The Nature of Law

“The Natural Law: A Study in Legal and Social History and Philosophy” by Heinrich Rommen

The Nature of Law

It may be said with some exaggeration that the era of individualism was the first to pursue a philosophy of right or rights (in the subjective sense), whereas the preceding age had rather developed a philosophy of law. That would be especially justifiable were one to conceive right more as a subjective permission and power to demand, and law as objective order and the basis of duties and rights. The suum would then be first, while the norm, through which the suum would be determined and guaranteed, would come later.

The Christian doctrine of natural law, however, does not first posit the suum and the person, and only afterwards the law. But as the community is perceived simultaneously with the person, because it is “given” with the latter, so the norm which determines it is simultaneously posited with the suum. Man is continually viewed in an order that is simultaneously given, whose natural laws, arising from the nature of the essential order, require observance. Thus since thinkers did not set out from the isolated, abstract individual and did not begin by asking what are to be considered his inalienable rights, but always regarded man as a member of an order instituted by God and manifesting itself in man’s essential being, attention was paid more to the law, to right in the objective sense. Besides, whoever is of the opinion that law and morality may not be separated, and hence that positive law and moral law belong together, will be especially capable of appreciating this view. Laws have then an ethical aim or end. They are not merely a safeguard or protection of previously given rights. They have in addition the positive ethical function of making men better, more virtuous. But this implies that the positive law is inwardly connected with the object which the moral law has in view.

‡In St. Thomas Aquinas we find at first an entirely general concept of law. “Law is a rule and measure of acts, whereby man is induced to act or is restrained from acting.”2 This rule or law is an ought, not a blind necessity. It applies to creatures possessed of free will while it leaves their freedom intact. It is not physical compulsion. (Hence the laws established for the movements—motus, not actus—of irrational nature, the laws of nature in the present-day meaning of the phrase, are laws only in an improper sense.) Law is thus a norm for human actions which proceed from free will and are therefore actions of a being who is master of his deeds and omissions, of a being who is a person. But free will presupposes reason, in keeping with the priority of the latter. Consequently it pertains to the nature of human actions that they are somehow determined by reason and are in agreement with it. It is thus nature, and, more explicitly, rational nature, which provides the proximate criterion in passing a judgment of values on a specifically human (morally free) action. But reason, as practical reason, further regulates action since it apprehends the connections and relationships of ordered things among themselves and in relation to their end, because order arises through common direction to an end. Again, all action occurs for the sake of an end. Without purpose, action would be meaningless; without purpose, the will has nothing to strive for. But reason alone can grasp the appropriateness of the actions for attainment of the end; it alone can conceive the means and the series of intermediate ends that lead to achievement of the final end. This activity of reason, through its decision for or against a proposed course of action, precedes the will, the converting of the deliberation and the judgment into act. The content of every norm, therefore, as well as all that has in any way a normative character, is related to reason as essential nature and as principle of knowledge.

It follows from the foregoing that law is “something pertaining to reason.” To the concept of law belongs “an ordinance of reason,” not (as it is occasionally thought) an ordinance for reason, although law is this too. For law does not speak to the blind will as such, but to the will guided and informed by reason.

Man acts for an end. Hence every action has an immediate goal. It is evident, however, that the immediate end, e.g., writing, is subordinated as a means to a higher end, e.g., the communication of thoughts. Ever wider investigation brings to light an ultimate end, to which the subordinate ends are related as to a final cause. Their relation to the final end is that which is common to them all. It belongs to the nature of law to serve a supreme purpose that is ultimate in the respective order. The purpose or end is a creative element in law and right. The final end of all human action and at the same time the principle of such action is felicitas, happiness. But universality belongs to this end: it is the common good of all who strive for it. To that extent law is directed to the common good in the general sense, from which it receives the property of universality. Law is thus a general norm of reason which directs the actions of free man to the common good, not to a private or particular good. This may not be restricted to the general welfare of the state, although this is its foremost application, but holds good for every higher community with an end of its own, in particular for the Church and the international community, but also for the family and the larger kindred-group.

