Origins of International Law

The need for rules of conduct between independent political entities developed along with government in ancient times. Early civilizations established rules governing the conduct of hostilities, the making and observance of treaties, and the treatment of foreign traders, travelers, and diplomats. These rules were often based on ritual and custom. The oldest known treaty, preserved in an inscription on a stone monument, is a peace treaty between two city-states of Sumer, dating from about 2500 bc. The empires of the ancient Middle East concluded a considerable number of treaties between 2000 and 1000 bc concerning topics still debated today, such as the extradition of fugitives and the creation of military alliances.

Later civilizations further developed tenets of international law. Jewish law as set forth in the Old Testament in the Book of Deuteronomy contains prescriptions for the mitigation of warfare, notably prohibitions against the killing of women and children. The Greek city-states had an elaborate treaty system governing many aspects of their mutual relations. In Asia the political units of ancient India and China, during certain periods, also developed and applied international law.

Beginning with the era of the Roman Republic (509 to 27 bc), the Romans made significant contributions to the evolution of international law. They developed the idea of a jus gentium, a body of laws designed to govern the treatment of aliens (noncitizens) subject to Roman rule and the relations between Roman citizens and aliens. They recognized in principle the duty of a nation to refrain from engaging in warfare without a just cause and originated the idea of a just war.

Modern international law began to develop with the rise of national states in Europe after the 15th century, when the basic ideas of national territory and jurisdiction were established. In 1625, building on the work of previous legal writers, the Dutch jurist Hugo Grotius published his celebrated treatise De Jure Belli ac Pacis (On the Law of War and Peace). Grotius argued that existing customs governing the relations between nations had the force of law and were binding unless contrary to natural justice or the law of nature (natural law), an immutable higher law governing all human conduct. Grotius’s influence on international affairs and the settlement of wars was great, and he is sometimes called the father of modern international law. His ideas became the cornerstone of the international system as established by the Peace of Westphalia (1648), a treaty that ended the Thirty Years’ War.

Other scholars and statesmen further described and developed the basic rules of international law, among them the Dutch jurist Cornelis van Bynkershoek and the Swiss diplomat Emmerich de Vattel. Vattel’s book, Le droit des gens (1758; Law of Nations), greatly influenced the framers of the Constitution of the United States with its ideas of natural law governing the behavior of states. Over time scholars gave increasing emphasis to the idea of state sovereignty, so that by the end of the 19th century the theoretical foundation of international law had shifted from natural law to a strictly consensual approach known as positivism. Positivism claims that each nation is bound only by the international rules that it freely accepts to limit its otherwise unlimited freedom of action. The clash between positivists and adherents of natural law continues today. Conflict is most pronounced over the issue of whether there are fundamental “higher norms” of international law, a principle called jus cogens, that sovereign states are obliged to respect.

Introduction of International Law

International Law, principles, rules, and standards that govern nations and other participants in international affairs in their relations with one another. International law is the law of the international community. Most international law consists of long-standing customs, provisions agreed to in treaties, and generally accepted principles of law recognized by nations. Some international law is also created by the rulings of international courts and organizations.

The purposes of international law include resolution of problems of a regional or global scope (such as environmental pollution or global warming), regulation of areas outside the control of any one nation (such as outer space or the high seas), and adoption of common rules for multinational activities (such as air transport or postal service). International law also aims to maintain peaceful international relations when possible and resolve international tensions peacefully when they develop, to prevent needless suffering during wars, and to improve the human condition during peacetime.

Enforcement of international law is often difficult because nations are sovereign (independent) powers that may put their own interests ahead of those of the international community. In addition, the mechanisms of enforcement are young and not well developed. Enforcement may be effectively achieved, however, through the actions of individual nations, agencies of international organizations such as the United Nations (UN), and international courts. The United Nations Security Council can authorize economic sanctions, diplomatic sanctions, or military force to maintain or restore international peace and security.

International law began as a system governing the relations among sovereign states, and states have always been the primary legal entities affected by international law. As the global system has become more complex, however, international law has come to recognize and regulate international organizations, businesses, nonprofit entities, and individuals. The emergence of international human rights law and, more recently, international criminal law reflects the fact that individuals today are direct subjects of international law in certain respects.

