A few thoughts on the subject of natural law

Citation

Dunn, T. (2001), "A few thoughts on the subject of natural law", European Business Review, Vol. 13 No. 4. https://doi.org/10.1108/ebr.2001.05413dab.005

A few thoughts on the subject of natural law

A few thoughts on the subject of natural law

Ted Dunn

Keywords: Naturalism, Law

Natural law is a subject of the utmost importance to the peace movement and the peace of the world yet it is little understood despite its long life going back to the days of St Augustine.

The reason for its decline is difficult to diagnose but I suspect it is because of its close association with the idea of God and the decline of religion. Also because the idea of natural law cannot be easily defined.

At the risk of over-simplification therefore may I offer a few thoughts on the subject because it is easy to be confused by the words "natural" and "law". First, we have the natural laws of science which can be easily understood – Newton's law of gravity for instance. These laws could equally well be called the laws of God. Second, we have the man-made laws of government which we all obey daily and again can be easily recognised. Third, we have the concept, or idea, of natural law, that arises as a natural confluence of obedience to the natural order, based on a combination of values, morality and a sense of justice. It grows naturally and organically in harmony with nature, science and our need for the rule of law. It is also the result of our social. economic and political environment. Natural law may therefore be good or bad depending on whether we create a healthy or sick society. Natural law is therefore the culmination or mixture of many aspects of life.

It is also a response to our natural instinct for justice and fairness. As a child we often hear the cry "it isn't fair" and this cry persists throughout our lives. Without this instinct for justice and fairness civilisation would soon come to a halt. Perhaps the way we behave to enable us to get from A to B on the roads is an illustration of what I mean because we all accept that if we are to get safely and quickly from A to B we must accept the disciplines of the road and accept the penalties if we fail to do so. Above all the rule of the road must be seen to be fair and just or it will not be observed. More importantly, self-interest for our own safety demands observance of the law of the road.

We also desire freedom and a share of the good things in life but recognise that these benefits cannot be ours, unless we cooperate and accept the disciplines of cooperation. Cooperation by definition calls for the rule of law and self-discipline. With sufficient self-discipline the need for external law would be negligible. In the ideal society, where the disciplines of cooperation would be clearly obvious, external law is not usually necessary. When the force of law is upheld in a fair trial, the verdict is usually accepted as just and in accordance with "right reason".

The classic definition of natural law was given by Grotius who, it is claimed, was the founder in the sixteenth century of the modern science of international law when he declared:

Natural Law is a dictate of right reason, which points out an act, according as it is or is not in conformity with rational nature, has a quality of moral baseness or moral necessity; and that, in consequence, such an act is either forbidden or enjoined by the author of nature, God (The Concise Encyclopedia of Western Philosophy and Philosophers, 1991).

In other words I believe we can recognise God in all nature, and that if we nurture nature with truth and diligence, a healthy world will result. This truth is daily being recognised with regard to the environment where long-term gain is often sacrificed for short-term gain; it is equally true with regard to our economic, spiritual and moral values.

Another definition of natural law was made by Henry Bracton, a great lawyer in the thirteenth century when he declared that:

The king ought not to be under any man, but he ought to be under God and the law, since the law makes the king. Therefore let the king render to the law what the law has rendered to the king, namely dominion and power; for there can be no king where will prevails and not the law (Cowen, 1961).

Here we have two opposites of political life, because government under the law is very different to unfettered power. Only when we have government under the law is possible for human dignity to be maintained, and for humankind to be free to live the good life. The problem therefore is to reconcile freedom with power, and with reconciling the two apparent opposites of unity and diversity to create something greater than either alone can attain. It is a problem facing us in many other aspects of life and may be resolved by the old Quaker saying, "in essentials unity, in non-essentials diversity, but in all things love."

Today, it is not the tyranny of the king that threatens us but the tyranny of governments to pervert and destroy democracy, because, if the government acts outside the moral code, it forfeits its right to claim to be acting in the name of democracy and freedom.

Fortunately, we now have the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention of Human Rights to act as a guiding light to governments' behaviour forcing them to act under the law. More recently the latter has been incorporated into the UK's state law. Also the idea of an International Criminal Court to which individuals may be taken is now in the process of being implemented. The decision at the International Court at the Hague, outlawing the use of nuclear weapons, is also a landmark in human progress.

But law alone, even when supported by excessive force, but without moral support, may be worthless and counter-productive. Violence begets violence. Here we come to the need for new structures to enable everything to be integrated to create something greater than the sum of its parts.