To law pertains also a lawgiver. For a group of people, order among the individuals who compose it and their direction to the common end are essential. The group first receives its unity and concrete form, its sociological and juridical individuality, through the unity of order and through the end. However, the production of this unity and the enduring realization of the common good through the direction of the acting members to this goal presuppose one or more directors in the specific sense of that term. Chance or accident is not the creator of the community. For this reason the lawmaker pertains to the notion of law, which must be directed precisely to the general welfare. Consequently, too, he is the lawmaker upon whom devolves concretely the care for the common good, whether it be the corporate body itself, the people, or the constitutionally determined holder of the public authority.

Furthermore, since law is the rule of action for rational and free beings, it has of necessity to be made known to them, that they may direct their actions in keeping with it. Promulgation likewise belongs to the nature of law.

Accordingly law is a general rule of reason which is directed to the common good, emanates from public authority, and is duly promulgated. The will, too, is included there in. For the framing of a legal decree is just as essentially an act of the will, but only on the basis of a precedent rational weighing of the ends and means which concern the law. A rule that does not issue from the activity of reason, an arbitrary rule or an arbitrary decree, “would savor of lawlessness rather than of law,” says St. Thomas categorically.

Law, then, is primarily not will, although it owes its positive concrete existence to a volitional act of the lawgiver. Materially considered, it has to be a rule of reason and for reason (in the one subject to the law). That is, only thereby can it obtain the decisive qualification of true law. For rational nature must be directed and guided in accord with reason, i.e., it must be in conformity with truth. That has been common intellectual property ever since the Greeks established the truth of the nomos: law is truth (veritas facit legem).

Closely connected with this idea is the doctrine that the end or aim of law is to make those who are subject to it good. Law as a rational norm for the free activity of man must have at bottom this objective; it is not a mere safeguard against the antisocial impulses in man which menace the community. The dignity of the laws rests on this consideration. Wherever, as already among the Greeks, law had this ethical aim, law became something sublime and venerable. This idea corresponds likewise to the ethical character of the community, especially of the state. All law wishes to educate the members of the community. All true politics is education of the people. It has required the entire emptying and disparagement of the state at the hands of individualist liberalism to bring about the denial of the educative function of the law, and to assign to law merely a protective function in behalf of the autonomous, even morally self-sufficing, individual.

Such is the nature of law. It is universal and holds good for all laws: for the moral law and the positive law, whether the latter is a statute of some corporative body or a law of state or Church.

The natural moral law, too, bears the character of law. Indeed, as has already been mentioned, a heated controversy over this point took place among the Late Scholastics. It reached its climax in the dispute between Vasquez and Suarez. The argument turned on the nature of law: Is law an act of reason, or is it an act of the will? Vasquez was in agreement with tradition when he said that law is an act of the intellect on the basis of an act of the will. Materially, therefore, he regarded law as an act of the intellect; formally, as an act of the will. Therefore Vasquez was unwilling to characterize the natural law as law proper, simply because the law of nature as an intimation of that which is good in itself, i.e., in accord with reason, and of what is bad in itself, i.e., at variance with reason, contains no element of will. Some had on this account termed the natural law a lex indicans, in contradistinction to lex praecipiens.

The idea that rational nature as such is the natural law, and that the latter has force even in the impossible hypothesis that there be no God, was carried forward by Arriaga and Grotius almost to the point of the autonomy of human reason. The contrary position was the Occamist doctrine that law is but an act of the will: hence the natural law is divine positive law, and the basis of the goodness and rightness of certain actions is not found in their conformity with nature, but in the absolute will of God, who is completely free to prescribe even the opposite course of action. That meant the dissolving of the concept of natural law. Therefore Suarez was at pains to point out that, as the light of natural reason indicates by way of judgment the inner agreement or internal contradiction of actions with rational nature, it likewise indicates in the very same act that this corresponds also to the will of God, the Author of nature.

