Legal Theories

Positivism and natural law-quiet alike.Positivism depends on societies acceptance of the procedures by which we create the established laws.

Natural law depends upon us to accept the fundamental moral principles which establish those laws.

In both social acceptance is key. The theories cannot handle disagreement-they are based on a consensus model of social relations.

Chambliss and seidman (check): the teaching of law is usually the perpetuation of a myth-myth: the state is creating a value neutral legal framework e.g. challenges against the ruc.

the legal order order is a self serving system to maintain power and privligeChambliss and seidman i.e. certain groups are able to harness the power of the state in order to ensure that their goals take precedence over those of others-the law is entrenching privlige and disadvantage.

They explain the law via two models of social relations

Value consensus model-groups may disagree but there is general agreement over the fundamentals and because there is general agreement with regards to the fundamentals the law itself can remain neutral e.g. agreement on right to property. V.C. model assumes that stability is the baseline for our social relations-conflict is the anomaly, V>C> model and positivism correspond with each other as to v.c. and natural law. Chambliss and Seidmann argue that this model is a myth.

Value antagonism Model: the only reason riots civil disobedience e.t.c happen more often than they do is because powerful groups can harness the coercive authority of the state to put down those instances of rebellion. Concern about rebellions spreading-people dont rise up because of what fear about the coercive power of the state is going to do.

Value consensus assumes stability and seeks to explain conflict. Value antagonism model assumes conflict and seeks to explain stability.

DO people comply with the law because they believe in the law?

Legal RealismRealists believe that judicial decisions are subjective, judicial decision making is a subjective process-will result in rulings which are ambiguous, inconsistent, contradictory. Must we always see an unanimous decision if the law is objective? Realists argue that judicial decision-making is a subjective process based on the political, moral and social values of the judges.4 basic ideas.1.Law tends to protect economic interests against all others. (look up Oliver Wendell Holmes)-upholds the interests of the wealthy at the expense of the poor. E.g. labour laws allowing bosses to bring in scabs; laws allowing employers to terminate their employees without notice; zero hour contracts.2The outcome of a legal dispute is not determined by an objective and neutral application of the law: determined by a judges mood, personality and morality. Jerome Frank: a case may be decided upon which a judge had for breakfast

Assumption with natural law and legal positivism: laws are rational; they are not there to privilege people. Legal Realism is a direct challenge.3.Since judges manipulate the law, they should be influenced by social welfare-the use of a David and Goliath lens4.Lawyers can predict the outcome of a legal dispute by examining the bahaviour of the court or the judge: Forum Shopping

To sum up: A judge is sitting on the bench and their niece is involved in the case. Can he rule? Of course not-conflict of interest. What if there is a case about privatizing land and the judge may want to buy some of the land which could be privatized. Conflict of interest? Ireland-France analogy: people with a more diverse life experience on the bench.Legal realism relates more to the value antagonism model

FeministFeminism-the belief that men and women are equal- radical statement in historical terms, because most societies around the world have been structured around patriarchy1st wave-vote2nd wave-General equality in society: more women in government, business, sexist portrayals in media etc.3rd wave-Attempts to make feminism more intersectional4th wave-How does male behavior need to change in order to prevent victimization of women.

Feminist legal theory asserts that the law has been instrumental in the subordination of women.Objectives:1.To identify the ways in which the law subordinates women2.To improve womens status through legal reformStrategies:1.Unmasking the male monopoly over male activities2.Uncovering the ways in which the actions of male lawyers; male lecturers; male judges are biased against women (uncovering male bias in legal practice) e.g. up until recently in rape trials a womens sexual past can be used as evidence 3.Unmasking male bias in law itself-here we look to instances where the law refers to the ordinary person/the reasonable person-references to this usually relate to male behavior

2 Main Feminist Approaches1.Logical reasoning-using logic to expose laws gendered nature e.g. William Blackstone in the 18th/19th century had created a legal identity of women where it was folded into the property of the husband: i.e. couldnt own property/work without permission from the husband. This means rape was dealt as a civil matter as opposed to a criminal matter.

ConclusionLegal theory tries to answer 3 questions.1. What is Law2. What gives law its validity3. Why to people obey the lawPositivism and natural law are alike, they are both value consensus models of social relations, based around social acceptance.Legal Realism and Feminist Legal theory are both value antagonistic models of social relations: laws are made by and for the powerful