GROUP1-PhilLaw7019-Chapter2-ConsolidatedReport.pdf

Philosophy of Law Schools of Thought in Legal Philosophy Theories that Shape Our Understanding of Law Presented by Group 1 7009 Philosophy of Law Class Saturdays | 3:30-5:30 PM A.Y. 2024-2025 | 1st Semester  The Group Don Roel G. Arias J...

Philosophy of Law Schools of Thought in Legal Philosophy Theories that Shape Our Understanding of Law Presented by Group 1 7009 Philosophy of Law Class Saturdays | 3:30-5:30 PM A.Y. 2024-2025 | 1st Semester  The Group Don Roel G. Arias Janice Mariel G. Armamento Pia Mae S. Barnido Lady Desiree Fernandez Glaiza Marie Vasques Table of Contents Learning Objective The Classical Theories ⚬ Overview of the Classical Theories ⚬ Natural Law ⚬ Legal Positivism ⚬ Positivism and Separation Thesis Modern Theories ⚬ Overview of the Modern Theories ⚬ Legal Realism ⚬ The Path of Law ⚬ Bad Man Theory ⚬ Legal Interpretivism ⚬ Pure Theory of Law Learning Objective At the end of this presentation, students will be able to explain and critically evaluate classic and modern legal theories and discuss their implications for understanding the nature and application of law in contemporary society.  Philosophy of Law The Classical Theories Presenter: Pia Mae S. Barnido  “Freedom of men under government is, to have a standing rule to live by, common to every one of that society, and made by the legislative power erected in it; a liberty to follow my own will in all things, where the rule prescribes not; and not to be subject to the inconstant, uncertain, unknown, arbitrary will of another man” – John Locke  INTRODUCTION TO THE CLASSICAL THEORIES Classical Positivist Man is essentially a moral Positivist theory rejects the creature, has free will, and concept of free will and views is morally accountable for crime as a social and natural his actions. phenomenon influenced by factors beyond an individual’s control.  THE CLASSICAL THEORY Moral Responsibility and Free Will in Criminal Behavior Classical theories argue that man has free will and is morally accountable for actions. Humans are moral creatures with the ability to choose between good and evil.  THE CLASSICAL THEORY Moral Responsibility and Free Will in Criminal Behavior Man should only be held accountable for wrongful acts as long as free will appears unimpaired.  THE CLASSICAL THEORY Moral Responsibility and Free Will in Criminal Behavior Criminal accountability is based on the individual’s free will. Classical theory focuses on punishment fitting the crime rather than the criminal. THE CLASSICAL THEORY Crime and Punishment under Classical Theory The Spanish Penal Code of 1870 is rooted in classical thinking This code was focused on a direct proportion between crime and punishment, where specific actions resulted in specific penalties. THE CLASSICAL THEORY Crime and Punishment under Classical Theory While this system is logical, it did not consider individual circumstances, and eventually, critics emerged who pushed for more flexible approaches to criminal justice. THE POSITIVIST THEORY Social Defense and the Rejection of Free Will Unlike classical theorists, positivists argue that free will is a myth and that crime results from factors outside an individual’s control, such as biological or psychological conditions. The focus here is on the defense of society from individuals who are deemed “socially dangerous” rather than on punishing moral guilt. THE POSITIVIST APPROACH: Crime as a Social Phenomenon The classical approach to crime focused on rigid, predetermined penalties with little regard for individual circumstances. Critics of this approach, such as Cesare Lombroso, Rafael Garofalo, and Enrico Ferri, founded the positivist school of criminology, advocating for a more nuanced understanding of crime based on scientific investigation. THE POSITIVIST APPROACH Crime as a Social Phenomenon Positivists advocate for understanding crime as a social and natural phenomenon that requires a scientific and individualized response, rather than blanket punishment. NATURAL LAW The Connection Between Law and Morality Natural Law: The Nature of Humankind Ancient Greek philosophers believed all men have a common nature that sets them apart from other species— reason. Humans have self-consciousness which allows them to reflect, analyze, and seek causes and meaning.  The Golden Rule across religions—treat others as you want to be treated—is rooted in the common, intelligent, and contemplative nature of humans. Homo sapiens are defined as thinking creatures who seek meaning and pursue reason in their actions  Natural law suggests that there is a moral foundation that law must follow. Law must be consistent with universal moral principles.  PHASES OF NATURAL LAW Classical Phase - Ancient Greek and Roman philosophers, like Plato and Aristotle, believed that human reason and shared moral values create common laws. The idea of virtue jurisprudence— the law based on ethics and right living—is central to this phase.  PHASES OF NATURAL LAW Scholastic Phase - Aquinas built upon Aristotle’s ideas, emphasizing that divine law guides human law. He argued that natural law stems from God, who provides humans with reason to achieve their moral and natural ends.  