Lex Injusta Non est lex: movie review

Submitted By-
Shambhavi Vatsa
Uid- SF0120074
2nd semester, 1st year

FACULTY-IN-CHARGE: MR. SAHEB CHOUDHURY

DATE OF SUBMISSION: 05-04-2021

Lex Injusta Non est Lex is the Latin for- ‘an unjust law is not a law’. It
was first introduced by St. Augustine.1 In his opinion the human law
can be modified by divine law to keep it in conformity with the divine
law as only the latter can give everyone what he deserves.2 He was of
the belief that the role of human law is to prevent people from being
bad and not to make them good. His idea was used and further
explained by St. Thomas Aquinas, who had the similar belief as that of
St. Augustine. He believed that if a command of an authority is against
the command of a higher authority, then there is no obligation to obey
it.
If at any point, any law deflects from the law of nature then it will no
longer serve as a law but will be considered to be the perversion of law.
For example, if any law authorises an act such as rape, murder or theft,
etc., then its authorisation is considered to be morally void and of no
effect and the court should not guide their adjudications by such laws.
It is true that laws exist to preserve justice in society and hence if a law
is unjust, then the purpose of having it in the first place itself gets
defeated.3
The movie, based on Aaron Sorkin's play, under the name ‘A Few Good
Men’ based on a real story depicts of how an unjust rule related to
extrajudicial punishment turned into murder. The story line builds up
at United States Naval Base, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where a marine
named William Santiago was killed by his two colleagues, Downey and
Dawson on an order from superior. Santiago did not have good
relationship with his colleagues and wanted to get transferred to another
base but the base commander dismissed the idea of his transfer as he
wanted him to be ‘trained’.
Lt. Daniel Kaffee, was assigned to look into this case by military court.
After examining the matter, he came to know about the ‘code red’ that
was followed at the base. This code was defined by the officers as a

1
Latin legal terminology, (16 may,2020), https://en.google-info.org/25662673/1/iniusta-non-est-lex.html
2
Suri Ratnapala, Jurisprudence 140-141 (Cambridge University Press 2009)
3
Essay Sauce, LES INIUSTA NON EST LEX (AN UNJUST LAW IS NOT LAW AT ALL), (July 6, 2019),
https://www.essaysauce.com/law-essays/les-iniusta-non-est-lex-an-unjust-law-is-not-law-at-all/
disciplinary engagement, i.e., if a marine falls out in line then the other
marines help him to get back on track. As gentle as it sounded, the
actual process is much harsher and in the case of Santiago ended up in
killing him. ‘CODE RED’ is a term used for any punishment or action
taken against marines that is extrajudicial in nature, that is to say,
outside of existing military law. The law says that marines should be
trained according to a certain set of regulations, and anything outside
of or harsher than that is not allowed.
Here, Lex injusta non est lex comes to the forefront. There are various
reasons to consider a law unjust.4 As in, when any law tends to raise a
religion over other thereby creating unrest and intolerance or when they
seek to promote inhumane activities such as murder or rap.
Additionally, the very nature and rationale of political authority also
determine the obligatoriness and authority of a law. For instance, if the
law-makers are motivated by greed and for private benefits and not by
concern for the community or act outside the authority granted to them
or apportion the necessary burden unfairly with a view to achieve
common good, then no matter whatever the content of their legislation
is, it will be considered unjust and in the forum of reasonable
conscience it will not be considered so much of a law but as an act of
violence. Such laws lack moral authority and hence one is not morally
obliged to conform to it.
From this movie, it can be deciphered that the ‘Code red’ was the unjust
law as it was repugnant to clear conscience and natural justice and on
the same hand it replicated the tyranny of the base commander, Nathan
Jessup, who formed such laws just to have unlawful control over his
unit. Hence, such type of law is no law and should be disregarded and
repealed.
The two marine explains to their lawyer that they did not perform code
red with the intention of killing Santiago but was ordered to train him
to think about his unit before himself and to respect the unit’s code. In
further court trial, Daniel calls Nathan Jessup to stand as a witness.
4
Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, ‘Aquinas’ Moral, Political, and Legal Philosophy’, (march 16, 2021)
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aquinas-moral-political/#UnjuLawJustRevo
However, this came with a huge risk of getting Daniel arraigned in
court for disrespecting an officer of a higher ranking. He uses the fact
that Nathan lied during his initial questioning about William’s request
for transfer so as to make Nathan angry and lose his composure and
then to confess to the crime unknowingly and the same happened. After
getting caught in his lies, Nathan began ranting uncontrollably which
further incriminated him and his second in command Kendrick.
Thereafter he was placed under arrest.
It is to be understood that an unjust law is not legitimate and there can
be no moral reason that one should follow the law which is unjust and
abhorrent to clear conscience. And this is the reason that Downey and
Dawson, even after being acquitted of murder charges are found unfit
for military service. It was Dawson who then stated that they failed to
stand up for those too weak to stand up for themselves, like Santiago.
They followed the wrong or immoral order and so they had to pay the
price by leaving the job that they truly respected.
Thus, this movie shows that an unjust law is no law at all and even if it
is applied, then such laws should be repealed and restored in conformity
with the higher law. Moreover, it should also be concurrent with
morality, as one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.