Schools of Legal Thought

A school of thought in law that claims law is defined solely by the sovereign or recognized authority's commands and applicable rules; not by any moral considerations.

The recognized political authority (e.g., a king, president, or a dictator) with power in a defined territory that creates and enforces the law.

The core idea of legal positivism: laws are commands that originate from the sovereign or recognized authority.

A way to understand and study law by determining what laws say and how they are applied, even if not rigorously scientific.

A school of thought that examines on the actual behavior of law enforcers and considers the social context of applying laws.

Legal positivism has potential flaws when dealing with unjust laws, as it considers enacted laws to be valid but ignores if a law is fair or not.

A hypothetical example of a law that restricts women's education, medical access, and other rights that is considered lawful despite being unjust.

Legal positivism is criticised due to its potential to legitimize unjust laws, if it focuses only on the origin and existence of the law, not on its ethics.

A school of legal thought that emphasizes law based on a universal moral order, discovered through reason. Laws must align with this moral order, or they are illegitimate.

A school of legal thought that believes laws are legitimate if commanded by the lawmaker. The law's morality isn't relevant.

Refusal to obey an unjust or immoral law.

A school of thought that focuses on using past legal examples to guide today's decisions. Past precedent is very important.

A school of thought that believes law must change to reflect society's changing needs. Judges' personal beliefs and social context affect their rulings.

A school of thought emphasizing that power, wealth, and influence shape the legal order itself.

A legal decision in a past case that can guide future rulings.

The social and historical background that affects the interpretation and application of law.