PHASES OF NATURAL LAW Modern Phase (Enlightenment) - Thinkers like Immanuel Kant argued that natural law should guide moral duties. The Golden Rule—to act in ways that one would want universally applied—illustrates this phase.  PHASES OF NATURAL LAW International Law Phase - This phase broadens natural law to include the principles governing nations. Philosophers like Hugo Grotius applied natural law to international relations, stressing that treaties and agreements are essential for peaceful coexistence. Aristotle's Rational Law and Justice Divine Law and Human Law Aristotle viewed law as the rational guide to achieve the highest good, which he identified as happiness (eudaimonia) Laws must be designed to cultivate virtue in citizens. A good government promotes the moral and intellectual development of its people. Aquinas on Natural Law Divine Law and Human Law St. Thomas Aquinas believed that natural law derives from divine reason. Eternal law (God’s law) guides humans toward their natural ends. Outlined the 5 natural inclinations Human laws should reflect natural law principles but adapt to changing human circumstances.  NATURAL LAW and RATIONALITY Carl Jung introduced the idea of a collective unconscious, where humans share subliminal desires and intentions. This theory posits that human experience is shaped more by the subconscious than conscious thought. The Stoics on Jus Naturale The Stoics believed that natural law applies universally to all human beings. Cicero, a Roman philosopher and statesman, argued that justice and law are grounded in the natural order. He emphasized that unjust laws are not true laws and should not be followed. Enlightenment Philosophers on Natural Rights Enlightenment thinkers like Paine and Jefferson built on natural law theory to advocate for inalienable human rights. These rights are inherent and do not require government recognition. Distinction between natural rights and civil rights  Natural Rights Civil Rights Inherent to human beings as Rights that emerge from the individuals. individual's membership in Rights to comfort, security, society. and happiness that do not Protected by the state and tied infringe on others' rights. to the social contract. Derived from a higher Some natural freedoms are authority (God) surrendered, Natural Law as the Law of Nations Grotius, the "Father of International Law," applied natural law principles to relations between nations. He emphasized the need for good relations, treaties, and the fulfillment of promises between states (Pacta sunt servanda). APPLICATION OF NATURAL LAW Republic of the Philippines vs. Sandiganbayan, Major General Josephus Q. Ramas, and Elizabeth Dimaano Reference: G.R. No. 104768, July 21, 2003 Ponente: Justice Antonio T. Carpio APPLICATION OF NATURAL LAW Republic vs. Sandiganbayan Facts: EDSA Revolution 1986: President Aquino creates PCGG. EO No. 1: Mandate to recover Marcos ill-gotten wealth. Investigation of General Josephus Q. Ramas. APPLICATION OF NATURAL LAW Republic vs. Sandiganbayan Facts: PCGG formed AFP Anti-Graft Board. Investigated Ramas’ alleged unexplained wealth. Items seized from Elizabeth Dimaano's house: cash, equipment, land titles. APPLICATION OF NATURAL LAW Republic vs. Sandiganbayan Issues: Can Dimaano invoke the right against unreasonable search and seizure during the period of the interregnum (after EDSA Revolution)? Did the Bill of Rights from the 1973 Constitution apply? APPLICATION OF NATURAL LAW Republic vs. Sandiganbayan SC Ruling: Bill of Rights was not operative during the interregnum, but international human rights (Covenant & Declaration) still applied. Revolutionary government’s directives were supreme law until the Provisional Constitution was adopted on March 25, 1986. APPLICATION OF NATURAL LAW Republic vs. Sandiganbayan Justice Puno’s Separate Opinion: Fundamental human rights, like protection against unreasonable search, stem from natural law. These rights are inherent, based on universal principles of justice and morality. APPLICATION OF NATURAL LAW Republic vs. Sandiganbayan Justice Puno’s Separate Opinion: This natural right includes the right to life, liberty, and property, which exist regardless of the will of a government or legal system. APPLICATION OF NATURAL LAW Republic vs. Sandiganbayan Justice Puno’s Separate Opinion: Cites Aristotle, Cicero, John Locke—natural rights are intrinsic to human nature and cannot be voided by the absence of a constitution.  Philosophy of Law Legal Positivism & Positivism and the Separation Thesis Presenter: Janice Mariel G. Armamento  Legal Positivism Legal Positivism is a philosophical theory of law that holds that the existence and content of law is determined by social facts and is independent of moral considerations. Opposed to all forms of naturalism is legal positivism, which roughly constituted by three theoretical commitments: 1. The Social Fact Thesis 2. The Conventionality Thesis 3. The Separability Thesis Doctrine of non-suability recognized in this jurisdiction even prior of the Constitution is a logical corollary of the positivist concept of law which Holmes negates the assertion of any legal right as against the state, the source of law on which such right may be predicated. According to the case of Providence Washington