless
b. Natural law principles cannot be legitimized because they are expressions of
emotion
Lon Fuller: there are rules that a legal system needs to survive
John Austin: that if you say that laws that conflict with natural law are not law you also make
the is and ought fallacy, therefore these conflicting laws are just bad laws.
Chaïm perelman: Cultural Law
Friedrich Hayek: thinks that many things came into being without anyone consciously
planning anything
Gustav Radbruch: positive legislation ought not to conflict too much with cultural law.
H.L.A Hart critique’s this stance, he believes that the separation of sein and sollen does not
mean that one is obliged to preach loyalty to malicious legislation.
Art. 1 Gw
Het gelijkheidsbeginsel, art. 1 Gw, kan rechtsgelijkheid of sociaal gelijkheid bedoelen. Pas in
eind jaren zestig is het algemeen discriminatieverbod dat nu artikel 1 is doorgevoerd. De
nieuwe formulering was algemener: eerst was het dat je dezelfde rechten had, nu was het
gelijke gevallen gelijk behandelen. Er was grote discussie wat nu de discriminatiegronden
waren, uiteindelijk werd ‘of op welke grond dan ook’ toegevoegd.
Voordat artikel 1 er was werd het in bestuursrecht al door het ongeschreven
gelijkheidsbeginsel toegepast. Uit parlementaire gesprekken blijkt dat er niet alleen de
mogelijkheid maar ook de plicht is ongelijke gevallen ongelijk te behandelen. Artikel 1 is een
overheidsplicht, burgers mogen zich wel ongelijk gedragen, het hangt dus ook samen met
het legaliteitsbeginsel want de overheid mag alleen op grond van de regels optreden die
voor iedereen hetzelfde zijn. Het is lastig om te bepalen wat gelijk en wat ongelijk is, artikel 1
geeft echter dat ras, sex etc. geen grond mogen zijn voor verschil in behandeling.
Het discriminatieverbod in de tweede zin maakt de beoordelingsmarge van de overheid
kleiner. Discriminatie is een behandeling waardoor aan die ander duidelijk wordt dat
bepaalde aspecten van zijn mens zijn als onvolwaardig worden beschouwd. Deze aspecten
kan men niks aan doen, persoonskenmerken. Discriminatie kan bewust of onbewust, direct
of indirect. Indirecte discriminatie is een regel die voor iedereen gelijk is maar sommige
harder treft.
Voordelen van het kopen van samenvattingen bij Stuvia op een rij:
Verzekerd van kwaliteit door reviews
Stuvia-klanten hebben meer dan 700.000 samenvattingen beoordeeld. Zo weet je zeker dat je de beste documenten koopt!
Snel en makkelijk kopen
Je betaalt supersnel en eenmalig met iDeal, creditcard of Stuvia-tegoed voor de samenvatting. Zonder lidmaatschap.
Focus op de essentie
Samenvattingen worden geschreven voor en door anderen. Daarom zijn de samenvattingen altijd betrouwbaar en actueel. Zo kom je snel tot de kern!
Veelgestelde vragen
Wat krijg ik als ik dit document koop?
Je krijgt een PDF, die direct beschikbaar is na je aankoop. Het gekochte document is altijd, overal en oneindig toegankelijk via je profiel.
Tevredenheidsgarantie: hoe werkt dat?
Onze tevredenheidsgarantie zorgt ervoor dat je altijd een studiedocument vindt dat goed bij je past. Je vult een formulier in en onze klantenservice regelt de rest.
Van wie koop ik deze samenvatting?
Stuvia is een marktplaats, je koop dit document dus niet van ons, maar van verkoper juliusarkesteijn. Stuvia faciliteert de betaling aan de verkoper.
Zit ik meteen vast aan een abonnement?
Nee, je koopt alleen deze samenvatting voor €7,99. Je zit daarna nergens aan vast.
Is Stuvia te vertrouwen?
4,6 sterren op Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
Afgelopen 30 dagen zijn er 47561 samenvattingen verkocht
Opgericht in 2010, al 15 jaar dé plek om samenvattingen te kopen