Other Modern Developments

In France, the development of the judicial system after the breakup of the Carolingian Empire was similar to that in England: Both involved the vesting of central legal authority in the Crown after a protracted struggle with feudal manorial courts. The essential features of the judicial system now in effect in France were established after the French Revolution of 1789 by the Code Napoléon. This system includes lower courts of wide jurisdiction, intermediate courts of appeal, a court to resolve jurisdictional conflicts among courts, and a supreme appellate tribunal called the Court of Cassation. Many European and Latin American judicial systems are modeled on that of France.

In the Islamic world, the Qur'an (Koran) is the source of law; justice traditionally has been dispensed by specially trained priests in conjuction with the king, or sultan. In the 20th century, this system still prevails in such Islamic countries as Yemen and Saudi Arabia. In Turkey, however, executive, legislative, and judicial functions have been separated, and a judicial system similar to those of Western countries has evolved.

In other Middle Eastern and Asian countries that have attained independence since World War II, notably Sri Lanka, India, and Israel, the courts also operate similarly to those of the West, that is, as relatively independent institutions within a parliamentary framework.

In Communist countries, the judicial system was usually patterned after that of the USSR, which included a hierarchy of courts culminating in a supreme court. In the former Yugoslavia, however, all judges, even those of the highest tribunals, were elected, not appointed.

LATER DEVELOPMENTS IN THE BRITISH SYSTEM

Administrative and structural changes in important but secondary features, such as those wrought by the Judicature Act of 1873, have been made. This act, which went into effect in 1875, preserved the role of the House of Lords as the chief appellate tribunal of England and Wales and consolidated all the superior civil courts into a Supreme Court of Judicature with two principal branches: the Court of Appeal, the highest appellate court below the House of Lords, and the High Court of Justice. The latter tribunal comprises three divisions: Chancery Division; King's, or Queen's, Bench Division; and Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division. Enactment of the Criminal Appeal Act of 1907 established the Court of Criminal Appeal as the highest appellate tribunal after the House of Lords in criminal cases. Besides the superior courts, the judicial system of England and Wales includes many lower courts organized into circuits. The highest civil court of Scotland is the Court of Session, and the highest criminal court is the High Court of Justiciary. Appeals may be taken from these courts to the House of Lords.

Western European Tribunals

Medieval courts were an outgrowth of the tribal courts of the Germanic peoples, among whom the highest judicial authority was that of the popular assemblies that met regularly throughout the year. The tribal judges supervised the proceedings and executed the judgments rendered by the assemblies. During the development of the Germanic tribal organization into territorial states, the primitive tribal courts underwent a corresponding evolution, increasing in number and becoming differentiated. Among the new features of this Teutonic system were a royal court, presided over by the king and modeled on the Roman system of courts; special lower courts under the control of royal officials who were called Grafen, which handled minor matters; and, later, a corps of permanent lay judges, with power to render judgments.

In the 8th century, when the Germanic territorial states were part of the realm of Charlemagne, the Teutonic judicial system experienced a further significant development: the practice, initiated by Charlemagne, of dispatching royal commissioners to examine the functioning of local courts and, when necessary, to supplement the justice they dispensed. In this innovation were the seeds of three later important legal developments: assize courts, circuit courts, and a central legal authority. This innovation was adopted by other feudal monarchs in their struggles with the landed nobility, who controlled the manorial, or seignorial, courts.

When the Normans conquered England in 1066, they imposed the Carolingian judicial system on the Anglo-Saxons. In the long struggle between king and landed nobility that ensued, one of the principal weapons of the Crown was the Curia Regis (king's court), which was held wherever the royal household was situated. The principal judicial strongholds of the nobility were the manorial courts, chiefly the courts baron and courts leet. Judicial supremacy eventually was won by the Crown, and, since the reign of King Edward I, in the 13th century, English courts have been organized on a centralized basis.

Before this victory of the Crown, however, King John had been compelled in 1215 to sign the Magna Carta, which initiated the gradual separation of judicial from executive and legislative governmental powers. The terms of this charter of liberty established the Court of Common Pleas as a court of a fixed location to try cases initiated by commoners against other commoners. The process of separation continued during the reign of Edward I with the establishment of the Court of Exchequer as a tribunal having exclusive jurisdiction over revenue cases arising out of unpaid debts to the Crown and the establishment of the Court of King's Bench, or the Court of Queen's Bench, as the supreme appellate tribunal of the realm, presided over by the monarch. The Court of King's, or Queen's, Bench also was invested with original jurisdiction over both civil and criminal cases and thus encroached on the jurisdiction of the Court of Common Pleas. In fact, the jurisdictions of all three courts overlapped and were not entirely differentiiated until much later. These courts later became bulwarks in the defense of civil and political liberties against the Crown.

