Law and You> Jurisprudence > Definition of Law

The term “Law’ denotes different kinds of rules and Principles. Law is an instrument which regulates human conduct/behaviour. Law means Justice, Morality, Reason, Order, and Righteous from the view point of the society. Law means Statutes, Acts, Rules, Regulations, Orders, and Ordinances from point of view of legislature. Law means Rules of court, Decrees, Judgment, Orders of courts, and Injunctions from the point of view of Judges. Therefore, Law is a broader term which includes Acts, Statutes, Rules, Regulations, Orders, Ordinances, Justice, Morality, Reason, Righteous, Rules of court, Decrees, Judgment, Orders of courts, Injunctions, Tort, Jurisprudence, Legal theory, etc. The idea of ‘Law’ as guide to human conduct is as old as the existence of the civilized society. The definition of law changes with culture, philosophy, places, and application.

The term law has different meanings in different Places/societies at different times (as it is subject to amendments). In Hindu religion law implies “Dharma” in Muhammadean religion (Islam) it is “Hokum” in Roman its “Jus”, in French, its “Droit” in Arabic, Alqanoon, in Persian and Turkish, its Kunoon, in Latin its “Legam” in Philipino its “Batas” in Albanian language its “Ligj” in Czech its “Zakon” in Danish its “Lor” in Dutch its “Wet” in Italian its “Legge” and in Lithuanian its “Teise” and so on.

Definition of Law:

The relevance of law to human behaviour has become so intimate today that every person has his or her own conception about its nature which is influenced, of course, by his/her own perspective. Hence to define ‘Law’ is not so easy. Although, there is no general definition of Law which includes all the aspects of Law yet for a general understanding, some of the important definitions are as follows:

• According to Aristotle, a perfect law is inherent in the nature of man/woman and can be discovered through reason. It is immutable, universal and capable of growth.
• According to Paton, law consists of a body of rules which are seen to operate as binding rules in the community by means of which sufficient compliance with the rules may be secured to enable the set of rules to be seen as binding.
• According to A. V. Dicey, law is the reflection of Public opinion
• According to John Erskine the law is the command of a sovereign, containing a common rule of life for his subjects and obliging them to obedience.
• According to H. L. A. Hart the law is the combination of primary rules of obligations and secondary rules of recognition.
• According to Kelsen, norms of human behaviour or pure theory of law which provides that law is pyramid of norms which has its genesis from on ground norm e.g. Constitution of India.

Idealistic Definitions:

Salmond’s Definition of Law:

According to Salmond, the law may be defined as the body of principles recognized and applied by the state in the administration of Justice.

Salmond’s definition of law focuses on the systematic body of principles and rules governing human conduct. This definition emphasizes three key elements:

• Principles and Rules: Law comprises structured guidelines that direct human behaviour.
• Recognition by the State: The rules are acknowledged and validated by the governing authority.
• Application in Justice: These principles are enforced and applied in the process of administering justice to ensure order and fairness in society.

Salmond’s approach highlights the formal and institutional nature of law, focusing on its role in maintaining social order through state mechanisms.

Criticism of Salmond’s Definition of Law:

Salmond’s definition of law, while influential, has been subject to various criticisms. Some of the key critiques include:

• State-Centric Focus: Salmond’s definition emphasizes the role of the state in recognizing and applying law. Critics argue that this overlooks the importance of other sources of law, such as customary law, religious law, and international law, which may operate independently of state recognition.
• Narrow Scope: By defining law primarily as principles applied by the state in the administration of justice, Salmond’s definition may exclude other important aspects of law, such as procedural rules, administrative regulations, and the law’s role in guiding behaviour outside of the courtroom.
• Static Nature: Salmond’s definition can be seen as static, failing to account for the dynamic and evolving nature of law. Law is not only a set of fixed principles but also a living institution that adapts to changing social, economic, and political circumstances. Keeton says what has been considered to be just at one time has frequently not been so considered at another.
• Lack of Moral Dimension: Salmond’s definition focuses on law as a system of rules enforced by the state without considering the moral or ethical dimensions of law. Critics argue that law is not just about state enforcement but also involves questions of justice, fairness, and morality.
• Positivist Approach: Salmond’s definition aligns with legal positivism, which separates law from morality and emphasizes the formal sources of law. Critics from natural law and other schools of thought argue that this perspective is limited, as it neglects the inherent connection between law and ethical principles.
• Exclusion of Informal Mechanisms: Salmond’s definition may exclude informal mechanisms of social control and dispute resolution, such as community-based justice systems and alternative dispute resolution methods, which play significant roles in many societies.

