Understanding Natural Law: Natural law holds that there are universal moral standards that are inherent in

humankind throughout all time, and these standards should form the basis of a just society. The theory of natural
law believes that our civil laws should be based on morality, ethics, and what is inherently correct. Theoretically,
the precepts of natural law should be constant throughout time and across the globe because natural law is based
on human nature, not on culture or customs.
Aristotle: is considered by many to be the father of natural law—argued that what is “just by nature” is not always
the same as what is “just by law.” Aristotle believed that there is a natural justice that is valid everywhere with the
same force; that this natural justice is positive, and does not exist by "people thinking this or that." The value of
should be discovered by the application of the reason but the source and idea of natural can be found inside of
mind. Natural law elements change with stability and change
Plato: Plato asserted that the fundamentals of the ethics lay in absolute value but outside of our mind. He also
maintained that this ideal from of justice is a universal value that transcends local customs or conventions. For Plato,
justice is a spirit, a habit of life that animates man's action; the inner sense of justice, which is felt by the conscience,
is something much higher in spiritual truth and content than the law of the State; natural law is eternal, like the
gods who have given it to mankind.
Thomas Aquinas natural law and religion were undistinguishably connected. He believed that natural law
"participates" in the divine "eternal" law. Aquinas thought eternal law to be that rational plan by which all creation
is ordered, and natural law is the way that human beings participate in the eternal law. He further posited that the
fundamental principle of natural law is that we should do good and avoid evil. "The light of reason is placed by
nature [and thus by God] in every man to guide him in his acts." The primary precept of the law is goof should be
done and evil should be avoided.
William Blackstone, Hugo Grotious and individual rights: there can be no legally valid standard that conflicts with
natural law and all valid laws derive what force and authority they have from natural law.
Thomas Hobbes: law was the primary instrument of a sovereign by which to serve the ends of government, which
were principally peace and the personal security of all its citizens. There exists no right or wrong in the moral or
legal sense in the state of nature. All man are selfish he will consider the one the good law which is beneficial for
him. We are in the state war and thus to protect our self. The king is cruel and the citizen Oppressed. Every individual
possess the right to of life and limbs. All are afraid of death due to which they maintain peace thus to themselves
and what an enjoyable life.
John Locke’s: Locke speaks of a state of nature where men are free, equal, and independent. He champions the
social contract and govern-ment by consent. He goes even farther than Hobbes in arguing that govern-ment must
respect the rights of individuals. It was Locke’s formula for limited govern­ment, John Locke believed that if a ruler
goes against natural law and fails to protect “life, liberty, and property,” then the people are justified in
overthrowing the existing state. Locke seems to claim that the state of nature is a place of peace and harmony.
Later, however, he makes it clear that the state of nature was actually very insecure, with people’s rights under
continual threat.
Comparison with Baron Louis de montesqieu: locked his advocated basic freedoms and maintained that the
guarantor of such freedoms were the people themselves. Locked had failed however to propose a complete system
to ensure freedom and check power. While Montesqieu give the well-known theory of separation of power that is
separation of government, executive and judiciary for not to abuse the power.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau: Jean-Jacques Rousseau is famous for reconceiving the social contract as a compact
between the individual and a collective “general will” aimed at the common good and reflected in the laws of an
ideal state and for maintaining that existing society rests on a false social contract that perpetuates inequality.
Rousseau argued that freedom and authority are not contradictory, since legitimate laws are founded on the
general will of the citizens. In obeying the law, the individual citizen is thus only obeying himself as a member of the
political community. Modern man's dependence to his own needs was responsible for all sorts of societal ills, from
misuse and domination of others to poor self-confidence and depression.
The decline of natural law theories: Decline of natural law theories took place in the 18th- 19th Century with the
advancement of empirical methods of study and scientific behavior. Natural law theories were denounced primarily
because its source was said to be a divine entity. The profounder Austin rejected Natural law on the ground that it
was ambiguous and misleading and mercilessly criticized the natural law school as “simple nonsense, natural and
imprescriptible right rhetorical nonsense upon stilts.”
John finnis: Finnis believes that the central meaning of law is that of an act of practical reasonableness made by an
appropriate authority for the common good. Finnis attempt to construct a theory of natural law based on practical
reason and not on a universal view of morality as traditionally contended”. The secondary meaning of law is based
on how close or removed a particular instance of law is to the primary meaning. The Seven Basic Goods The central
object of Finnis’s theory is a set of seven fundamental ‘goods’ for humankind. These goods are like fundamental
rights such Life, Knowledge (for its own sake) Friendship and Sociability, Play (for its own sake) Aesthetic
Experience(Art of beauty) Practical Reasonableness, i.e. the ability to reason correctly about what is best for
yourself, and to act on those decisions. Religion i.e. a connection with, and participation with, the orders that
transcend individual humanity. The basic goods serve as an explanation of why we do things. Any worthwhile
activity is worth doing because it participates in one or more basic goods.
