Legal norms are classified according to their legal force, according to the authorities that issue them (law, decree), according to the subject matter they regulate (leading to the division of law into branches such as state, civil and financial law) and according to the limits of the effect of legal norms in time and space. Legal norms are also divided into “peremptory” norms, which contain binding rules for participants in legal relationships, and “disposition norms”, which allow participants to define their rights and obligations within the limits established by law. If the parties have not contractually settled their rights and obligations, the regulation of the respective legal norm applies. Anything that is a norm for someone`s behavior is normative for them. You could say that the idea comes from the concept of measurement. Whether we “dominate” someone or “get the measure from them” stems from the idea of measuring, a standard for themselves. Hart explains legal normativity by referring to social facts instead of Kelsen`s approach, which has a methodological dualism. Contrary to Kelsen`s belief in the radical independence of law from morality, he argues that legal theory is fundamentally worthless, Hart does not have such an extreme view and instead advocates a soft positivism. It recognizes that conformity with moral principles or material values may be included in the criteria for determining the validity of legislation. In explaining the normative power of law, Hart focuses on the context in which normative propositions exist, which has significant power to condition the meaning of these statements. [11] A rule of law derives from the sources of the law, and its application and interpretation depend on: A legal norm differs from a physical law that describes regularity or causality, e.g. 1. An anonymous set of guidelines that specify normal behavior is a social context.
Social control and order prevail because of the pressure on an individual to conform to the social norm expected of each other by all members of a community. 2. A set of standard rules and laws established by the legal system, religions, or persons of social authority who judge the relevance or inadequacy of an individual`s actions. A legal standard establishes a standard of conduct. So as a standard, it can persist even if broken. Norms can be distinguished from causal laws, which must be reinterpreted if an exception is found. Verbal cues help us determine what the norm is. Thus, “should”, “must”, “must”, “good”, “bad”, “good”, “bad”, etc. are part of the standard statement, while words such as “is”, “are”, “were”, “become”, “possible”, “impossible” tend to display descriptive rules. These linguistic signals reflect a difference, they do not constitute it. The counter-examples are numerous: “swimming is forbidden” and “we should be at the Col now” express normativity or description. While both legal theorists Kelsen and Hart believe that legal normativity cannot be reduced to mere factuality or moral normativity, their approaches to interpreting the term itself differ.
A comparison of their respective contributions to legal normativity is presented. A rule of law consists of three parts: the hypothesis, which defines the conditions under which a person should be guided by the given legal norm; the provision indicating the rights and obligations of the participants in the relationships arising in the circumstances envisaged in the hypothesis; and punishment, which defines the consequences for people who violate the rules of a particular standard. In criminal law, a rule of law generally consists of two parts: an injunction (the elements of an indictable offence) and a sanction (the penalty for committing the act in question). Hart rejects the idea that legal norms are formed by the classical “natural law model” and emphasizes contexts in which legal norms can make sense. Hart`s view shows how contemporary societies could function better if a more deflationary understanding of law were implemented instead of restrictive moral norms. [11] 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] Legal institutions can govern in two main ways. First, they can be classified as planning organizations that create, implement, and enforce social plans, indicating how many legal norms are merely plans. [4] However, planning institutions can also apply and enforce legal standards that were not created during the planning process, but still allow organizations to govern. An example of this would be a common norm that has been shaped and shaped by cultural values over long periods of time.