All law is first and foremost an act of reason. Even technically the deliberation precedes the decree. Yet law is also a decree of the will. The answer to the question about the nature of law is thus the answer to the question of the relationship between intellect and will. And the answer to this decides the question of whether a natural law is possible at all. The historical theories of the nature of law down to the present time cover the whole range of the antithesis: Law is reason—law is will. Besides, the nature of the law provides the basis for differentiating forms of government, and it renders philosophy of law possible or impossible.

In the United States, the judge, in virtue of his right to review the law, inquires whether an act of the legislative body is unconstitutional. Actually, however, he examines whether the act is reasonable, and he disallows it if he finds it arbitrary. The judge, or the Federal Supreme Court, thus becomes in the United States the first chamber, wholly unprovided for in the Constitution, with absolute right of veto.

The demand for a public consideration of the laws in parliament or congress, i.e., for the discussion of the reasonable grounds pro and con, is likewise understandable only on the basis of the view that law must be reason. Furthermore, paradoxical as it may sound, the same view underlay even the absolutism of a Louis XIV of France. For, as the latter passed not for a mere man but for a vicegerent of God, the reasonableness of a law which emanated from him was by inference a presumption of law and of right. The same is true of the enlightened despotism of the following century, which rested on the view that the ruler, because of his superior, enlightened reason, can manage the state to the advantage of the people.

Only Occam’s positivism in moral philosophy and that of the closing nineteenth century in jurisprudence, by clinging to the principle that law is will, held fast to the theory of will. The unfruitfulness of this theory is at the same time the reason for its rejection.

Law must be reason, too, for the sake of man’s dignity. The human person is not a means for the ruler’s use. Obedience, to be ethical, must be reasonable obedience. This requires a certain insight into the reasonable character and the purpose of the norm. Hence the lawgiver, precisely in those governments in which the laws do not originate in public deliberation, almost always adduces, generally in a detailed and solemn form, the motives of the law.

Somewhat different is the question of whether the unreasonableness of a law or an actually deficient insight into its reasonableness exempts one from obedience. Here the Christian doctrine and individualist liberalism part company. The latter optimistically considers that the individual is always sagacious enough to have the requisite insight. In addition, it proceeds from a preconceived notion that the law, as a restriction of freedom, is rather a necessary evil than a means for making the citizen good. Lastly, it is filled with a distrust on principle toward the lawmaker, whether he is a single tyrant or a hundred tyrants, i.e., a parliamentary majority. The legislator should lay down only the formal rules of procedure. The individuals themselves determine the material content of law through their contracts, which, moreover, constitute the principal form of individualist jurisprudence.

The Christian philosophy of law, however, absolutely demands the positive law. And if it declares reasonableness to be an essential note of the concept of law, it can still, with St. Thomas, characterize only the absolutely unreasonable law, i.e., one that is at variance with the natural law, as savoring of lawlessness rather than of law. But since order is a very great good, just as is the will of the state which realizes and preserves this order, so along with the demand, addressed to the lawmaker, for the reasonableness of laws goes a demand addressed to the subjects to preserve the great good of order even when a particular law cannot be entirely justified before the bar of reason. The continuance of any order at all, however mixed it may be with injustice and arbitrariness, is of greater value than the utter lack of order, than total disorder. The Christian philosophy of law can demand this because in its eyes the nature of the state is not exhausted in the legal order, although the state must be essentially a constitutional state: it must be in the law. But the state is more than that, for it does not live by law alone; it also lives by the acts of all the social virtues through which the idea of man is perfected.

