More handpicked essays just for you.
Effects of the colonial rule of india
Effects of the colonial rule of india
Effects of the colonial rule of india
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Legal Pluralism is the presence of various legal systems within a single country or a geographical area. Legal Pluralism is omnipresent although it is generally assumed to exist in countries only with a colonial past. This is because in most countries with a colonial past, colonial laws co-exist alongside indigenous laws. However, if we look at the expansive definition of legal pluralism, it can be said that every society or country if legally plural. The modern definition of legal pluralism also deals with the issues of relation between state and non-state legal orders. It shows the dichotomy that exists between customary legal norms and state law. The judiciary of India has upheld this principle of pluralism in many cases by showing that …show more content…
There is a collective existence of different forms legal systems, because of the country’s diversity in culture, language and religion. This diversity is able to flourish in India only because of representation of different communities. Diversity and pluralism are acknowledged in India which safeguards the interests of different social groups and communities. This led to law being seen as necessarily pluralistic. However, after colonisation there was an effort made by the British to make law uniform, an essential condition in what was seen as ‘modern law’. Nonetheless, after independence an effort was made to have a pluralistic legal system as this would lead to better representation of different communities. This is how the Panchayati Raj system, a form of local self-government came about. Panchayats were reintroduced in 1992 after the British rule, and there a panchayat in every town of village. The people of the village elect the members of the ‘panch’, whose responsibility is the local administration of the village. In many places, gram panchayats are also known as gram sabhas. In this manner, different forms of legal pluralism shape everyday ordering and disputing in rural and urban India. They relate to formal law as well as customary legal orders equally. The two governance systems interact, which can be termed as formal law and traditional law. Customary law is also termed as unnamed law as it does not refer to a specific basis of
Ulrich, G. (1999). Widening the circle: Adapting traditional Indian dispute resolution methods to implement alternative dispute resolution and restorative justice in modern communities. Hamline Journal of Public Law and Policy. 20, (2), 419-452.
There are certain categories of legal tradition that differentiate by country or time. These legal traditions are shared by a certain groups of individuals or whole systems in and of themselves. In other words, you have to understand the legal tradition, and which legal system it is affiliated with, to understand the whole picture of how disputes and conflicts are handled. I think in our modern times, it would be challenging to find one legal system that is without influence from other legal systems (Different Legal Traditions, 2012). Legal traditions tend to incorporate different elements from other cultures and legal systems. Most legal traditions have derived from a common origins, similar institutions, and shared concepts from regarding
In Federalist No. 10, James Madison stresses that “measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority.” Madison philosophized that a large republic, composed of numerous factions capable of competing with each other and the majority must exist in order to avoid tyranny of majority rule.# When Federalist No. 10 was published, the concept of pluralism was not widely used. However, the political theory that is the foundation for United States government was the influential force behind pluralism and its doctrines.
The philosophy of rights has been a perennial subject of discussion not only because it is embedded in the intellectual tradition and political practices of many countries but also because it exhibits deep divisions of opinion on fundamental matters. Even a cursory survey of the literature on rights since, say, the time of the Second World War would turn up a number of perplexing questions to which widely divergent answers have been given: What are rights? Are rights morally fundamental? Are there any natural rights? Do human rights exist? Are all the things listed in the UN's Universal Declaration (of 1948) truly rights? What are moral rights? Legal rights? Are basic moral rights compatible with utilitarianism? How are rights to be justified? What is the value of rights? Can infants have rights, can fetuses have them, or future generations, or animals? And so on.
Over the years, different jurisdictions had built their specific system of rules of conduct to govern behaviour. These legal systems, influenced by historical and cultural roots, can be distinguished in two families, the Civil law and the Common law legal systems. The distinctions lies in the process in which each decision is make by the judge and on the legal sources that shapes the law. Indeed, by contrast to the Common law system, which is largely based on Precedents, meaning the decisions that have already been made by judges in similar cases, the Civil law system is based on legislator’s decisions and legal codes with which judges have to justify their judgment . Consequently, instead of referencing to concepts and rules
Law is a system of rules that has been set up by the legislative branch of our government. It is a must that every person in that country follow these laws, or severe consequences will be held against that person. In every court house legal systems are held. There are two common types of legal systems used, common law and civil law. Common law is used by countries that are from the British colonies, as this type of system was originated from England, when King Henry II wanted to combine the laws and customs together. Whereas, the countries that use civil law are from the European colonies (Common Law vs Civil Law,2009). Even though, both laws are commonly used, they differ in terms of the constitution, the jury’s opinion, the role of the
In this essay, I will be discussing how the formal theory of the rule of law is an erroneous means of establishing laws within a state. A central theme to addressing this essay is the distinction between formal and substantive theories of the rule of law. In order to reach the conclusion of the formal theory being proven to be insufficient, one must first appreciate the significant advantages which the substantive theory obtains. However, before doing so, I will briefly mention the importance of the rule of law in society and the requirements it needs to fulfil. Most people would dispute that the significance of law in society is to obtain justice, however justice is simply a term which is determined subjectively, it relates to an individuals moral viewpoint.