While Salmond’s definition has been foundational in legal theory, these criticisms highlight the complexity and multifaceted nature of law, suggesting the need for broader and more inclusive definitions.

John Chipman Gray’s Definition of Law:

John Chipman Gray, an American legal scholar, offered a distinct definition of law. According to Gray, “the Law of the State or of any organized body of men is composed of the rules which the courts, that is the judicial organ of the body lays down for the determination of legal rights and duties.

Gray’s definition emphasizes the judicial aspect of law, highlighting the role of courts in the recognition and enforcement of legal rules. This definition emphasizes three key elements:

• System of Rules and Principles: Law is composed of structured guidelines that govern behaviour.
• Recognition by Courts: The legitimacy of these rules comes from their acceptance and application by the judicial system.
• Enforcement by Courts: The enforcement of these rules through judicial decisions is crucial to their authority and effectiveness.

Gray’s definition places significant importance on the role of courts in the legal system, suggesting that law derives its force and legitimacy from judicial recognition and enforcement.

Criticism to John Chipman Gray’s Definition of Law

John Chipman Gray’s definition of law, which emphasizes the role of courts in recognizing and enforcing rules, has also faced various criticisms. Some of the key critiques include:

• Judicial-Centric Focus: Gray’s definition places too much emphasis on the role of the judiciary, potentially overlooking other significant sources and institutions involved in the creation and enforcement of law, such as legislatures and administrative agencies.
• Exclusion of Non-Judicial Laws: By focusing on the courts, Gray’s definition may exclude forms of law that are not primarily enforced by judicial mechanisms, such as international law, administrative regulations, and customary laws that might not always involve court intervention.
• Reactive Nature of Courts: Courts often respond to disputes and issues after they arise, which means Gray’s definition may neglect the proactive role of law in guiding behavior and preventing conflicts before they reach the judiciary.
• Narrow View of Enforcement: Gray’s definition might be seen as too narrow because it highlights judicial enforcement while downplaying other forms of enforcement, such as regulatory agencies, police forces, and community-based mechanisms.
• Ignores Legislative and Executive Roles: The definition does not adequately account for the roles played by the legislative and executive branches in creating, implementing, and enforcing laws. It simplifies the multifaceted nature of legal systems where different branches of government interact and collaborate.
• Limited to Formal Legal Systems: By concentrating on court-recognized rules, Gray’s definition may overlook informal legal systems and mechanisms, such as mediation and arbitration, which can play crucial roles in many societies and are sometimes preferred over formal judicial processes.
• Overlooks Moral and Ethical Dimensions: Like Salmond’s definition, Gray’s definition may be criticized for ignoring the moral and ethical dimensions of law, focusing solely on the procedural and institutional aspects.

Gray’s definition is influential in highlighting the importance of courts in the legal system, but these criticisms suggest that a more comprehensive understanding of law should consider the diverse sources, functions, and dimensions of law beyond just judicial recognition and enforcement.

Positivists Definitions:

Austin’s definition of law:

John Austin, a prominent legal philosopher, is best known for his theory of legal positivism and his command theory of law. According to Austin, law is the command of the sovereign, backed by the threat of a sanction.

Austin developed logically, a structure of legal system in which he gave no place to values, morality, idealism and Justice. According to Austin, a law, in the strict sense is a general command of the sovereign individual or the sovereign body. Issued to those in subjectivity and enforced by the physical power of the state. Key elements of Austin’s definition include:

• Command: Law consists of commands given by a superior (the sovereign) to inferiors (the subjects).
• Sovereign: The sovereign is the ultimate authority within a society, whose commands are recognized as law.
• Sanction: The effectiveness of law is maintained through the threat of sanctions or penalties for non-compliance.
• Habit of Obedience: The subjects habitually obey the commands of the sovereign, establishing the authority of the sovereign and the legitimacy of the law.

