Author:Tomas Ledvinka (Charles University, Prague)
Paper short abstract:
Justice within jurisprudence etc. is usually related to a monilitic society. This paper examines the possibility of relating justice to the mosaic of social groups of society and explores how the generality of the law of the state made this relation between law and justice uneasy for jurisprudence.
Paper long abstract:
Although the concept of justice is intuitively understandable, its defining causes no less trouble than defining the concept of rights or legal awareness. Wolfgang Fickentscher, categorically states that "justice is an integral part of law as a whole." The modern jurisprudence, however, reduced the importance of justice, converted it on to non-legal normative level as a concept of moral rightness. Justice as a legal theme survived within jurisprudence in disintegrated, latent, incomplete state of knowledge. Anthropology of law focuses rather on notions of justice or rather injustice on the level of social groups. Generality of the modern laws of the state made this relation between law and justice rather uneasy as the distribution (categorization) of society, regrouping, resettlement of tribes, clans, families is an important function of law for the stability of the whole society has become unclear. I focus therefore on tension between intragroup perspective which locates the liability to the individual who can best prevent his or her breaching law, and intergroup perspective of justice, which places the entire responsibility to a foreign group or rather the group' authorities. The concept of tension between inside and outside rules is uncertain and still newly defined by social mechanisms as the intragroup phenomena can be "internalized" and intergroup "externalized", and vice versa.
Legal pluralism and the uncertainties of responsibility (EN)