Jurisdiction and Natural Law

Research output: Contribution to conferenceAbstractResearch

1 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Positive law relies integrally on the notion of jurisdiction, according to which legal bodies may make
decisions within their defined field of authority. This makes sense, because positive law itself is
widely viewed as a product of socially recognised authorities; that being so, it is hard to see how it
could exist without some prior conception of jurisdiction. Natural law theory, by contrast, holds that
there are certain fundamental goods that humans are characteristically inclined to pursue and value
for their own sake, and these goods give rise to rules and principles that structure human societies.
Natural law, on this view, is a kind of law, but does it recognise the concept of jurisdiction? I will
argue that it does, albeit with some important limitations. Natural law theories historically recognise
the important role of social norms in coordinating collective action for the common good; these
standards hold normative force for the local community. Bodies that implement and enforce this
dimension of the natural law are jurisdictionally limited. However, this conception of jurisdiction
applies only to salient local norms; it does not cover those aspects of the natural law that apply
universally to humans by their shared nature. These universal aspects of natural law are valid
everywhere and are not jurisdictionally limited. It follows, I argue, that every practical decisionmaker, legal or otherwise, has jurisdiction to apply these laws; and no decision-maker has
jurisdiction to deny them. There are, then, two fundamental forms of jurisdiction: the local
jurisdiction involved in applying salient social norms; and the universal jurisdiction involved in
applying basic human rights and duties. These forms of jurisdiction do not rely on positive law; they
overflow the boundaries of human authority.
Original languageEnglish
Publication statusPublished - 7 Aug 2019
EventTechnology and Jurisdiction in Outer Space and Cyberspace Colloquium - Bond University
Duration: 9 Aug 20199 Aug 2019
https://bond.edu.au/event/62256/technology-and-jurisdiction-outer-space-and-cyberspace-colloquium

Conference

ConferenceTechnology and Jurisdiction in Outer Space and Cyberspace Colloquium
Period9/08/199/08/19
Internet address

Fingerprint

natural law
jurisdiction
positive law
Social Norms
common good
Law
collective behavior
decision maker
human rights
society
community

Cite this

Crowe, J. (2019). Jurisdiction and Natural Law. Abstract from Technology and Jurisdiction in Outer Space and Cyberspace Colloquium, .
Crowe, Jonathan. / Jurisdiction and Natural Law. Abstract from Technology and Jurisdiction in Outer Space and Cyberspace Colloquium, .
@conference{b0b1e87de06d45599c92b42321509ee6,
title = "Jurisdiction and Natural Law",
abstract = "Positive law relies integrally on the notion of jurisdiction, according to which legal bodies may makedecisions within their defined field of authority. This makes sense, because positive law itself iswidely viewed as a product of socially recognised authorities; that being so, it is hard to see how itcould exist without some prior conception of jurisdiction. Natural law theory, by contrast, holds thatthere are certain fundamental goods that humans are characteristically inclined to pursue and valuefor their own sake, and these goods give rise to rules and principles that structure human societies.Natural law, on this view, is a kind of law, but does it recognise the concept of jurisdiction? I willargue that it does, albeit with some important limitations. Natural law theories historically recognisethe important role of social norms in coordinating collective action for the common good; thesestandards hold normative force for the local community. Bodies that implement and enforce thisdimension of the natural law are jurisdictionally limited. However, this conception of jurisdictionapplies only to salient local norms; it does not cover those aspects of the natural law that applyuniversally to humans by their shared nature. These universal aspects of natural law are valideverywhere and are not jurisdictionally limited. It follows, I argue, that every practical decisionmaker, legal or otherwise, has jurisdiction to apply these laws; and no decision-maker hasjurisdiction to deny them. There are, then, two fundamental forms of jurisdiction: the localjurisdiction involved in applying salient social norms; and the universal jurisdiction involved inapplying basic human rights and duties. These forms of jurisdiction do not rely on positive law; theyoverflow the boundaries of human authority.",
author = "Jonathan Crowe",
year = "2019",
month = "8",
day = "7",
language = "English",
note = "Technology and Jurisdiction in Outer Space and Cyberspace Colloquium ; Conference date: 09-08-2019 Through 09-08-2019",
url = "https://bond.edu.au/event/62256/technology-and-jurisdiction-outer-space-and-cyberspace-colloquium",

}

Crowe, J 2019, 'Jurisdiction and Natural Law' Technology and Jurisdiction in Outer Space and Cyberspace Colloquium, 9/08/19 - 9/08/19, .