Austin’s definition is closely tied to his broader theory of legal positivism, which separates law from morality and focuses on law as it is, rather than as it ought to be.

Criticisms of Austin’s Definition of Law:

• Overemphasis on Sovereignty: Austin’s focus on the sovereign’s command may oversimplify complex modern legal systems, where multiple sources of law (legislative bodies, courts, administrative agencies) contribute to the legal framework.
• Inadequate for Democratic Systems: In democratic societies, laws are often created through participatory processes rather than being unilaterally commanded by a sovereign. Austin’s definition may not fully capture this aspect of democratic law making.
• Neglects the Role of Customary Law: Austin’s definition may not account for customary laws that develop organically within communities and are not explicitly commanded by a sovereign.
• Ignores Moral and Ethical Dimensions: Austin’s legal positivism, which separates law from morality, is criticized for neglecting the moral and ethical considerations that influence and underpin legal systems.
• Command Theory’s Applicability: The command theory may not adequately explain laws that do not fit neatly into the command model, such as laws that confer powers, grant rights, or establish frameworks for cooperative behaviour rather than merely imposing duties.
• Static View of Law: Austin’s definition may be seen as too static and rigid, failing to account for the dynamic and evolving nature of law in response to social, economic, and political changes.

Austin’s definition of law has been foundational in the development of legal positivism, but it has been widely debated and critiqued for its limitations in addressing the complexities and nuances of modern legal systems.

Holland’s Definition of Law:

Sir Thomas Erskine Holland, a distinguished legal scholar, offered a concise and influential definition of law. According to Holland, law is a general rule of external human action enforced by a sovereign political authority.

Holland followed the Austin’s concept and nature of law. Holland measures or defines law with preference to sovereign devoid of moral, ethical or ideal elements which are foreign to law and Jurisprudence. Key elements of Holland’s definition include:

• General Rule: Law is a system of general rules rather than specific commands.
• External Human Action: The focus is on the external conduct of individuals, not their internal thoughts or intentions.
• Enforcement: These rules are enforced by an authority, ensuring compliance.
• Sovereign Political Authority: The enforcement and creation of these rules are backed by a recognized sovereign or governing body.

Holland’s definition is notable for emphasizing the general and external nature of legal rules, as well as the role of enforcement by a political authority.

Criticisms of Holland’s Definition of Law

• Narrow Focus on External Actions: By emphasizing external human actions, Holland’s definition may neglect the importance of intent and motivation in legal contexts, which can be crucial in areas such as criminal law and contract law.
• State-Centric View: Like many traditional definitions, Holland’s focus on a sovereign political authority might overlook the role of non-state actors and international bodies in the creation and enforcement of law.
• Exclusion of Customary and Informal Laws: Holland’s definition may not adequately account for customary, religious, and informal laws that play significant roles in many societies and are not necessarily enforced by a sovereign political authority.
• Static Perspective: The definition might be seen as static, failing to capture the dynamic and evolving nature of law, which adapts to changing social, economic, and political conditions.
• Overemphasis on Enforcement: The focus on enforcement might downplay the importance of voluntary compliance and the role of law in guiding behavior and setting standards without the immediate threat of enforcement.
• Limited Scope: By concentrating on general rules of external action, Holland’s definition might exclude important aspects of law, such as procedural laws, administrative regulations, and the law’s role in resolving disputes and providing justice.

Holland’s definition contributes to the understanding of law as a system of general rules enforced by political authority, but it has been critiqued for its limitations in capturing the full complexity and diversity of legal systems.

Kelsen’s Definition of Law:

Hans Kelsen, an influential Austrian jurist and legal philosopher, developed a foundational theory known as the “Pure Theory of Law.” According to Kelsen, law is a normative order, that is, a system of norms.