After the First World War there was the realisation that "something must be done" and the League of Nations was formed. "Never again" was the cry and the idea of world government was called for as the answer based on the idea of "collective military security", an idea that proved to be an illusion and a sure recipe for collective insecurity if only because the theory violated the basic principle of "moral baseness" as set out by Grotius. The theory of world government based on the deterrent theory is also inherently unstable and almost guarantees a feeling of insecurity amongst some of its members. Trust and confidence cannot be assured if it rests on the concept of violence. There will always be suspicion and fear especially where power is placed in few hands – even in a perfect democracy. World governance under the law, not world government, must be the answer.

After the Second World War a new attempt to create a new world structure was made and, the United Nations was formed. Although the idea of "collective military security" was still retained as an option, far more emphasis was placed on the idea of "collective economic security" and human rights, As a result we now have a proliferation of UN agencies all working for these ideals in conformity with the concept of natural law.

The contrast between world government and world governance is that governance is seen to be based on a"bottom-up" approach based on cooperation. By way of contrast "world government" is seen to be based on a "top-down" approach dictated by a small appointed elite. Good management of the economy is also an important feature of governance. This important difference between government and governance has still not yet been resolved, especially in the European Community and the United Nations.

Another milestone in the progress of mankind was the Marshall Plan, an idea I believe was in accordance with that of natural law. This was a most remarkable plan conceived and implemented within a matter of months after the Second World War. It seemed as if the USA had learnt the lesson of the Versailles Treaty – that vindictiveness imposed on a defeated enemy only results in sowing the seeds of a Second World War.

Many believe that fear of Communism may have been the incentive for the generous gesture, but whatever the motive the structure that was put in place, and the spirit in which it was implemented must be commended. Over 2 per cent of the US GNP was given over a four-year period, not as a loan, to be repaid as is usual today, but as an outright grant. The only condition made was that the states of Western Europe cooperated and formulated an agreed economic programme, subject to the approval of the USA which was readily given. The success of the Marshall Plan makes me ask why cannot similar well-conceived integrated regional plans be initiated in other regions of the world under United Nations auspices. For a fraction of the money spent on armaments many regions that are in conflict or suffering from poverty, could have their future assured.

Since then there has been a remarkable growth of European international law based on functional law, right reason, moral considerations, cooperation, and the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Council of Europe and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development have also played an important role in Europe's recovery, directly as a result of cooperation following the Marshall Plan; also dozens of other smaller agencies are all working for cooperation.

Perhaps it may also help to relate the idea of natural law to our domestic affairs. The Scarman Report on the Brixton Riots, 20 years ago, provides a good illustration that if the authority of the police is to be respected and obeyed they must enjoy the cooperation of the public; without that cooperation their authority is undermined and therefore of little real value. Force may subdue temporarily but it cannot last and may be counter-productive. Scarman's Report therefore recommended the creation of "community policing" and all that implies in reconciliation and conciliation methods.

It may also be argued that the excessive force used by the British Army in India at Amritsar, and in Ireland on Bloody Sunday and the Boston massacres in the then American colonies, all had a direct influence on events in these countries; they confirmed Bracton's dictum that the "king must be under God and the law since the law makes the king".

Other factors which influence the idea of natural law in today's world have been the remarkable growth in communication, especially news and education. No longer can politicians assume that the public is ignorant of what is happening on the other side of the world because knowledge and information is now instantly available to almost everyone through education, the mass media and travel. A new climate of opinion is being formed based on truth, or the false manipulation of truth. Education by itself is not enough but must be directed by wisdom and moral values. We can have some of the most "educated" people who are ignorant of some of the most important values in life. Or as T.S. Eliot says, "where is the wisdom that has got lost m the knowledge?" Prime Minister Blair is right about the importance of education; but education for what? Education for the material things of life is not enough and should, and must, include education for life.

Today the world is at the cross-roads. We have the choice of taking the road of law enforced by violence, or that of natural law based on non-violence.

These two philosophies are incompatible because they each demand resources the other needs, especially economic resources.

Fortunately change is being made gradually but the decision, as on any great ship of state, that it takes time for the ship to change course so the sooner we decide to change course the better.

Many international lawyers and philosophers have already recognised the importance of natural law and more recently the idea is included approvingly in many of their textbooks. But few people in the peace movement seem to have recognised its importance – hence the reason for this article.