Jurisdiction and Natural Law. / Crowe, Jonathan.

2019. Abstract from Technology and Jurisdiction in Outer Space and Cyberspace Colloquium, .

Research output: Contribution to conferenceAbstractResearch

TY - CONF

T1 - Jurisdiction and Natural Law

AU - Crowe, Jonathan

PY - 2019/8/7

Y1 - 2019/8/7

N2 - Positive law relies integrally on the notion of jurisdiction, according to which legal bodies may makedecisions within their defined field of authority. This makes sense, because positive law itself iswidely viewed as a product of socially recognised authorities; that being so, it is hard to see how itcould exist without some prior conception of jurisdiction. Natural law theory, by contrast, holds thatthere are certain fundamental goods that humans are characteristically inclined to pursue and valuefor their own sake, and these goods give rise to rules and principles that structure human societies.Natural law, on this view, is a kind of law, but does it recognise the concept of jurisdiction? I willargue that it does, albeit with some important limitations. Natural law theories historically recognisethe important role of social norms in coordinating collective action for the common good; thesestandards hold normative force for the local community. Bodies that implement and enforce thisdimension of the natural law are jurisdictionally limited. However, this conception of jurisdictionapplies only to salient local norms; it does not cover those aspects of the natural law that applyuniversally to humans by their shared nature. These universal aspects of natural law are valideverywhere and are not jurisdictionally limited. It follows, I argue, that every practical decisionmaker, legal or otherwise, has jurisdiction to apply these laws; and no decision-maker hasjurisdiction to deny them. There are, then, two fundamental forms of jurisdiction: the localjurisdiction involved in applying salient social norms; and the universal jurisdiction involved inapplying basic human rights and duties. These forms of jurisdiction do not rely on positive law; theyoverflow the boundaries of human authority.

AB - Positive law relies integrally on the notion of jurisdiction, according to which legal bodies may makedecisions within their defined field of authority. This makes sense, because positive law itself iswidely viewed as a product of socially recognised authorities; that being so, it is hard to see how itcould exist without some prior conception of jurisdiction. Natural law theory, by contrast, holds thatthere are certain fundamental goods that humans are characteristically inclined to pursue and valuefor their own sake, and these goods give rise to rules and principles that structure human societies.Natural law, on this view, is a kind of law, but does it recognise the concept of jurisdiction? I willargue that it does, albeit with some important limitations. Natural law theories historically recognisethe important role of social norms in coordinating collective action for the common good; thesestandards hold normative force for the local community. Bodies that implement and enforce thisdimension of the natural law are jurisdictionally limited. However, this conception of jurisdictionapplies only to salient local norms; it does not cover those aspects of the natural law that applyuniversally to humans by their shared nature. These universal aspects of natural law are valideverywhere and are not jurisdictionally limited. It follows, I argue, that every practical decisionmaker, legal or otherwise, has jurisdiction to apply these laws; and no decision-maker hasjurisdiction to deny them. There are, then, two fundamental forms of jurisdiction: the localjurisdiction involved in applying salient social norms; and the universal jurisdiction involved inapplying basic human rights and duties. These forms of jurisdiction do not rely on positive law; theyoverflow the boundaries of human authority.

M3 - Abstract

ER -

Crowe J. Jurisdiction and Natural Law. 2019. Abstract from Technology and Jurisdiction in Outer Space and Cyberspace Colloquium, .