Key elements of Kelsen’s definition include:

• Normative Order: Law is conceived as a hierarchical system of norms or rules that regulate human behaviour within a society.
• Systematic Structure: These norms are organized in a hierarchical manner, with higher norms (such as constitutions) serving as the basis for lower norms (such as statutes and regulations).
• Validity and Effectiveness: Kelsen distinguishes between the validity (legality) of norms, which is determined by their position within the hierarchy and their conformity with higher norms, and their effectiveness (efficacy) in influencing behavior.
• Normativity: Law provides standards of behaviour that are binding and enforceable, typically backed by sanctions for non-compliance.

Criticisms of Kelsen’s Definition of Law

• Formalism: Kelsen’s focus on the structure and hierarchy of legal norms may be criticized for its formalistic approach, potentially overlooking the social, political, and moral dimensions of law.
• Positivism: As a legal positivist, Kelsen separates law from morality and does not explicitly consider the ethical or moral content of legal norms, which may be seen as a limitation in addressing justice and fairness in law.
• Exclusion of Social Context: Kelsen’s definition tends to abstract law from its social context and historical development, potentially neglecting the ways in which law reflects and shapes societal values, norms, and practices.
• Limited Descriptive Power: Critics argue that Kelsen’s definition may be more prescriptive than descriptive, focusing on how law ought to be structured rather than how it is practiced and experienced in real-world legal systems.
• Complexity of Norms: The hierarchical structure of norms in Kelsen’s theory may oversimplify the complexity of legal systems, which often involve overlapping and competing norms from various sources.
• Critique of Grundnorm: Kelsen’s theory relies on the concept of a “basic norm” (Grundnorm) as the foundational norm in the legal system, which has been critiqued for its theoretical abstraction and the difficulty of identifying a single Grundnorm in complex legal systems.

Kelsen’s Pure Theory of Law has been highly influential in legal philosophy and continues to be a subject of debate and critique, particularly regarding its formalistic and positivist approach to understanding law as a normative system.

Historical School Definition:

Savigin’s Definition of Law:

Friedrich Carl von Savigny, a prominent German legal scholar and founder of the Historical School of Jurisprudence, had a unique perspective on law. Unlike the positivist and command theories, Savigny’s definition of law emphasized its organic and cultural origins. Savigny argued that law is the manifestation of the common consciousness (Volksgeist) of the people.

Savigny says that law is not the product of direct legislation but is due to the silent growth of custom or the outcome of unformulated public or Professional opinion. He says that law not as a body of rules set by determinate authority but as rules consist partly of social habitat and partly of experience. He says law is found in the society, it is found in custom. Key elements of Savigny’s definition include:

• Volksgeist (Spirit of the People): Law reflects the common consciousness, traditions, and customs of the people. It is deeply rooted in the cultural and historical context of a society.
• Organic Development: Law evolves naturally over time, influenced by the social, cultural, and historical experiences of the community. It is not created arbitrarily by a sovereign but grows with the society.
• Cultural Foundation: Legal norms and principles emerge from the shared values, beliefs, and practices of the people.

Criticisms of Savigny’s Definition of Law

• Vagueness and Subjectivity: The concept of Volksgeist can be vague and difficult to define or measure. It relies on subjective interpretations of the common consciousness of a people, which can vary widely within a society.
• Resistance to Legal Reform: By emphasizing the organic and historical development of law, Savigny’s approach might resist necessary legal reforms and innovations, potentially hindering progress and adaptation to new social realities.
• Neglect of Formal Legal Structures: Savigny’s definition may downplay the importance of formal legal institutions, processes, and the role of legislators and courts in shaping and enforcing law.
• Cultural Homogeneity Assumption: The notion of a unified Volksgeist assumes a degree of cultural homogeneity that may not exist in diverse, pluralistic societies. Different groups within a society may have distinct values and legal traditions.
• Limited Applicability: Savigny’s definition may be more applicable to societies with a strong sense of shared history and culture, and less relevant to modern, multicultural, and rapidly changing societies where legal norms may be influenced by global interactions and pluralistic values.
• Historical Determinism: The focus on historical and cultural continuity might imply a form of determinism, suggesting that current legal norms are inextricably tied to the past, potentially overlooking the role of conscious, rational decision-making in law making.