We have this antithesis: law is reason (veritas facit legem); law is will (auctoritas facit legem). The Christian philosophy of law holds that, although auctoritas alone can enact the law, veritas so pertains to the nature of law that law is quite as essentially reason, i.e., an act of the intellect; indeed, from the standpoint of the precedence of the intellect, law is primarily reason. For only then can human law feed on the eternal law and be truly a norm of rational nature. The dignity of law is founded on the fact that it is “an ordinance of reason for the common good,” that it is a “dictate of the practical reason.” As norm of human conduct, i.e., of rational behavior, law must be a reasonable norm.

For the same reason, too, coercion cannot enter into the definition of law, even though, in contradistinction to moral law, physical enforceability is proper to the positive law of the state. “Hence compulsion is rather an element of wrong than of right, since the latter, so long as it functions normally, has no need at all of forcible execution” (F. von Martens). Coercion is the consequence of the dignity and necessity of the positive law. The rational end or goal of the positive law is the ethical legitimation of compulsion.

The genius of legal reason cannot, therefore, rest content with self-denying positivism. It keeps returning to the natural law, to reason and truth in the law.

Natural Law and Positive Law

Legal positivism, that is, the theoretical rejection of the natural law according to form (as non-positive source of valid law) and content (as law contained in no positive norm), maintains that the natural-law doctrine represents a dualism which is inimical to legal security; or that for fixed objective norms it substitutes subjective opinions concerning a juridical oughtness; or that in a dualistic fashion valid legal norms are drawn from a system of norms which is set in contrast to the positive law (ethics, law of reason, reform proposals for new legislation, Roman law as written reason). Hence positivism regards the natural law as a non-law in the proper sense of the word. It refers, instead, to ethics, to fabricated ideal norms for new legislation, to politico-legal aims, and so on.

Law, according to positivism, is only positive law, that is, statute law and such customary law as is recognized by the state. More precisely, positivism characterizes as law to be applied by the judge and alone to be considered by jurisprudence those norms only which are enacted as such by the factual and published will of the legislative organ in due conformity with constitutional law or which are explicitly or tacitly admitted by it. The positivist is ever seeking for the written or actually enforced factual decision of the will which converts a potential norm into an actual norm. Moreover, he is concerned solely with this formal origin of law, with the source of the norm and its manner of formation, not with its content. Auctoritas facit legem, law is will. The question of whether something can be wrong in itself is meaningless for him. To him, right and wrong are not material qualities of norms; they merely denote the presence or absence of agreement with the factual will of the lawmaker. In contrast, for instance, to the Roman jurist, the positivist does not search for justice by way of the positive norm in which it is contained materially; he inquires rather for the norm which is derived from the will of the legislator. The establishing of this fact settles for him the question whether a legal norm lies before him. He presumes its justice, or he asserts that the question of justice is an ethical question, not a juridical one.

In constitutional states, however, the typical positivist runs into difficulties. Particularly when it comes to applying the law, he must inquire not only whether the path of legislation prescribed by the constitution has been followed, but also whether the law (including customary law) is not in conflict with the higher norms of constitutional law. And there the legal positivist readily runs afoul of natural law. To the positivist, many constitutional provisions are not genuine legal norms but rather programmatic utterances of the constituent or constitution-making power. Take, for instance, such a constitutional provision as “Property imposes obligations; its use must at the same time be a service of the common weal.” The positivist characterizes this provision as a mere guiding rule, not as a binding norm for either lawmaker or citizen. He insists upon taking such a view even though this provision is aimed directly at the individualist concept of property, and though property and obligation obviously are juridical concepts. Here, in our view, lies the typical positivist short circuit. The positivist, who for that matter does not know what to do with such highly important constitutional preambles, perceives in these cases invasion points for natural law to be applied by the judge. In the United States the judge, by referring to the natural-law foundation of man’s rights to liberty, has set himself not only above the lawmaker but in theory even above the framers of constitutional law. For the real lawmaker is not the one who enacts the laws, but the one who sovereignly expounds them. But the interpreter refers precisely to natural law and justice. This formalist method makes positivism possible even for Catholic thinkers, when they regard ethics and the moral law as norms derived from God’s will. Such norms do not indeed have legal validity, but they do have the moral force of oughtness.

