Many authors believe that some norms are acceptedstate, while others emerged on their own. That is, there is a natural and positive right. It is believed that the right to life, to equality and so on - that is, those rights that are given to man by nature - should be attributed to the natural. They are natural, and therefore the state can not encroach on them.
In the theory of natural law it is said thatThe law created by the state is a derivative to that which follows from the very human nature. Positive law is the norms that were established by the state. They can be recognized only if they do not contradict the norms of natural law.
Positivism is one of the directionsjurisprudence. In this case, the emphasis is on the verbal and symbolic form of the existence of law. Only fixed norms are taken into account, that is, it is important with the help of what they are expressed (their form).
Positive law is institutional education. There is it in the form of external institutions (objectified), norms that are expressed in laws and so on.
The positive right has a mass of both negative, andpositive potencies. Perhaps its main advantage lies in the fact that this right is the most effective normative-value regulator. It is this that helps to control the behavior of people in society. This regulator has not only a normative, but also a value character. This statement is based on the fact that the right, entering the life of people, becomes a part of it. Normative principles help to assess individual life phenomena, they divide people's actions into permissible and unacceptable.
The positive law is provided by the state. The point is that it is guaranteed, and non-observance of norms becomes the reason for the onset of sanctions. The coercive power that the state possesses helps to bring order to society, to eliminate self-will, and also arbitrariness.
The positive right is different from the natural to many. Here are the main differences:
- Natural law is associated with naturalthe order of things. It is about the nature of man and the universe in general. Natural law is part of the world order. A positive right is something artificial. The creator in this case is a man. All this leads to the fact that its norms may even contradict the norms of the world order.
- Natural law is associated with universal being, positive - with a specific state.
- Positive law arose when the state arose. The natural was always.
- Norms of law of the natural are not always expressed in writing, as they can exist in legal customs, traditions and so on.
- Natural law, unlike the positive one, is not identical with the current legislation. His goal - the highest justice, and not the interests of states.
- A positive right, unlike a natural one, does not have norms that could be justified by religion or ethics. They are connected only with the will of the state.
What's wrong with a positive right? First of all, its norms can be unfair. At all times there has been a tendency to enslave the people. Speech, of course, is not about direct, but about indirect slavery. The state imposes on society the rules and procedures that are necessary only for him. For this reason, people are often disadvantaged in their rights. Often the norms in force are unfair, inhumane, beneficial only to people with power and seeking to retain this power. In many cases, they ensure the well-being of some through the infringement of others. The whole hitch is that all norms of positive law without exception are binding for execution.