Insurance vs. Republic “Nonetheless, a continued adherence to the doctrine of non- suability is not to be deplored for as against the inconvenience that may be caused private parties, the loss of governmental efficiency and the obstacle to the performance of its multifarious functions are far greater if such a fundamental principle were abandoned and the availability of judicial remedy were not thus restricted. With the well know propensity on the part of our people to go to court, at least provocation, the loss of time and energy required to defend against lawsuits, in the absence of such a basic principle that constitutes such an effective obstacle, could very well be imagined. In one of lecture, John Austin formulated “What appears pernicious to one person may appear beneficial to another. To prove by pertinent reasons that a law is pernicious is highly useful, because such process may lead to the abrogation of the pernicious law… …To incite the public to resistance, may be useful, for resistance grounded on clear and define prospects of good is sometimes beneficial. But to proclaim to the will of good is sometime beneficial… …But to proclaim generally that all laws which are pernicious or contrary to the will of God are void and not to be tolerated, is to preach anarchy, hostile and prelious as much to wise and benign rule as to stupid and galling tyranny. Three Theoretical Commitments The Social Fact Thesis It asserts that legal validity is a function of certain social facts. John Austin argues that the principal distinguishing feature of a legal system is the presence of a sovereign who is habitually obeyed by most people in the society, but not in the habit of obeying any determinate human superior. Three Theoretical Commitments The Social Fact Thesis The relevant social fact that confers validity, on Austin’s view, is promulgation by a sovereign willing to impose a sanction for noncompliance. Three Theoretical Commitments The Conventionality Thesis It proposes that it is a conceptual truth about law that legal validity can ultimately be explained in terms of criteria that are authoritative in virtue of some kind of social convention. H.L.A Hart believes the criteria of legal validity are contained in a rule of recognition that sets forth rules for creating, changing and adjudicating law. Three Theoretical Commitments The Separability Thesis This is more commonly interpreted as making only an object-level claim about the existence conditions for legal validity. Hart describe it “simple contention that it is in no sense a necessary truth that laws reproduce or satisfy certain demands of morality, though in fact they have often done so”. Social Fact Conventionality Separability Thesis Thesis Thesis also known as the emphasize law’s At the most general level, “Pedigree Thesis” conventional nature, simply denies naturalism’s asserts that it is a claiming that the social Overlap Thesis; according necessary truth that facts giving rise to to Separability Thesis, legal validity is legal validity are there is no conceptual ultimately a function authoritative in virtue overlap between the of certain kinds of of some kind of social notions of law and social facts. convention. morality. Positivism and the Separation Thesis “What maybe right, may not be moral” The final thesis compromising the foundation of legal Positivism is the Separability Thesis, this assert that law and morality are conceptually distinct. Positivism and the Separation Thesis H.L.A Hart describes Separability Thesis is no more than the “ simple contention that is in no sense a necessary truth that laws reproduce or satisfy certain demands of morality, though in fact they have often done so”. All positivist agree there are possible legal system without moral constraints on legal validity. According to inclusive positivism, it is possible for a society’s rule recognition to incorporate moral constraints on the content of law. Though most of our notion human rights have already been transcribed and written down in various statutory enactments, including the fundamental law, our universal concept of human rights cannot fully be appreciated if the same are confined within statutory pronouncements. One’s humanity, after all, cannot be summarized within an encapsulated statute.  Philosophy of Law MODERN THEORIES: An Overview Presenter: Don Roel G. Arias Intended Learning Outcomes At the end of this presentation, the learners will be able to: establish awareness on the brief background of Modern Theories; identify famous figures who influenced legal realism; discover the importance of legal realism in the practice of legal profession.  MODERN THEORIES The origins of the modern theories in legal philosophy are generally associated with the emergence of a particular view of law and legal institutions adopted by jurists belonging to the school of legal positivism. The foundations of the positivist school of jurisprudence in the English-speaking legal world were laid by the great political scientist JEREMY BENTHAM (1748-1832). Bentham constructed a model of law wherein he expounded great details in writings which were not in fact published during his lifetime. However, many of the ideas of his model were present in most modern theories applied in jurisprudence.  