Consequences of Legal Action

By

[Date of Submission]

Abstract

The study has comprehensive findings of Legal and Philosophy of Law. The study includes the in-depth findings of Positivism and Naturalism. The Study has focused on the history, theory, and literature of Legal positivism and naturalism. Positivism and Naturalism have some similarities, however, the theory contradicts at various legal aspects. It has various political, social and legal differences. Legal positivism is a movement that is opposed to the theories of natural law, in jusnaturalism. Legal positivists construct few distinct claims constitutes of legal validity. Naturalism teaches that there are natural rights that God gave to man - theologism-rationing.

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION1

THESIS STATEMENT1

LEGAL POSITIVISM1

Identification of Law4

Legal Positivism5

Assumptions6

Classes of Legal Positivism7

LAW AND MORALITY8

NATURALISM8

History of Naturalism10

ANALYSIS OF NATURALISM AND POSITIVISM11

Analysis12

POST-POSITIVISM16

Challenges and Strengths17

POSTMODERNISM17

Challenges and Strengths18

CONCLUSIONS18

Consequences of Legal Action

INTRODUCTION

The study began with the order to raise awareness and discuss the meaning of legal positivism and naturalism in historical-temporal reality of our society, and to demonstrate the pros and cons of such an ideological figure that can infringe on the legal integrity of a political system. The term positivism is because everything is positive. This consideration is the interpretation of positive refers to a reality, distinguished fiction. Naturalism theory suggests that what ever exist in the universe only that can be considered as law.

THESIS STATEMENT

The positivism and naturalism law has similarities and differences.

LEGAL POSITIVISM

Legal positivism is a movement that is opposed to the theories of natural law, in jusnaturalism. Kelsen is a major representative. It is also interested in the foundation of positive law and its validity; it says it can not be natural law. Indeed, given that natural law can not be a completely natural without betraying itself as a right, It follows that, as positive law, natural law must be applied, sets, said, the natural law should therefore be based also on standards. Legal positivists construct few distinct claims constitutes legal validity.

Probably the most interesting debate in legal theory of the 20th century, the debate about legal positivism, is appearing to fade away. The contributions to this special issue aim to analyze the question as to why this is happening. We asked the authors to consider the following hypotheses, which are partly contradicting:

Positivism is (or was) only an answer to the historical challenges of industrial societies and the nation state. In the 21st century, its plausibility has seriously diminished.

The theoretical landscape has become so diversified (there are so many different strands of positivism) that the mere denotation of a legal theorist as positivist does not say much about him or her. A positivist and a natural lawyer can be nearer to each other in most of the jurisprudential questions, than two legal positivists of different strands of legal positivism.

Every argument has already been stated in the debate, so we keep repeating ourselves (and our respective theoretical ancestors). So, it is not irrelevant, but simply boring.

Positivism has proved to be a plausible explanation on the structure of law, but it cannot explain satisfactorily the phenomenon of ...