Lon Fuller: Fuller argues that all systems of law contain an "internal morality" that imposes on individuals a
presumptive obligation of obedience. Fuller wrote that natural law “is the view which rejects the possibility of a
rigid separation of the is and the ought. Nature or reality contained both an is and an ought. Lon Fuller believed
that government in accordance with the forms and procedures of law had a distinctive value that could help close
the gap of separation between positive law, on the one hand, and morality and justice on the other. That the formal
administration of the rule of law was governed by certain procedural principles of legal morality, and that these
procedural principles secured precisely the internal connection between law and morality affirmed by the great
classical and medieval philosophers of natural law.
Fuller-Hart Debates:
Fuller View: law is the enterprise of subjecting human conduct to the goverence of ruled.it morality have two aspect
external and internal. External morality is the morality of aspiration or ideals.it is possible to derive substantive
natural law. The internal morality is procedural version of natural law. A judge/legislative may stay neutral with
regard external morality. The inner morality is precondition of good law. Immoral policies are bound in the end to
impair the inner morality and the very quality of law.
Harts Views on natural law: The condition necessary for achieving this ends is Human Weakness, approximate
equality of people, limited spirit of sacrifice, limited resources and limited understanding and strength of will.
Because of these natural necessity to protect person, property and promises in varying degree. This necessity
impose some limit the contact of law, there should be difference between the law and morality.
Dworkin introduced principles for living well: Self-respect which requires to take one’s life seriously; and Autonomy
that requires taking responsible decisions about oneself for successful in life. First, as a matter of personal ethics,
they provide guidance about what we should do in order to live well. Second, they elucidate the rights that
individuals have against their political community. And third, they account for the moral duties we owe to others.
Criticism of Hart model theory of law by Roland Dworkin: Dworkin reject the positivist model of rules. Deworkin
rejects those Ideas judges can make law. He maintains that as a judge who un-elected official does not make law
the judicial rule is Democratic and prospective and he should not have to make the law. Dworkin maintains that
hurts “rule of recognition” cannot distinguish between legal and moral principle. Positivist said that there is no
connection between law and morality and the only source of law is rulers that have been enacted by a government
entity or by a court of law but the he rejected this concept because law consists ruler as well as none rule standards.
The judge must find the best theory of law on which decide hard cases while in difficult case the judge must follow
the principle that includes his own conception or idea of what is the best explanation of a great network of political
structure and the decision of his community under the standards of society. There is always one right answer it's
mean that every legal problem has at least one right answer it has the duty of the just to find out that best answer.
Judge to take seriously and not use his discretion, in hard cases, the judge uses and should use his right of strong
discretion, the weak things are turned over by the court in the interest of the community. Rights and principal to
be treated as a part of law individual rights are to be treated with the respect they deserve, the principal they must
be properly recognized as a part of the law.
Criticism of hart model of rules by Ronald dworkin and other jurist: Hearts here the legal system consists only rules
and does not contain principle while the Dworkin reject the idea of hart and say that legal system does not consist
of only rules but also consists of the principle and some principle are important in those rules that "principle of
natural justice". Whenever there is a conflict between principal and rules the primary rules should or override the
effect of the rules. Hart say that judge is within their limit bound to legislate and make law based on rules of law
but Dworkin reject this concept and said that the judge has no power to create or legislate law. The rules of
recognition is not power, but a duty addressed to the officials. hart said that rules of recognition are determine or
to check the validity of primary rules jurist criticized hart on this point and said how you can check and determine
the validity of rules of recognition whether the rules of recognition as valid or invalid but heart have no answer for
this very objection. He criticize the inner aspect of his theory and remarks is that really possible to identify the
precise viewpoint which necessarily animates officials to ward the so-called secondary rules of recognition because
officials are human like us and they can be influenced by many conflicting and mixed motive which move humanity.
Hart reduce the legal system to only rules thus the legal system not only contain only rules but a law court, judicial
hierarchy and various type of law making bodies. It is fact that the primary rule are habitually obeyed and the
secondary rules are recongized as such by the officials. Hart classified entire legal system into primary and secondary
rules, jurists criticize that hart on that point and said that whether it this possible to divide the entire legal system
into two types of rules that are primary and secondary. This is an oversimplification of the division of the entirely
legal system. Hart says that primary rules only imposed duties and secondary rules only confer power but the other
jurists reject this idea and say that there are some rules neither confirm the power or neither imposed duties. For
example contract which discharged by frustration.
