Legal Order as a Coercive Normative order

Introduction 

A legal norm is a legally enforceable rule, concept, or standard that sovereign power organizations issue and enforce to control social relations. Individuals who are the subjects of legal relations within the governing jurisdiction at a given point in time have their rights and; duties determined by legal standards. Competent state authorities issue and publish basic components of legal norms through a collection of laws that individuals subject to that government must follow, with state pressure ensuring compliance. Legal norms are divided into two categories; normativity, which governs people’s behaviour, and; generality, which applies to an endless number of persons and instances. Diplomatic and legislative immunity refers to situations in which legal rules are tailored to a specific group of people, such as troops and government officials, and are solely applicable to them.

Legal norms are verified the moment they are proclaimed as part of the legal order, and they take effect the moment they bind the law’s subjects. The Latin phrase “vacatio legis” refers to the time between the validity and effect of a legal standard. A legal norm’s validity is restricted from the time it is adopted by legal institutions, therefore a period of time can lead it to expire. Legal norms can be ended by the competent state authority explicitly derogating from them or; by automatic derogation, in which the authoritative organization adopts a new normative act that controls the same relations, essentially replacing the old one.

Normative legal theory

Normative legal theory navigates the principles and reasons that support legal activities, the approval of the legislation, and judge-made law; whereas a fact-based positive legal theory explains the causes and effects of the law’s application. The term “normative” is used by legal theorists in a broad sense that includes legal, social, and moral norms. Moral and political theories are interwoven with normative legal theories, which are highly evaluative.

A comparison of their approaches to tort law serves as an example of the contrasts between positive legal theory and normative legal theory. The positive theory aims to explain what causes the existing tort principles; whereas normative theory aims to establish which tort liability rules are the most justifiable. Normative legal theory is influenced by moral or political ideas and; relies on judgments to determine the most acceptable rule to apply in legal reasoning. Deontology, utilitarianism, and virtue ethics are three general normative theories that have influenced normative legal theory significantly:

Deontology-

A conceptual opponent to utilitarianism, deontological moral theories investigate the concept of obligation, as well as the concepts of rights and permission that go with it. A person can assess whether their conduct is “right” by evaluating; whether it is required, banned, or permitted by a moral rule. When this notion is applied to criminal law through normative legal theory; it is reflected when an activity cannot be considered a crime; unless it violates a moral responsibility and retributive theories of punishment.

Utilitarianism

is a type of consequentialism in which decisions are made by forecasting the outcome that determines an action’s moral worth. It is assumed that; the relevant breadth of a judgment is determined by a system of legal norms rather than by individual moral rules.

Virtue ethics-

In a legal setting, an action is regarded proper when an individual, acting as a virtuous moral agent, does a deed that exemplifies the essence of human excellence. A virtue-centered theory of judgment demonstrates judicial temperance, courage, temperament, knowledge, wisdom, and justice while implementing virtuous legal norms. These qualities could lead to a concern for equality in virtue jurisprudence.

Read more blogs @advocatetanwar.com

Written By:

Upasna Sharma (Advocate)