Another momentous innovation during the reign of Edward I was provision for doing justice in situations in which the common law failed to afford a remedy to aggrieved litigants. This supplemental system of justice was administered by the Crown through the lord chancellor and was called chancery, or equity, jurisprudence.

In the centuries after the signing of the Magna Carta, Parliament acquired appellate jurisdiction over both civil and criminal cases. This function was subsequently confined to the House of Lords and has survived to the present day. In 1701, Parliament enacted legislation establishing tenure of office for judges and made their removal from office conditional on the assent of Parliament, thus completing the separation of judicial from executive and legislative governmental powers. Like many other features of the English judicial system, this separation of powers was incorporated into the courts of the New World.

Early Courts

The recognized existence of even primitive courts implies a relatively high degree of social organization and the need for systematic adjudication of disputes on the basis of established customs and consciously formulated rules of social conduct. Archaeologists and anthropologists have established the existence of courts in simple societies over wide areas of Asia, Africa, and Europe; courts were not as widespread among the Native Americans of North and South America. Primitive courts formed part of a complex social structure in which administrative, judicial, and religious functions were intermingled. These courts were held in the open or in religious temples. More often than not, the judges were priests. Those who attended were considered part of the court, whether or not they had an immediate interest in the proceedings or in the judgments rendered. The proceedings consisted in large part of rituals designed to secure the redress of grievances presented by individuals against other individuals.

In the highly developed civilizations of antiquity, notably those of Assyria and Egypt, judicial and executive functions were undifferentiated and were centralized in the monarch as head of state. Insight into the structure and functions of Babylonian courts of the 18th century bc was obtained when the ancient legal document known as the Code of Hammurabi was discovered early in the 20th century. A highly developed judicial system existed also among the ancient Hebrews.

In the judicial system of ancient Athens, a unique feature, introduced by the lawgiver Solon in the 6th century bc, was the right of aggrieved litigants to appeal the decisions of magistrates to the people of Athens, assembled as a hēliaia (“public assembly”). In later years, these assemblies, referred to as heliastic courts, became courts of first resort presided over by magistrates who prepared cases for trial. The heliastic courts subsequently became unwieldy, and they were divided into sections called dicasteries.

The evolution of courts in ancient Rome was marked by the development of a complex structure in which criminal, civil, and other jurisdictions were differentiated and were exercised by separate courts and officials. Violations of criminal law were prosecuted by the state; higher and lower courts were organized; the right of appeal was juridically guaranteed; and a corps of professional jurists was established for the first time in the history of Mediterranean civilization. After Christianity became the state religion of Rome, the ecclesiastical courts, previously established by Christians who had refused to have recourse to pagan courts, became a part of the Roman legal system. As the Roman Empire disintegrated, the ecclesiastical courts survived and assumed jurisdiction over secular affairs.

Introduction of Courts

Courts, branch of government established to administer the civil and criminal law. The term court is also applied to the international tribunals intended to provide for the resolution at law of controversies among governments, namely, the Permanent Court of International Justice, established by the League of Nations after World War I, and by the International Court of Justice, established by the United Nations after World War II.

Courts are classified in many ways. Among the more usual general classifications are courts of record and courts not of record; courts of superior jurisdiction and courts of inferior jurisdiction; trial courts and appellate courts; and civil courts and criminal courts. In courts of record the proceedings are recorded completely; no detailed record is made of the proceedings in courts not of record. Police and magistrate's courts in the United States are, in nearly all cases, courts not of record. Courts of superior jurisdiction, often called higher courts or appellate courts, are generally those to which appeals are made from decisions of courts of inferior jurisdiction, referred to as lower courts or trial courts. Civil and criminal courts deal with cases arising from infractions of the civil law and the criminal law, respectively. The judicial organs of military establishments are called military courts. Courts with special, limited jurisdictions are known by the names of those jurisdictions. For example, probate or surrogate's courts are tribunals dealing with the probate of wills and the disposition of estates; military courts have jurisdiction over infractions by military personnel; and admiralty courts have jurisdiction over cases arising from maritime contracts and from violations of maritime law.