Bentham constructed his model in accordance with a particular method for the analysis of legal phenomena which he called the logic of the will. The application of this analytical method led him to conclude that the nature of law could be explained simply using various legal theories.  From this basic idea, Bentham proceeded to define the law using modern theories as comprising a set of commands and prohibitions issued by a recognized sovereign law-making body supported by sanctions to be imposed by the sovereign power.  The purpose of Bentham’s model is to provide the basis for a fully scientific exposition of the various concepts – like those of duty, rights and powers, which he considered fundamental to the structure of law.  Philosophy of Law INFLUENCERS OF LEGAL REALISM JOHN CHIPMAN GRAY “In order that an opinion may have the weight of a precedent…it must be an opinion, the formation of which is necessary for the decision of a particular case.” [sic] OLIVER WENDELL HOLMES, JR. Oliver Wendell Holmes was one of the most widely cited influential Supreme Court Justices in American history, noted for his important opinions. OLIVER WENDELL HOLMES, JR. Holmes heavily influenced the formulation of Legal Realism in American law particularly with his Prediction Theory of Law which stands for the idea that “law should be defined as a prediction of how the courts behave based on realistic, even moral or biased considerations”. OLIVER WENDELL HOLMES, JR. He wrote in the Common Law that, “The life of the law has not been logic: it has been experience.” OLIVER WENDELL HOLMES, JR. Furthermore, Holmes intoned that law develops according to the felt necessities of the time rather than to any set of deductive premise which men should be governed. OLIVER WENDELL HOLMES, JR. KARL NICKERSON LLEWELLYN Llewellyn was an American jurisprudential scholar associated with the school of legal realism. KARL NICKERSON LLEWELLYN Together with other legal realists, he proposed that the facts and outcomes of specific cases composed the law, rather than logical reasoning from legal rules. KARL NICKERSON LLEWELLYN He epitomized the realist view when he put it that what judges, lawyers and law enforcement officers do about disputes, is for his mind, THE LAW itself. KARL NICKERSON LLEWELLYN He believed that the law is little more than putty in the hands of a judge who is able to shape the outcome of a case based on personal biases. KARL NICKERSON LLEWELLYN  JEROME FRANK Jerome Frank was an American legal philosopher and author who played a leading role in the legal realism movement. JEROME FRANK He distinguished two classes of legal realists: rule skeptics and fact skeptics. He dismissively referred Rule Skeptics as “magic addicts” who were skeptical that the legal rules articulated in decisions could adequately explain outcomes, but employing various social sciences. JEROME FRANK He urged judges and legal scholars to acknowledge openly the gaps and uncertainties in the law, and to think of law pragmatically as a tool for human betterment. JEROME FRANK  FELIX COHEN He became a leading figure in Legal Realism, a movement that challenged the Formalist idea that legal principles could be discerned in the abstract, separate from their enforcement, judicial interpretation or impact on society.  Philosophy of Law LEGAL REALISM Presenter: Don Roel G. Arias LEGAL REALISM is a legal theory predicted on the notion that ALL LAWS are derived from prevailing social interests and public policy. It is also thought of as a naturalistic approach to law in that JURISPRUDENCE should emulate the methods of natural science; that is it should rely on EMPIRICAL evidence and hypotheses that have been tested against the reality of the world, rather than rely on theoretical assumptions about the law. According to this theory, judges consider not only abstract rules, but also social interests and public policy when deciding a case. They are human beings who are motivated by personal, political views. QUESTION: Why do non-lawyers even like to watch TV series on Law and Order? The realist school, sometimes labeled as “pragmatic jurisprudence,” focuses on these human realities that are often overlooked by hard law, technicalities, and abstract policies. It brings significance into the question of implementation and whether the law reflects practical experience. It tells the law and law practitioners to get real. The realists avoided habitually the conceptual approach of the positivists and naturalists in favor of an analytical analysis that sought to show how practicing judges really decide cases. Realists were deeply SKEPTICAL of the ascendant notion that judicial legislation is a rarity. They maintained that judges CREATE NEW LAWS through the exercise of lawmaking discretion considerably more often that is commonly supposed. From the modern realist school of jurisprudence, the end or purpose of the law remains social in nature for it is found in the society of the individual members who compose it. Law is determined by the actual practices of courts, law officers, and law enforcers; BY REAL WORLD PRACTICE. Human factors and realities are unavoidable in hard cases, and judges must be able to take these into consideration. Since under our Constitution, JUDICIAL REVIEW exists precisely to test the validity of executive or legislative acts in appropriate legal proceeding, there is always the possibility of their being declared inoperative or void. The Constitution does not require things which are different in fact or opinion to be treated in law as though they were the same. (Gomez vs. Palomar, 25 SCRA 827 Realism compels the acceptance of the thought that there could be a time-lag between the initiation of Presidential or congressional exercise of power and the final declaration of nullity. