Skip to main content icon/video/no-internet

Law is a cultural achievement of humankind. It is subject to an evolutionary process in which a sense of right and wrong is developed, and the legal system as the end of this evolution is connected and continuously adapted to the conditions of human existence within a complex framework of social interaction. Essentially the main function of law consists in judging and sanctioning human behavior according to the judicial code of legal/illegal. It is possible to differentiate systems of law from an historical point of view depending on whether this function is intended to uphold and continue past customs or to steer the future.

Ancient and medieval systems of law are structurally characterized by a strong connection between law, politics, and morals; a case in point is the historical trial against Socrates (469–399 BCE). The law of those eras is deeply rooted in social customs and traditions. It is not so much the will of the lawmaker that determines what is right. What is right is primarily established by the authority of the judge, often personified by rulers themselves, who legitimize the law through their decisions. His point of view is principally directed toward the past as a time when conditions were right. And their verdict must uphold this continuityold law is good law.

According to Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770–1831), legal thinking changed with the “invention” of subjectivity during the eras of the Renaissance and the Reformation. Individuals came to be seen as subjects who make themselves the persons they are. No longer did the demands of the past determine the life of an individual. Instead, individuals came to be defined by the tasks they choose themselves and their dedication to fulfilling them. But the joy of being the creative sculptor of one's own biography, the “plastes et factor,” as Pico della Mirandola (1463–1494) fittingly calls it in his Oratio de Dignitate Hominis, is joined by worries about the future, a future that is essentially open and uncertain. Consequently, even today, the main task of law is to steer the future.

Temporality of Law

It has been obvious since the Enlightenment, or beginning of the Modern Era, that differentiations are made between law, politics, and morals. Living an upright life has increasingly become a question of outwardly obeying laws with no particular regard to moral considerations. The difference between making and enforcing laws has been institutionally reinforced. In general, the judge's verdict has been given a legal framework and thus become much less dependent on the center of political powerdue in part to the condition that decisions must be made promptly. Law will always be power oriented, but, thanks to its own normative nature, it also establishes a bond with the future in that general expectations of an individual's behavior are stabilizedeven though these expectations may be disappointed in individual cases. An essential factor that fosters this function of law is the construction of its own temporality.

Self-reflexivity is a prerequisite for this construction of law's inherent time: Law exists, because it is validspecifically as long as it is valid. Differentiating between natural and legal time is therefore relevant for the validity of law. For example, as long as law is carried out under the auspices of a particular ruler, the validity of the regulations is bound to the “lifetime” of that ruler. As a result, the effectiveness of a legal system decisively depends on whether it is possible to create and change norms according to its own legal rules, in other words, to separate them from a specific time period. This process is particularly evident, because there is usually no mention made about when the validity of legal norms ends. They are, in a certain sense, “timeless.” In some cases possible changes are even explicitly excluded, for instance by rhetorical expressions, such as human rights are “inalienable,” human dignity is “inviolable,” and the core of a constitution is valid “forever.” These examples make it clear how the normative nature of law tries to immunize itself against social changes, especially in the field of politics. from a legal perspective, it may not be possible to prevent rulers from violating human rights; but by no means should they claim to act in accordance with the law when violations are committed.

...

  • Loading...
locked icon

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL

  • Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
  • Read modern, diverse business cases
  • Explore hundreds of books and reference titles

Sage Recommends

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

Loading