Other courts are designated by the territorial limits of their jurisdictions. Included in this classification are the territorial and state courts of the United States and the county courts of the U.S. and the United Kingdom. Municipal courts generally are criminal courts; however, a number have restricted civil jurisdiction.

Advocate

Advocate, in a general sense, one who pleads for another in a court of law or other tribunal. In the United Kingdom, professional advocates are called barristers and are permitted to plead or argue cases before the High Court of Justice; a barrister is distinguished from a solicitor, who may conduct litigation only in inferior courts. The avocat and avoué in France are analogous to the barrister and solicitor in England. In the United States, most former British colonies, and some parts of Europe, the two branches of the legal profession are not separate .

In a narrower sense, the term advocate was formerly used in Britain to denote a member of the College of Advocates at Doctors' Commons (abolished in 1857). These advocates had the exclusive right to plead in the ecclesiastical and admiralty courts and took precedence over all ordinary barristers. In the U.S. Army, the judge advocate general is chief adviser to the army authorities in the administration of military law.

Attorney

Attorney, in law, any person authorized by another to represent him or her. An agent who has been granted express authority to bind his or her principal is called an attorney in fact. Such authority is usually granted by a written instrument called a power of attorney. The powers conferred may be general, as when one gives another a mandate to manage all one's affairs during an absence, or special, as when the authority extends only to a particular business, or is otherwise limited or qualified. The term attorney at law is used in the United States to denote a legal adviser or representative in all manner of business. In Britain, upon the fusion of law and equity by the Judicature Act of 1873, the two classes of attorney and barrister were united under the name of solicitor in the High Court of Justice.

An attorney at law is an officer of the court, and as such is required, in the U.S., to take a binding oath of office to observe the U.S. Constitution and the constitution of the state of residence. Each state regulates by law the training and qualifications of attorneys. Usually a preliminary examination in general scholarship is required, followed by study at a school of law and sometimes by a clerkship or apprenticeship, varying from one to two years, in the office of a practicing attorney. Finally, an applicant must pass an examination in law before being admitted to the bar.

The duties of an attorney are to act with diligence and fidelity to one's client and to show average prudence, knowledge, and skill in professional dealings. In order to settle an action, the attorney requires, as a rule, the special authority of the client. No attorney can be compelled to reveal confidential information related by a client.

International Law

The legal process that concerns relations among nations is called international law. Belief and experience in some form of international law dates from at least the days of the Roman Empire. Such law differs greatly from national legal systems. No court has the authority or power to give judgments backed by coercive sanctions. Even in its most modern developments, international law is almost wholly based on custom. The precedents on which it rests are the acts of independent governments in their relations with one another, including treaties and conventions. Behind many of its rules is only a moral sanction: the public opinion of the civilized world. When treaties or conventions are involved, however, machinery to enforce them exists—either an arbitration or conciliation procedure or the submission of the dispute to a regional or international court.

A discernible body of rules and principles is observed or at least acknowledged in international relations. These rules concern such matters as territorial titles and boundaries, use of the high seas, limits on war, telecommunication, diplomatic and consular exchange, and use of air space. The major sources of international law on these matters are multilateral treaties, international custom, and such general principles as are recognized by civilized nations.

The United Nations is one of the primary mechanisms that articulate and create international law. The General Assembly and other agencies of the UN bring a combination of diplomacy, negotiation, and propaganda to bear on world affairs in ways that produce effective international treaties and affect world opinion. Certain courts also have indirect impact, including the International Court of Justice. Domestic courts in various nations at times also engage in the articulation of international law.

Private Law

Private law involves the various relationships that people have with one another and the rules that determine their legal rights and duties among themselves. The area is concerned with rules and principles pertaining to private ownership and use of property, contracts between individuals, family relationships, and redress by way of compensation for harm inflicted on one person by another. Historically, government involvement was usually minimal. Private law has also operated to provide general guidelines and security in private arrangements and interactions in ways that are complementary to morality and custom but that are not necessarily enforceable in a court of law, such as noncontractual promises and agreements within an association of private individuals.

