Judge Salem Roudan Al-Mousawi
Laws are essential for building any organized, just, and stable society that protects the rights of its members, promotes their welfare, and shields them from dangers. The law is one of the most important means to protect society from risks; it is a source of security for all. However, a contemporary legal philosopher argues that this law, which protects against danger, also needs protection from danger itself because it may face two types of threats: an external threat and an internal threat. If either of these affects the law, it becomes a danger to society.
This philosophical analysis and perspective come from the Canadian philosopher Bjarne Melkevik, a professor at the Faculty of Law at Laval University in Quebec, Canada. He holds a doctorate in law from the University of Paris II and has published extensively on the philosophy of law and legal epistemology. In one of his studies on the philosophy of law, he concludes that law poses a danger to society if it is employed as a tool for seduction and enslavement in favor of the ruling class, which he calls the “oligarchy.” He states that such laws simply become the “melody of happiness for fools,” according to his study entitled “Introduction: Critical Realism: Law Before Us,” published in his book Contemporary Legal-Philosophical Texts (translated by Dr. George Saad, Al-Halabi Legal Publications, 2022, p. 11).
Melkevik adds that the first danger to the law is an external one, which is the detachment of the law from its roots—putting the word “the people” in parentheses. He means that a law issued far from the will of the people is dangerous to society because it is severed from its roots and does not represent their interests. This leads to disputes, sometimes chaos, and mostly the loss of rights.
He further states on the same page that the second danger lies in the interpretation and application of the law when it does not align with the needs of society or when it discriminates between individuals. This is due to the broadness of the legal text and its capacity for multiple interpretations and readings, which can lead it into perilous turns that corrupt the law. Melkevik points out that historical and contemporary evidence from most countries—even advanced ones in human rights and democracy—shows cases of justice corruption and distortion of fair trials because of these two dangers. He describes their severity with the phrase “the hijacking of justice” for use in ideological agendas by the oligarchy of the left or right (p. 10 in the same book).
Therefore, the possibility of discussing protection offered by a law that has been compromised—externally, internally, or both—is almost futile and non-existent. He states that the possibility of discussing law fades away, and the meaning of a fair or just trial disappears if many people accept being placed in a minority or slavery under the control of the oligarchy. Under such circumstances, there is no reason to rejoice at the existence of law.
Since law is a product of human thought and is not confined to one society over another, philosophical reflection on legal texts transcends boundaries and can serve as a scalpel for dissecting any text within any legislative system.
If we apply this philosophical scalpel to some of our recent legislation—particularly during the current parliamentary session—we find that they represent a danger to rights rather than a means of protecting them. Examples include the General Amnesty Law and the amendments to the Personal Status Law. These laws have embodied danger by allowing corrupt individuals and public fund thieves to escape punishment through the General Amnesty Law, thus failing to fulfill the law’s purpose of justice for those deserving it. This compelled the judicial administration to intensify efforts to address the gaps and deviations in the legislation as much as possible, although it could not fully remedy the corrupt because the legal text seemed designed to protect them. Similarly, amendments to the Personal Status Law placed the judiciary in a difficult position due to conflicting interpretations, causing family disruption and negatively impacting social security.
Comments