Law 302

Course Name: jurisprudence

Submitted By:
Name: Sumaiya Akter
Roll : 2021-1-66-017
Semester : Fall2022
LLB (hon’s)

Submitted To:
Sayeed Hossain Sarwar
I support fuller theory :

Lon Louvois Fuller, an American legal philosopher defended a secular and systematic interpretation
of natural law theory and opposed legal positivism. Fuller spent many years teaching law at Harvard
University. He is well known in American law, for his contributions to jurisprudence and contract
law. His 1958 Harvard Law Review debate with noted British legal theorist HLA Hart helped frame
the current conflict between legal positivism and natural law theory. Fuller advanced the case that all
legal systems have an "internal morality" that presupposes that people have an obligation to obey in
his widely debated book The Morality of Law from 1964.
According to fuller, law should be legal system, legal system should have morality.

Fuller lists eight strengths in response to the eight weaknesses of Rex's weaknesses. In the legal
system, the law must be, 1. general; 2. published; 3. prospective, not retroactive; 4. intelligible; 5.
consistent; 6. capable of being complied with; 7. endure without undue changes; 8. applied in the
administration of the society. These qualities must constitute the internal morality of the law. The
word "moral" is misleading. Although the term has ethical connotations, it is not intended. What
Fuller refers to is the essential nature of the legal system, the characteristic without which the system
cannot properly be considered a legal system. The term "law-abiding", also used by Fuller, reflects
the idea that citizens can only submit to the law if they have the qualities that make up the essential
morality of the law.

Does Fuller's view that a system of government that lacks the inherent morality of law cannot
demand loyalty from its citizens means that it should be viewed as a natural defender? Outside the
legal camp. Imagine a law that says every 10-year-old left-handed child must be executed. To
defenders of nature, laws that are against more than man-made laws are void.

This debate was sparked by an article written by Professor Hart in the Harvard Law Review in 1958.
Professor Fuller responded in an article in the same journal. Hart responded in his 1961 chapter, "The
Concept of Law," Fuller responded in his 1963 chapter, "The Morality of Law," and Hart responded
in his 1967 article. For the sake of simplicity, I will summarize the arguments of the two main
characters, first explaining Professor Fuller's view. A key point, or at least a general starting point for
discussion, was Gustav Radburg's position on the legality of Nazi law in Germany. Radbruch was
originally a positivist, and opposing a law was a matter of personal conscience, never letting the law's
effectiveness depend on its content. However, the atrocities of the Nazi regime forced him to
reconsider. Noting how the legal profession's obedience to applicable laws served the Nazi regime's
exercise of terror, he argued that laws were not considered valid if they violated certain fundamental
moral principles. I have come to the conclusion that this does not happen. It was this mindset that was
traded after the Tire War in trials for those responsible for war crimes or as informants to former
governments. In 1949, a West German court indicted a woman for a crime under the German
Criminal Code of 1871, i.e. unlawful deprivation of liberty, while they were out of the Wehrmacht.
(Her husband was convicted and ordered to wear the veil, but was not executed and sent to the
Eastern Front.) Her wife said her husband's actions were against the law. It's not illegal, she
defended. Government - Laws in force since enacted under the then-constitution. A court ruled,
"against the conscience and legal sense of all sane people," that Nazi law was not legally enforceable
to support the woman's defense, and she was found guilty. The case marked a clash between
positivism and natural law, the latter winning. The principles adopted in this judgment have been
adopted in many subsequent cases.

Fuller introduces the concept of 'lawfulness' At first, Fuller seems to say that 'lawfulness' exists. This
may seem puzzling to you, considering that there are people from petty criminals to revolutionaries
who lack a law-abiding spirit. However, Fuller uses the term as a preface, noting that a legal system
must exhibit certain characteristics in order to determine the loyalty of a right-thinking person, the
"inherent morality of the law." I'm here. It turns out that Fuller points to an essential requirement of
the legal system that must provide consistency and logic. order. These features were lacking in the
system of government established by the Nazis. Fuller exemplifies a retroactive decree in which he
confirmed 70 murders in the 1934 Rohm purge.

Professor Fuller proposes that a system of government devoid of what he calls "morals inherent in
law" cannot constitute a legal system devoid of the very characteristic order. There can be no 'vehicle'
as a constructed structure. In his 1963 book Morality of Law, Fuller describes the properties that
institutions should have to form a legal system, moving from negative to positive. He begins his
account with an allegory of the ill-fated reign of a monarch who bore the convenient but
unimaginable, not-so-respectable name of his Rex'. Rex is determined to reform his country's legal
system, where procedures are cumbersome, remedies are expensive, laws are outdated, and judges
are corrupt.
His first step was to abolish all existing laws and replace them with new codes. However, his
unfamiliarity with such matters discouraged the attempt by his inability to articulate the general
principles necessary to address a particular problem.

At the heart of this new way of thinking is this message. The seemingly unanswerable claims of the
laws of nature, their logic, and equivalent verbal power must be when times are very dire or against
something. But the law that upholds that law must be flawed and cannot be considered a true "law",
whatever meaning is given to the word.
Whether the song was justified was the subject of debate among Professor H.L. ert and IP. full time
This is the Hart-Fuller controversy.

I support fuller theory because fuller legal system described how law should be, and he explained that
law should be for the benefit of people.