The intention of this essay is to explain the process of law reform within the English legal system. The way in which the activity of parliament and that of the judiciary affects the way in which laws are reformed in the UK will be also discussed. The common law system in the UK means that the UK's primary legal principles have been developed by the judiciary rather than by parliament. However, as parliamentary sovereignty is an important key principle of the UK constitution parliament is the supreme legal authority in the UK. Parliament can create, change or repeal any law and generally speaking the judiciary cannot overrule legislation that has been passed by parliament.
Part of the grounds for arguing in favor of the common law system over the codified system is its characteristically equitable qualities. Since antecedents are pursued in all cases, everyone gets the same treatment. This same legal procedure is administered to everyone in spite of their position or creed. Therefore, this system of going by antecedents which had hitherto been set usually leads to equity and fairness. This system of law also has the advantage over the codified system by offering protection to persons via the law of tort.
To be sure, modern laws are made to express the general will, a will that aims at the common good. This means that laws in most cases intend to protect every social member’s rights under the principle of justice and fairness. For telling examples one need to look no further than American judicial system. The access to the two courts systems, one federal court and one state court, provides citizens with the greatest potential to have their legal problems resolved quickly and justly. Besides, the entire U.S. legal system depends upon the involvement and integrity of citizens in the roles of parties, witnesses, jurors, legal counsel and judges， making the legislation, judgment and enforcement respecting more citizens' will, which is probably based on various interests, so that laws can be as just as possible. Therefore, modern laws are in nature pursuing to treat and protect every individual in the society.
If classical mixed jurisdictions are to be studied collectively, certain sub-groups would need to be taken into consideration. Some would be amalgamations of common and civil law, such as Scotland and Seychelles; some of religious law, civil law and common law, such as Israel; some others with a mix of the previously mentioned laws with a further addition of socialist law and tribal law such as Algeria; others, such as Hong Kong, that combine traditional Chinese law and socialist Chinese law, which itself embodies elements of the civilian tradition and so on. Other systems which have shifted from the socialist sphere to the more civilian tradition, such as Poland, experience an ongoing mixture, with their legal systems looking for an identity.
Well, I have done my project on economic theory of criminal law to understand the economic aspects of criminal law. While doing this project I came across the idea as what should be considered as a crime? What should be criteria for determining a crime? By this I mean to say what the acts which should be punished. Now the other follow up question which comes is that after determining which acts are to be punished, how should we determine their extent?
Law is one of the most important elements that transform humans from mere beasts into intelligent and special beings. Law tells us what is right and wrong and how we, humans, should act to achieve a peaceful society while enjoying individual freedoms. The key to a successful nation is a firm, strong, and fair code of high laws that provides equal and just freedom to all citizens of the country. A strong government is as important as a firm code of law as a government is a backbone of a country and of the laws. A government is a system that executes and determines its laws. As much as fair laws are important, a capable government that will not go corrupt and provide fair services holds a vital role in building and maintaining a strong country.
The New South Wales Criminal trial and sentencing process is adequate in balancing the rights of the victims, offenders and society however like any legal system is does have its faults. The options in the trial and sentencing process are stipulated in the Criminal Procedure Act 1986, the Crimes (Sentencing Legislation) Amendment (Intensive Correction Orders) Act 2010 and the Crimes (sentencing procedure) Act 1999 which features the use of charge negotiation, rehabilitation, mitigating factors and intensive corrective orders.
Should the aim of law be primarily focused on the protection of individual liberty or, instead, the normative goals aimed at the good of the society? The question of law and morality is difficult mainly because it needs to be addressed with current social conditions that exist, the morals and values that the particular society has. In general, the laws in any society should not only be focused on regulations, but it should also protect individual’s liberty. Devlin debate was based on deciding whether law should enforce morality. He debated about what the law ought to be and whether morality should be enforced by law to form a good society. Furthermore, John Stewart Mill did not write specifically on law and morality. His argument constituted mainly on the anti-enforcers side of law and morality because he believed in individual liberty. John Stuart Mill's assertion that the only justification for limiting one person's liberty is to prevent harm to another