Savigny’s definition highlights the cultural and historical dimensions of law, offering a counterpoint to more formalistic and state-centered theories. However, it has been critiqued for its potential limitations in addressing the complexities of modern, diverse, and dynamic legal systems.

Sociological School Definitions:

Jhering’s Definition of Law:

Rudolf von Jhering, a prominent German legal scholar, offered a distinctive definition of law that emphasized its social and purposive aspects. Jhering’s approach to law is often associated with the theory of “jurisprudence of interests (Interessenjurisprudenz). According to Jhering, law is the means to an end, the purpose of which is to serve society.

Key elements of Jhering’s definition include:

• Means to an End: Law is not an end in itself but a tool or instrument designed to achieve certain goals and purposes.
• Purposeful Nature: The primary purpose of law is to serve and benefit society by regulating conduct, resolving conflicts, and promoting social welfare.
• Balancing Interests: Law seeks to balance and reconcile competing interests within society, ensuring that individual and collective needs are met in a fair and just manner.
• Dynamic and Adaptive: Law is seen as a dynamic and evolving mechanism that must adapt to changing social conditions and needs.

Criticisms of Jhering’s Definition of Law

• Functional Focus: Jhering’s definition emphasizes the functional aspect of law, potentially overlooking the importance of legal principles, norms, and structures that are not directly tied to immediate social purposes.
• Subjectivity of Social Purpose: Determining what serves society can be subjective and may vary significantly among different groups and individuals. This can lead to disputes over the primary objectives of law.
• Potential for Instrumentalism: By viewing law primarily as a means to an end, there is a risk of reducing it to a mere instrument of social engineering, which might undermine the intrinsic values and principles that law should uphold.
• Complexity of Interests: The notion of balancing interests can be complex and challenging in practice, as interests often conflict, and prioritizing them can be contentious and politically influenced.
• Risk of Relativism: Jhering’s emphasis on the social purpose of law may lead to a relativistic approach where the content of law is continually shifting based on changing social goals, potentially undermining legal stability and predictability.
• Neglect of Legal Formalism: Jhering’s focus on the social function of law may downplay the importance of formal legal reasoning, procedures, and the role of legal institutions in maintaining order and justice.

Jhering’s definition highlights the social and purposive dimensions of law, offering a perspective that sees law as a tool for achieving societal goals. However, it also faces criticisms for potentially oversimplifying the complexity and multifaceted nature of legal systems.

Dean Roscoe Pound’s Definition of Law:

Dean Roscoe Pound, a prominent American legal scholar and a key figure in the sociological school of jurisprudence, defined law in a way that emphasized its social function and practical impact. According to Pound, law is a social institution to satisfy social wants, the claims and demands involved in the existence of civilized society by giving effect to as much as we can with the least sacrifice, so far as such wants, claims, and demands can be secured or satisfied through social control.

Key elements of Pound’s definition include:

• Social Institution: Law is viewed as a structured system within society designed to regulate behaviour and resolve conflicts.
• Satisfaction of Social Wants: The primary purpose of law is to address and satisfy the needs, claims, and demands that arise from the existence of a civilized society.
• Balancing Interests: Law seeks to maximize the satisfaction of social wants while minimizing sacrifices, effectively balancing competing interests within society.
• Social Control: Law is a mechanism of social control, used to enforce rules and norms that maintain order and promote justice.