It is generally acknowledged today that positivism is inadequate from the standpoint of both legal theory and legal philosophy. One of its bases, the theory of the completeness of the law or absence of gaps in the law, has been given up. The theory of legal monism has likewise been widely abandoned. For good faith, the principles of morality and the carefulness of the ordinary merchant are often used by the judge as valid norms not only beyond or in addition to the positive law, but even contrary to the positive law. That is, they are used contrary to the factual will of the lawmaker, even if generally on the basis of the unwarranted fiction that the lawmaker could have willed no wrong.

To look more closely into the matter, we may note several phenomena as sources of legal positivism. In periods of philosophico-ethical uncertainty and barrenness the jurist, who is of course concerned with the practical settlement of legal questions, rightly holds to the positive law that is sure because it is enforced and applied. This is all the more true when the abstract speculations of rationalism have split into increasingly subjective views of various schools. At times when no natural order obtains, but, as in Communist Russia, even the national community is viewed as a social mechanism to be organized along engineering lines, positivism may well be congenial.

The predominance of positivism or of the natural law is likewise connected with types of state or forms of government. Royal absolutism provides in itself a more favorable environment for positivism than do liberal democratic states in which the judge is more or less sovereign. Even forms of government are determined by the antithesis of reason and will, for governmental types are differentiated also by their types of legislation.

But the natural law need not stand diametrically opposed to the positive law, nor has such an opposition always existed in history. Natural law and positivism are, indeed, directly opposed to each other. But natural law and positive law are, as the Christian doctrine of natural law expresses it, directed immediately to each other. The natural law calls imperatively for specification by positive enactments, even though it is at the same time the measure and guideline of the positive law. It requires the positive law; or, as the Christian tradition affirms in an apt distinction, it requires human law, i.e., enactment by earthly authority. In this question of the relationship between natural law and positive law the schools of natural law differ as much as they do over principles. For the Sophists as well as for Rousseau’s individualist natural law the positive law was the direct opposite of the law of nature. The positive law, since it served to secure the interests of the ruling class, was even materially opposed to the natural law. The democratic revolution was the first to make its natural law the exclusive law. The natural law of rationalism believed that, from principles that varied from time to time, a materially complete system of law could be deduced, which thereupon needed but the formal legal decree to become also positive law.

The natural law of the philosophia perennis, on the other hand, contains but a few universal norms and forgoes deductive extremes. It states explicitly that in the normative sciences certainty and necessity decrease in proportion as deduction moves farther away from the first self-evident principles. It has so strong a feeling for the great blessing of a secure and reliable legal order, which it considers a most essential element of the common good, that it regards as non-binding only that positive law which has been changed into non-law by the prohibitive norms of the natural law. Of course, it accords the permissive natural law and equity their proper place. It is revolutionary only in respect to the law that has become materially immoral. Its attitude toward the imperfections of the positive law is merely reformist. It may with some exaggeration be called a skeleton law. It determines what positive arrangements, in themselves capable of being willed in given historical circumstances, can be right. Thus it does not affirm that private ownership of capital is wrong, or that the attainment of just wage claims by means of a strike (break of contract) is wrong when state protection of labor is lacking. Nor does it assert that dictatorship is intrinsically wrong, since dictatorship becomes wrong only through the misuse of the dictatorial power that for the time being is historically necessary, just as it does not pronounce parliamentary democracy to be inherently wrong. Nor, finally, does it declare every war unjust. Yet it does say that, where no fault of the owner exists, complete expropriation without compensation is unjust. It does declare that the general strike for the illegitimate achievement of the rule of the proletariat is wrong. And it does say that disregard of the natural rights to life and to the necessary liberties of the person is wrong, irrespective of by whom and under what circumstances they are infringed.