Wednesday, 7 January 2015

05:53 - No comments

Critical Legal Studies

CRITICAL LEGAL STUDIES

ü   Started off in the United States in 1970’s  to provide radical change to established legal theories
ü   Challenges the western jurisprudence on the part “universal foundation for law through reason”
ü   Does not accept the legal theory of politically neutral and it is an objective way to resolve conflicts
ü   Marx view law part of superstructure and CLS scholars view it as essential for the continuation of a liberal society
ü   Duncan Kennedy: Law is an aspect of the social totality not just the tail of the dog
ü   Critique Marxism saying domination and exploitation is not the monopoly of any theory but characteristics of all theories which makes claim which makes truth on the grand scale. (talking on truthfulness being the main idea)
ü   Critics both the communism and Marxist theory – see example radical Islam & Christianity
ü   Argued that the law is portrayed as rational, coherent, just and necessary but in fact it is arbitrary, unnecessary and unjust
ü   Claims that concept such as the Rule of Law, basic civil & political rights that so called gives freedom of speech and what not = tools that serves as a political and economic requirement which deceives both ends (people and the law itself)
ü   Although those rights are argued as individual fulfillment, still serve as political and economic requirements
ü   For example: the minimum wage legislation was strike down as interfering in the freedom of contract but what would it be said on the development of unfair contracts?
ü   Example rights of coloured people achieved in the constitution not by belittling them because CLS don’t agree on this making a big fuss
ü   Take example of rights of the white and black children in school as well and the promulgation of Civil Rights Act 1964.
ü   Duncan Kennedy à said that people believed such concepts of “free market”, “freedom under the law” as true
ü   Marx à said that it is false consciousness because he believes capitalist states embraced ideology that they are responsible for their situation
ü   Noam Chomsky à consent can also be manufactured (meaning fake)
ü   Criticized on the formalization of the law because it does not take into consideration on the values, social goals or political & economic concept
ü   McCoubrey and White à even within liberal legal tradition Hart & Dworkin (at that era) recognized that law is much more complex

Believes that political judgments are status of law and that it is also judgment of distinct legal reasoning of a neutral objective application of legal expertise (meaning to say the judges can do their job well neutrally without putting in their ideology) – which to my opinion is not possible looking back at the theory of John Rawls again on veil of ignorance where one cannot be free from biasness.


0 comments:

Post a Comment