“Law is ‘a rule laid down for the guidance of an intelligent being by intelligent beings having power over him”

Austin 1832: 1

‘So long as human beings can gain sufficient cooperation from some to enable them to dominate others, they will use the forms of law as one of their instruments. Wicked men will enact wicked rules which others will enforce. What surely is most needed in order to make men clear sighted in confronting the official abuse of power, is that they should preserve the sense that the certification of something as legally valid is not conclusive of the question of obedience and that however great the aura of majesty or authority which the official system may have, its demands must in the end be submitted to moral scrutiny’.

H.L.A Hart, The Concept of Law

Justice has been at the root of all codified and evidently even pre-codified legal systems.

The earliest written codes also indicate a system to facilitate civilisation rather than to dispense abstract 'justice'. In an adversarial trial it is very common to hear the losing party say "there is no justice".

The Code of Hammurabi provides the first written codified legal system, although it is clear that this must have been in development for many centuries before it was written down almost 4000 years ago.

Ancient pre-classical systems must have been codified even before the invention of writing since their complexity would have required rules by necessity passed down by oral tradition.

In ancient Egypt, the concept of justice was closely associated with the principle of Maat, which embodied truth, balance, order, and cosmic harmony. Maat was central to Egyptian belief and governance, representing the ideal state of affairs in both society and the universe.

The earliest references to Maat can be traced back to the Old Kingdom (around 2686–2181 BCE), notably in texts such as the Pyramid Texts, which are some of the oldest religious writings in the world. These texts emphasize the importance of living in accordance with Maat.

One of the most significant expressions of justice in ancient Egyptian belief is seen in the "Weighing of the Heart" ceremony depicted in the Book of the Dead. This ritual involved weighing the heart of the deceased against the feather of Maat to determine whether they lived a just life. If the heart was heavier than the feather, it indicated a life of wrongdoing, and the individual would face dire consequences. It is fascinating that the scales are still today a metaphor for justice.

Maat was not as formalized as other ancient legal systems but evidence exists of laws reflecting principles of justice in Egypt. The Pharaoh was seen as the ultimate judge, and various decrees and edicts emphasized fairness and the protection of the weak, particularly in commercial and familial matters. As with the Code of Hammurabi, codified later some of these Pharonic principles can be detected in the Law of Contract and in Family Law.

Ancient Egyptians valued written contracts as a means to ensure clarity and enforceability. Legal texts, such as the Papyrus of Ani, included agreements related to land transactions, marriage contracts, and loan agreements, resembling how written contracts are foundational in modern law.

The code of Hammurabi contains various laws and principles governing societal conduct, emphasizing concepts of justice, retribution, and fairness, albeit some of them rather harsh by modern standards. These basic principles are recognisable in just about all modern legal codes.

Justice is synonymous with wisdom in the received religions. For instance the story of the judgement of Solomon in the First Book of Kings (1 Kings 3:5-14), where he asks God for wisdom to govern his people instead of wealth or long life. This narrative includes the well-known judgment of Solomon, where he proposes to split a baby in two to determine the true mother, showcasing his discernment.

In Surah Al-Anbya (21:78-82) and Surah Sad (38:36-38), the Quran recounts Sulayman’s ability to judge justly and his command over nature.

Yes, it most certainly can. A very good example is in my own country, South Africa, where pre-democracy laws were used to suppress the rights of the black majority. This was exacerbated by the fact that Parliament was supreme and could, in theory and did in practice, pass a lot of oppressive laws. Where Parliament reigns supreme, the courts are bound by the letter of the law as it stands.

Of course, it can. Just one example may suffice. See the majority opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada in the case of Murdoch v Murdoch in the 1970s in which a hardworking ranch wife was denied any interest in the family farm. In later decisions, the Supreme Court saw the error of its ways.

Dear Naseer,

The short version answer to your question that they taught us at Stanford Law School, one of the top law schools in the U.S., went something like this:

"In HELL, there is due process, and it is STRICTLY ADHERED TO".

In other words, where there is no equal process that balances all interests and when there are only strict rules that can't consider circumstances, there is only authority and never justice.

The problem is not only that each culture defines justice in a way that promotes its adaptive survival in its environment and that differs from other cultures (so there are always competing views of what is just and what is needed in a complex society of different interests is political equality and different balances in the legal and political systems) but that different laws themselves apply competing principles that need to be balanced. For example, take a look at my piece on ResearchGate on "Measuring Human Rights". There are really TWO LEVELS of rights; one to protect community rights and one to protect individual rights. Many organizations (including many countries and international organizations) purposefully use one level like individual rights in order to destroy cultures/communities.

The principle taught in legal anthropology is that law is used to protect the existing political hierarchy and set of rules in all societies. Law is about order not about "justice" but creates the pretext of "justice" to protect the rules.

Best,

David Lempert, Ph.D., J.D., M.B.A., E.D. (Hon.)

International Human Rights Lawyer

Justice according to the law is the criterion for most societies. But justice is not synonymous with law.

Naseer Sabbar Lafta Al-Jubouri The law can sometimes stand in the way of justice, as reflected in various legal maxims. "Fiat justitia ruat caelum" (Let justice be done though the heavens fall) suggests that justice should prevail even if it disrupts the legal order, yet in certain cases, strict adherence to the law may prevent true justice from being served. This is echoed in "Dura lex, sed lex" (The law is harsh, but it is the law), which reminds us that the law must be followed, even if it leads to unjust outcomes. However, "Ex aequo et bono" (According to what is fair and good) encourages us to go beyond the law’s constraints and consider fairness, which might be hindered by rigid legal structures. "Lex injusta non est lex" (An unjust law is not a law) argues that laws that perpetuate injustice lose their legitimacy, suggesting that in such instances, the law is not a true reflection of justice. These maxims together highlight that while the law is designed to uphold justice, there are times when it may act as a barrier, and true justice can only be achieved by looking beyond legal formalities.