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, who was an avowed proponent of Legal Realism, believed that the law should not even be considered as a system of reason, of ethical principles and axioms, and of what not. He instead argued that in crafting a law or in deciding a case, always think from the perspective of the bad man, not the good man. The bad man, at the end of the day, cares only for the consequences of the law, of what the courts will do to him, and the rest are irrelevant. He further explained that nearly every man wants to avoid disobeying the law when confronted with disagreeable consequences. Anchored on the cited principle, decisions must be based on the judge’s idea of justice, conditioned by his values, background and acquaintance with social forces. LEGAL REALISM is the school of legal philosophy that examines law in a REALISTIC rather than a theoretical fashion; the belief that law is determined by what actually happens in the courts as judges interpret and apply law. FORMALISM REALISM The legal outcome If legal outcomes are (the holding) follows logically implied by logically from the propositions that legal rule (major bind judges, it follows premise) and a that judges lack statement of the LEGAL AUTHORITY to relevant facts (minor reach conflicting premise) outcomes.  Philosophy of Law The Path of Law & Bad Man Theory Presenter: Glaiza Marie Vasquez  The Path of Law In his famous essay, The Path of the Law, Justice Wendell Holmes defined law as a prediction of what the court will do.  The Path of Law The prediction is based on precedents. The governing principle, which has given consistency and stability to the law, is stare decisis et non quieta movere (follow past precedents and do not disturb what has been settled).  Stare Decisis ”to stand by things decided” Is a legal principle that directs courts to adhere to previous judgements (or judgments of higher tribunals) while resolving a case with allegedly comparable facts.  Stare Decisis ”to stand by things decided” That a ruling on a certain state of facts established in a final decision of the Philippine Supreme Court has to be followed in subsequent cases by all courts in the land where the facts are substantially the same, regardless of whether the parties and property are the same  Stare Decisis ”to stand by things decided” It is based on the principle that once a question of law has been examined and decided, it should be deemed settled and closed to further argument.  Stare Decisis ”to stand by things decided” Basically, it is a bar to any attempt to relitigate the same issues, necessary for two simple reasons: economy and stability. In our jurisdiction, the principle is entrenched in Article 8 of the Civil Code Horizontal Stare Decisis Horizontal Stare decisis requires that high court must follow its own precedents or earlier decisions. It is also viewed as a policy, imposing choice but not a command.  Horizontal Stare Decisis It also instructive to distinguish the two kinds of horizontal stare decisis - constitutional stare decisis and statutory stare decisis. Constitutional stare decisis involves judicial interpretations of the Constitution while statutory stare decisis involves interpretations of statutes. Vertical Stare Decisis On the other hand, Vertical Stare Decisis deals with the duty of lower courts to apply the decision of the higher courts to cases involving the same facts. Viewed as an obligation.  Stare Decisis Rule: Reason for Following and Refusing In general, courts follow the stare decisis rule for an ensemble of reason, viz: (1)it legitimizes judicial institutions; (2)it promotes judicial economy; (3)it allows for predictability.  Stare Decisis Rule: Reason for Following and Refusing Contrariwise, courts refuse to be bound by the stare decisis rule where: (1) its application perpetuates illegitimate and unconstitutional holdings; (2) it cannot accommodate changing social and political understandings; Stare Decisis Rule Cont. Reason for Following and Refusing (3) It leaves the power to overturn bad constitutional law solely in the hands of Congress; and (4) activist judges can dictate the policy for future courts while judges that respects stare decisis are struck agreeing with them. Stare Decisis Rule Cont. Reason for Following and Refusing (5) It leaves the power to overturn bad constitutional law solely in the hands of Congress; and (6) activist judges can dictate the policy for future courts while judges that respects stare decisis are struck agreeing with them. Bad Man Theory lb. Prediction Theory Is a jurisprudential doctrine or belief, according to which a bad person’s view of the