The relative significance of purely private law has decreased in modern times. Public law dominates in government-controlled societies; democratic societies increasingly have a mix of public and private law. The private sphere includes individuals and a vast array of groups, associations, organizations, and special legal entities such as corporations. They compete with one another and with government for control of resources, wealth, power, and the communication of ideas and values. Special fields of law, such as labor law, facilitate and control this competition. Much of such law is in the commercial and corporate areas. The formerly purely private law of property and contracts, for example, is now overlaid with legislation, regulations, and judicial decisions reflecting the competition. The public law of taxation has significant impact on the whole private sphere. Courts have increasingly regarded resolution of seemingly private disputes as vehicles for response to changing social conditions and values—especially in the U.S. Thus, manufacturers have experienced an expansion of liability for physical injuries caused by defects in their products. The mechanism of insurance allows manufacturers to spread such costs across the general consuming public.

Public Law

Public law concerns the relationships within government and those between governments and individuals. Because the Roman codes were almost entirely limited to the private area, public law is usually not codified. In civil-law countries, separate administrative courts adjudicate claims and disputes between the various branches of government and citizens, and many lawyers specialize in public law. In France, Germany, and Italy, still other courts handle constitutional issues.

Public law is not quite so clearly demarcated in the United Kingdom and the U.S. Under the common-law approach the same courts handle public and private litigation. Because the United Kingdom has no written constitution, basic principles pertaining to government powers and limits and to fundamental individual rights are found in acts of Parliament, judicial opinions, and tradition. The United States, on the other hand, has a distinct body of constitutional law.

The development of administrative law is a comparatively recent occurrence. Numerous federal and state administrative agencies now make rules that reach into all manner of activities, including licensing, regulation of trades and professions, protection of health, and promotion of welfare. Their powers emanate from legislation, and their rules are reviewable by the courts.

U.S. constitutional law is the most extensive and pervasive of any country in the world. It is embodied in the Constitution and in the opinions of the U.S. Supreme Court rendered over time. Through its power of judicial review, the Supreme Court may invalidate any legislation or other governmental actions that it finds to be in violation of the Constitution. Constitutional courts in some civil-law countries have similar powers. In the United Kingdom no equivalent judicial power exists, and Parliament is supreme. In totalitarian nations, constitutional limits on legislative power are generally a matter of political determination.

The U.S. Constitution allocates power within the federal government and between the federal and state governments. The first ten amendments (the Bill of Rights) and subsequent amendments define fundamental individual rights by placing limits on the powers of government at all levels. Through its powers of judicial review and interpretation, the Supreme Court has played a remarkable role in facilitating the growth of national power and influence by means of decisions about acts of Congress and federal administrative law. The Court has, for the most part, acted extensively to invalidate and inhibit discriminatory legislation and to adjust the relative distribution of government-connected services and revenue so as to ultimately provide for more democratic social relations. The Court, however, is frequently the center of much controversy because of widely varying interpretations about its role and the nature of constitutional law.

Laws concerning taxation and the regulation of business are in the public area, as is criminal law, which involves the exercise of governmental power by way of enforcement and punishment. Historically, criminal law in Britain included crimes defined by the courts. In the United States crimes are defined by statute, thus satisfying constitutional notions of due process. The public-law nature of the area is further emphasized by other constitutional protections such as the right of the accused to remain silent and the right to effective counsel. Criminal law not only promotes security and order but also reinforces moral norms. Debate has been continuous regarding the legitimacy of government intervention in areas where moral attitudes are in significant conflict, such as in matters of sexual practices, pornography, birth control, and euthanasia.

SUBSTANTIVE AND PROCEDURAL LAW

In broad terms, substantive law defines the rights and duties of persons; procedural law defines and deals with procedures for enforcing those rights and duties. Substantive law determines a wide variety of matters—for example, what is required to form a contract, what the difference is between larceny and robbery, when one is entitled to compensation for an injury, and so on. The rules of procedure and jurisdiction determine the court or administrative agency that may handle a claim or dispute; the form of the trial, hearing, or appeal; the time limits involved; and so on. Related rules also cover the kinds of evidence that may be presented. Such rules are more limiting in trial courts than in administrative agencies. The fine points of procedural law are considerable, but they are generally thought to be indispensable to whatever efficiency and fairness law may have

Development Of Law

Law develops as society evolves. Historically, the simplest societies were tribal. The members of the tribe were bonded together initially by kinship and worship of the same gods. Even in the absence of courts and legislature there was law—a blend of custom, morality, religion, and magic. The visible authority was the ruler, or chief; the ultimate authorities were believed to be the gods whose will was revealed in the forces of nature and in the revelations of the tribal head or the priests. Wrongs against the tribe, such as sacrilege or breach of tribal custom, were met with group sanctions including ridicule and hostility, and, the tribe members thought, with the wrath of the gods. The gods were appeased in ritualistic ceremonies ending perhaps in sacrifice or expulsion of the wrongdoer. Wrongs against individuals, such as murder, theft, adultery, or failure to repay a debt, were avenged by the family of the victim, often in actions against the family of the wrongdoer. Revenge of this kind was based on tribal custom, a major component of early law.