Criticisms of Pound’s Definition of Law

• Pragmatic Focus: Pound’s definition emphasizes the practical and functional aspects of law, which might downplay the importance of abstract principles, moral values, and formal legal reasoning.
• Subjectivity in Social Wants: The concept of social wants can be subjective and variable, potentially leading to disagreements over what the law should prioritize and protect.
• Complexity of Balancing Interests: The process of balancing competing interests and minimizing sacrifices can be complex and contentious, as different groups may have conflicting views on what constitutes fair and just outcomes.
• Potential for Relativism: By focusing on satisfying social wants and needs, there is a risk of legal relativism, where laws are constantly changing to accommodate shifting social preferences, potentially undermining legal stability and predictability.
• Neglect of Formal Structures: Pound’s emphasis on the social function of law might overlook the importance of formal legal structures, procedures, and institutions that provide consistency and reliability in the legal system.
• Focus on Social Control: While law as a means of social control is important, this perspective might ignore the role of law in empowering individuals, protecting fundamental rights, and promoting autonomy and freedom.

Dean Roscoe Pound’s definition highlights the importance of understanding law as a tool for meeting the needs and demands of society, emphasizing its practical and functional roles. However, it also faces criticisms for potentially oversimplifying the multifaceted nature of legal systems and the values they uphold.

Realist Definition of Law:

Holme’s Definition of Law:

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., a prominent American jurist and a key figure in the development of legal realism, offered a pragmatic and influential definition of law. According to Holmes, the prophecies of what the courts will do in fact, and nothing more pretentious, are what I mean by the law.

Key elements of Holmes’s definition include:

• Predictive Nature: Law is understood in terms of predictions about how courts will actually decide cases, rather than abstract principles or moral ideals.
• Practical Focus: This definition emphasizes the practical and observable behaviour of courts in making legal decisions.
• Legal Realism: Holmes’s approach is a cornerstone of legal realism, which focuses on the real-world application and outcomes of legal rules rather than theoretical or doctrinal formulations.

Criticisms of Holmes’s Definition of Law

• Reductionism: Critics argue that Holmes’s definition reduces law to merely the predictions of court behaviour, neglecting the broader normative and aspirational aspects of law that guide societal behaviour and reflect moral values.
• Overemphasis on Judicial Decisions: By focusing primarily on judicial decisions, Holmes’s definition may overlook the importance of statutes, regulations, and other sources of law that shape legal norms and societal expectations.
• Neglect of Legal Principles: Holmes’s approach may downplay the significance of legal principles, doctrines, and reasoning that provide coherence and consistency to the legal system.
• Determinism: The emphasis on predicting court behaviour could imply a deterministic view of law, where outcomes are seen as inevitable based on past decisions, potentially undermining the role of advocacy, interpretation, and judicial discretion.
• Limited Scope: Holmes’s definition might be seen as too narrow, failing to account for the full complexity of legal systems, including administrative processes, legislative developments, and the role of legal institutions beyond the judiciary.
• Potential Cynicism: Some critics argue that Holmes’s focus on what courts will do “in fact” can foster a cynical view of law, suggesting that legal outcomes are primarily about power and prediction rather than justice and fairness.

Holmes’s definition of law underscores the importance of understanding law as it is practiced and applied in reality, emphasizing a practical and empirical approach to legal theory. However, it also faces criticisms for potentially oversimplifying the multifaceted nature of law and its broader purposes in society.

Conclusion:

Defining law is a complex and multifaceted endeavour that has engaged legal scholars, philosophers, and practitioners for centuries. Various definitions have been proposed, each offering unique perspectives on what constitutes law and its role in society. Different scholars emphasize different aspects of law, such as its normative nature (Kelsen), its social function (Pound), its historical development (Savigny), or its practical application (Holmes). Every definition of law has faced criticisms.

Definitions of law are influenced by historical, cultural, and social contexts. As societies change, so too do expectations of law and its purposes. The study of law often intersects with philosophy, sociology, political science, and ethics, reflecting its broad impact on human behavior and societal organization. How law is defined affects legal practice, governance, and policy-making. Definitions shape legal systems, institutions, and the rights and responsibilities of individuals within society.

In conclusion, while no single definition may capture the entirety of what law encompasses, exploring diverse definitions can enrich our understanding of law’s role in shaping and governing societies. Each perspective contributes to ongoing debates about the nature, purpose, and principles of law, highlighting its dynamic and essential role in human affairs.

For More Articles on Jurisprudence Click Here

For More Articles on Different Acts, Click Here