law represents the best test of what exactly the law is because the person shall carefully and precisely calculate what the rules allow and operates up to the rules’ limits. Bad Man Theory lb. Prediction Theory Such person is not bothered about morals and unconcerned with acting morally. Instead, would be concerned about the degree of punishment certain acts will incur by the public force of law. The Birth of a Theory Introduction to the Bad Man Oliver Wendell Holmes first introduced this theory in his essay "The Path of the Law" in 1897. According to Holmes, a society's legal system is defined by predicting how the law will affect a person, rather than considering the ethics or morals underlying the law. The prediction is best made by viewing the law as a "bad man" who is unconcerned with morals. The Birth of a Theory Introduction to the Bad Man “If you want to know the law and nothing else, you must look at it as a bad man, who care only for the material consequences which such knowledge enables him to predict, not as a good one, who finds his reasons for conduct, whether inside the law or outside of it, in the vaguer sanctions of conscience.” – Oliver Wendell Holmes Bad Man Theory Law as a Tool for Prediction According to Holmes, a "bad man" thinks in practical terms. He looks at laws not for their moral value but for the potential consequences—what will happen if he breaks them. This means understanding law as a way to predict how society and the legal system will respond. Bad Man Theory Separation of Law and Morality Holmes emphasized that law should be distinct from moral considerations. A "bad man" isn’t concerned with whether an act is right or wrong; he only cares about whether it will get him in trouble. Thus, the law's primary function is to regulate behavior by outlining penalties for violations. Bad Man Theory Focus on Enforcement The theory highlights the importance of enforcement mechanisms. The effectiveness of a law is judged by how well it deters undesirable behavior. If a law is poorly enforced, the "bad man" may choose to ignore it, making the law ineffective. Bad Man Theory Predictable Outcomes For the law to function effectively, it must provide clear and predictable outcomes. The "bad man" must be able to foresee the consequences of his actions—if he knows that breaking the law will lead to significant penalties, he is more likely to comply. Bad Man Theory Pragmatic Approach to Law The theory encourages a pragmatic approach to understanding law. It shifts focus from philosophical debates about what is "just" or "moral" to practical considerations about behavior and consequences. Bad Man Theory The Bad-Man Theory suggests that by understanding the perspective of a bad person, we can better understand how the law operates in practice. This theory is often associated with Legal Realism, which emphasizes the importance of understanding how the law is actually applied in the real world. Bad Man Theory The Bad Man Theory posits that law should be viewed through the lens of someone who is only concerned with avoiding punishment and maximizing self-interest. It emphasizes the predictive function of law, the separation from morality, the importance of enforcement, and a pragmatic approach to understanding legal systems. Bad Man Theory By focusing on how laws operate in real-world contexts, the theory offers valuable insights into legal effectiveness and compliance.  Philosophy of Law LEGAL INTERPRETIVISM & PURE THEORY OF LAW Presenter: Lady Desiree Fernandez Legal Interpretivism Interpretivism is a thesis about what determines legal rights and duties, i.e. what makes it the case that the law requires what it does. As such, it is a thesis about the nature of law. Legal Interpretivism Interpretivism claims that values justify the precise kind of authority that different agents and institutions have and hence the precise way in which their decisions and other acts determine legal duties. Legal Interpretivism - Legal Interpretivism focuses on understanding the law through its underlying values and principles, rather than just literal text. It argues that legal rights and duties determined by interpreting laws within a broader context of societal values. Pure Theory of Law - Propounded by the formidable Austrian Jurist and Philosopher Hans Kelsen (1881-1973) - Hans Kelsen proposed to seek only the “real and possible” justice and not the “ideal and ethical.” Pure Theory of Law - Way of understanding the law that focuses only on the rule themselves and how they work and should look at the law as a system of norms or rules, without considering other factors like morality or politics.  Pure Theory of Law - The goal of applying the Pure Theory of law is to understand and describe the law in a clear, objective way. It focuses on separating the law from other aspects of life and looks at laws as a system of rules that are valid because they follow a specific structure.  Pure Theory of Law - Focuses on the structure and rules of law and does not include moral values. - Studies the system of legal norms and does not concern with politics. - Provides systematic analysis of legal rules. - Aims to study laws purely on their own terms without mixing them with other subjects. Thank You!