Tribal society gradually evolved into territorial confederations. Governmental structures emerged, and modern law began to take shape. The most significant historical example is Roman law, which influenced most of the legal systems of the world. In the 8th century bc the law of Rome was still largely a blend of custom and interpretation by magistrates of the will of the gods. The magistrates later lost their legitimacy because of gross discrimination against the lower (plebeian) class. The threat of revolution led to one of the most significant developments in the history of law: the Twelve Tables of Rome, which were engraved on bronze tablets in the 5th century bc (see Twelve Tables, Law of the). They were largely a declaration of existing custom concerning such matters as property, payment of debts, and appropriate compensation or other remedies for damage to persons. The Twelve Tables serve as a historical basis for the widespread modern belief that fairness in law demands that it be in written form. These tables and their Roman successors, including the Justinian Code, led to civil-law codes that provide the main source of law in much of modern Europe, South America, and elsewhere. See Civil Law.

The common-law systems of England, and later of the U.S., developed in a different manner. Before the Norman Conquest (1066), England was a loose confederation of societies, the laws of which were largely tribal and local. The Anglo-Norman rulers created a system of centralized courts that operated under a single set of laws that superseded the rules laid down by earlier societies. This legal system, known as the common law of England, began with common customs, but over time it involved the courts in lawmaking that was responsive to changes in society. See Common Law.

Modern legislatures and administrative agencies produce a much greater quantity of formal law, but the judiciary remains very important because of the continued vitality of the common-law approach even in matters of constitutional and statutory interpretations. Increasingly in civil-law countries, the subtleties of judicial interpretation and the weight of judicial precedents are recognized as involving the courts in significant aspects of lawmaking.

Introduction of Law

Law, body of official rules and regulations, generally found in constitutions, legislation, judicial opinions, and the like, that is used to govern a society and to control the behavior of its members. The nature and functions of law have varied throughout history. In modern societies, some authorized body such as a legislature or a court makes the law. It is backed by the coercive power of the state, which enforces the law by means of appropriate penalties or remedies.

Formal legal rules and actions are usually distinguished from other means of social control and guides for behavior such as mores, morality, public opinion, and custom or tradition. Of course, a lawmaker may respond to public opinion or other pressures, and a formal law may prohibit what is morally unacceptable.

Law serves a variety of functions. Laws against crimes, for example, help to maintain a peaceful, orderly, relatively stable society. Courts contribute to social stability by resolving disputes in a civilized fashion. Property and contract laws facilitate business activities and private planning. Laws limiting the powers of government help to provide some degree of freedom that would not otherwise be possible. Law has also been used as a mechanism for social change; for instance, at various times laws have been passed to inhibit social discrimination and to improve the quality of individual life in matters of health, education, and welfare.

Some experts believe the popular view of law overemphasizes its formal, coercive aspects. They point out that if a custom or norm is assured of judicial backing, it is, for practical purposes, law. On the other hand, a statute that is neither obeyed nor enforced is empty law. Social attitudes toward the formal law are a significant part of the law in process. The role of law in China and Japan, for example, is somewhat different from its role in Western nations. Respect for the processes of law is low, at least outside matters of business and industry. Tradition looms much larger in everyday life. Resort to legal resolution of a dispute is truly a last resort, with conciliation being the mechanism that is preferred for social control.

Law is not completely a matter of human enactment; it also includes natural law. The best-known version of this view, that God's law is supreme, has had considerable influence in the United States and other Western societies. The civil rights movement, for example, was at least partially inspired by the belief in natural law. Such a belief seems implicit in the view that law should serve to promote human dignity, as for instance by the enforcement of equal rights for all. Muslim societies also embrace a kind of natural law, which is closely linked to the religion of Islam.