Theory of positive law: That laws are commands of human beings. That there is no necessary connection between
law and morals. That the analysis of legal concepts is (i) worth pursuing, (ii) distinct from (though not hostile to)
sociological and historical enquiries and critical evaluation. That a legal system is a "closed logical system" in which
correct decisions may be deduced from predetermined legal rules by logical means alone. That moral judgments
cannot be established, as statements of fact can, by rational argument, evidence, or proof.
Austin theory of law: According to Austin, the law is the command of the sovereign imposing a duty which is
enforceable by sanction.
Objection: Custom ignored. Judge made law . As against the command. This theory makes the sovereign completely
absolute. This theory is not even applicable to Europe. Not applicable to International Law. Not Applicable to
constitutional law:
Objection by Hurt: according to Hart, Austin actually meant ‘orders’ not ‘commands’ conditional structure: „If you
want to form a legally binding contract, this is how it is done.” sovereignty cannot be constituted by the habits of
obedience. Austin, according to Hart, failed to distinguish between ‘being obliged’ to do something by a threat and
‘having an obligation’ to do it. For example: The position of a person with legal obligations is different in kind than
the position of someone faced with a gunman, according to Hart, but Austin runs the two together. legal obligations
are not obviously the same as moral obligations. So we need a reason for thinking that legal obligations have these
features of moral obligations. The rules are important for maintaining social life. Social pressure is brought to bear
to enforce the rules. The rules might require people to do things they do not want to.
Law as union of primary and secondary rules: Primary rules are rules of conduct; they tell you what we are legally
obligated to do (or refrain from) and what consequences attach to obedience or disobedience. These are rules like
rules for murder, theft, extortion and so on. They force certain particular obligations on the residents of the state
to act in a specific way, or they might be dependent upon certain legitimate approvals. Secondary rules are ones
that let individuals, by doing certain things, present new rules of the principal kind, or adjust them. They give
individuals (private people or public bodies) the ability to present or change the main sort of rule. Secondary rules
are not obligation forcing rules. They are what Hart calls power-presenting rules. Auxiliary rules are those rules
which affirm powers like Contract, Marriage, Will, Delegated Legislation ie. the ability to make law.
The rule of recognition through which the rules of the system are recognised;
The rule of change, which enables a society to add, remove, and modify valid rules; and
The rule of adjudication, which provides a mechanism for de termining whether a valid rule has been violated.

Soft Vs Hard Positivism: Soft positivism is a legal theory that believes society may, if it chooses, incorporate the
principles of morality into the law. It may also be referred to as inclusive positivism or incorporations. Exclusive
positivism (also called hard positivism) denies that a legal system can incorporate moral constraints on legal
validity.
Pure Theory of Law: Kelsen believed in and promoted a theory that was free of any extra-legal aspects such as
sociology, philosophy, ideology, psychology, politics, ethics, and so on. Kelsen quickly deduced that law belongs to
the human sciences that prescribes a specific behaviour rather than the scientific sciences. On the basis of two
elements, Kelsen stated that his hypothesis is pure. For example, it distinguishes between law and fact. Second, it
distinguishes between morals and law.
Norms and its validity: According to Kelsen, in order to assign the legal meaning to an act, we take the help of
Legal norms.
Validity means the specific existence of the norm.Validity of a norm means that a norm is binding, and an individual
ought to behave in the manner determined by the norm. Every two norms that ultimately derive their validity from
one basic norm belong to the same legal system. A theory of law should be uniform and applicable at all time and
places. All legal norms of a given legal system ultimately derive their validity from one basic norm.
The Grundnorm:- we can say that if the other norms are against the Grundnorm then those norms will be invalid.
In the pyramidical structure of hierarchy, the Grundnorm is at the top and is fully independent of all the other
norms. The subordinate norms are controlled by their superior norms. Kelsen said that all the other norms in our
legal system can be traced to the final source and that the final source is Grundnorm. Kelsen states that there
should be a Grundnorm in every state not necessarily it’s the same for all the states. Every state can own its
different Grundnorm. For example– Constitution is our Grundnorm, change of grundnorm bring revolution in legal
system of country.
Difference of norm: Difference of norm can be of the following reason: law is Social science. Legal ought are
different from ought of valuation. Legal ought are backed by the force of the state. The Purpose of the law is not
revelent.
Kelson theory of international law: there should be a grundnorm between the country to regulate their dealing
otherwise it may not possible.