Legal Norm and Non Legal Norm

Patrick H. Glenn, in his seminal work, convincingly demonstrated the crucial importance of the idea that norms themselves can change.7 He described the world`s seven legal traditions, among other things, in terms of their relationship to time and change, and showed how our idea of “doing good” depends on a specific understanding of time. Instead of experiencing time as a circular, we live in a linear period of time, we create futures and test their highlights. One could say that the ICI has invited some cybernetics (remote control via feedback loops) to the press to print: acts of written legal discourse that create feedback loops between what they prescribe and people`s actual interaction. We believe that creating, recognizing or changing the norms that bind us gives us control over the future we share. Positive law affirms that legal norms are made and modified by man, not by nature, not by reason, not by gods. This creates two types of freedom: the freedom to legislate at will, and the freedom to question both their meaning and their binding force. This, in turn, raises the question of whether the legal standards embedded in data- or code-based systems offer the same kinds of freedom and, just as importantly, who gets those freedoms: human legislators, a democratic legislature, or software code developers and/or providers. This raises the question of whether written legal norms have different affordances in terms of coordination, limitation, and facilitation of human interaction than, say, brute force, economic power, and religious rituals. Kelsen studies the factors that contribute to the normative status of legislation. He believes that although all normative legal systems have similar structures, each individual system has particularities, making law conceptually different from morality (Moore, 1978). Kelsen argues that the basic standard is assumed when an individual interprets normatively the actions of authoritative officials. [10] Traditionally, retrieval and navigation systems in statutes have been based on text retrieval, requiring a lawyer to enter certain words to acquire the section of the law that interested him.

This was very inefficient, because a legal rule can be fragmented, with ownership of the legal system regulating a legal norm in a social relationship contained in different laws. The fragmentation of legislation has thus exacerbated ineffective enforcement and created significant obstacles for lawyers in legal research, especially for those who wanted to retrieve legal information but had no legal training. The ontological model provided an effective solution by categorizing legislation according to the importance of the legal standard it contained, which increased both the clarity and efficiency of the research. [12] Normative legal theory uses judgments to infer the most appropriate rule to apply in legal reasoning and is influenced by moral or political theories. The general normative theories of deontology, utilitarianism, and virtue ethics are three general normative theories that significantly influence normative legal theory:[6] Legal norms take the form of a rule, but the implicit legal principles in the respective jurisdiction also have binding legal force, they determine the application and interpretation of the norm with: The legal norm that a valid contract must be performed, can be applied by the legal norm according to which non-performance may result in liability for damages for breach of contract.