Irish Government Foreign Policy

Irish Government Foreign PolicyThe X Liberation Party have been duly elect to govern the land of X and, after the election, the party renounced the former constitution and en identification numbered two pieces of complete legislation, firstly the Rendition Research Institute Act 2006 which permits the governing body to feely oppugn and hurt people without whatsoever judicial or heavy oversight and, secondly, a statute that forbids the use of the word rendition in some(prenominal) form of publication and breaking this jurisprudence is punishable by death. possibly understandably, the Irish policeyers who argon working in the state of X fend to recognise the brand-new jurisprudenceyers presumably because the laws curtail the freedom of speech, permit torture at the behest of the government and provide for capital punishment for a com space-reflection symmetrytively menial offence.The Irish government takes a hard line Kelsenite pick up on completely matters of recogn ition and dealings with foreign states, that is, the governments policies are based on the extensive theories of Hans Kelsen, an Austrian jurist who advocated effective positivism and the pure theory of law. effective positivism involves attempting to explain what the law is, non what it ought to be. The theory is concerned with the accomplishment of law and non lawful politics. However, Kelsens theories differed slightly from those of other legal positivists because Kelsen viewed a legal instruction as a averageative statement, a statement of how one ought to behave. Consequently, Kelsen genuine his pure theory of law. The theory is pure partly because it does not focalise on justice and is stripped of its ideological, political, economic and historical dressings. In Kelsens words the pure theory of law simply declares itself incompetent to behave either the question whether a given law is just or not, or the more fundamental question of what constitutes justice1. Kelsen believes that the pure science of law seeks the real and possible law, not the just, and in this sense it is radically realistic and empirical. It declines to justify or condemn2. The concomitant that the law exists does not guarantee that the legal cast is just. In Kelsens opinion, any legal order is comprised of superior general norms and each norm depends on a high norm for its sensibleity the theory of the hierarchical formation of norms. Of course, this hierarchical system is not infinite the highest norm in the system is the sanctioned norm or grundnorm, and does not depend on another norm for its rigour. The basic norm will often be the constitution and is presupposed to be reasonable due to a transcendental-logical presupposition3. This is because the basic norm has the function to found the quarry validity of the subjective meaning of the acts by which the constitution is created.4 The norms that are on a lower floor the basic norm are valid because the basic nor m has conferred impersonal validity on these general norms. Kelsen also hypothesised about the consequence of changing the basic norm in relation to whether the change would be valid.5 Kelsen draw and quarter the situation whereby a group of idiosyncratics seize power by long suit and remove the legitimate government to introduce a republican government. Kelsen believed that if the citizens set to the new order, the new order will be valid. This is because, in Kelsens opinion, in order for a norm to be valid it has to be efficacious and the norm must command a sufficiency of bail bond or obedience from the majority of citizens to validate it universal or ingrained obedience is not essential. The X passing party was duly elected to power by a majority of citizens and the party has the support of the military machine and the police, thereby satisfying the sufficiency of adherence requirement. The validity and efficacy of the new laws would solely be questioned if the majorit y of the citizens of X did not attach creed to the laws or if they avoided compliance. The legal order that was in place prior to the X inflammation party coming to power lost its efficacy and therefore every norm lost its validity because the whole legal order was annulled in a constitutional bearing.6Kelsen also believes that the validity of the basic norm is presupposed and that coercive acts ought to be carried out only under the conditions and in the way determined by the fathers of the constitution.7 On this basis, it is clear that the Irish governments stance is that the basic and general norms enacted by the X liberation party are valid legal norms that should be obeyed by the Irish lawyers. The Irish lawyers may believe that the new statutes are morally reprehensible. However, care for judgments and moral or ethical considerations are irrelevant from a Kelsenite perspective. Kelsen wholly rejected any connection between law and morals and theorised that all historical, sociological and ideological issues were beyond the scope of his pure theory of law. Kelsen idealistic between law and morals on the grounds that law is a coercive normative order that attempts to bring about a legitimate type of behaviour by attaching to the opposite behaviour a socially organised coercive act8 such as the forcible taking apart of life, of freedom or of economic or other value, whereas a theology based system comprises of a social order without sanctions where me swear compliment of norm-conforming behaviour and disapprobation of norm-opposing behaviour is given. To Kelsen, morals are merely propositions that describe our subjective preferences for behaviour that is impossible to prove objectively morals are essentially irrational because they merely express different feelings and intuition.9 Indeed, from a Kelsenite standstill any law, even if it was considerably harsher and more morally reprehensible that Xs current laws, is valid if it satisfies the princi ple of efficacy and can rely on a higher norm for its valid legal public because, according to Kelsen, there is no kind of human behaviour that, because of its nature, could not be made into a legal duty corresponding to a legal right.10 Therefore, as the rule tidings of the X liberation party is a valid basic norm according to Kelsens theory, the Irish government believes that these laws should be obeyed and will not consider any question as to whether the laws are just or morally sound. Indeed, what substance this constitution or the natural legal order built on its foundations has, be that order just or unjust, does not come into question, not whether that legal order guarantees relative peace within the community established by it11Even where the punishment that results from breaking a law is death, Kelsen believes that, provided the law satisfies the validity and efficacy requirements, the law is correct and should be obeyed, notwithstanding the fact that capital punishment is used as a sanction for a trivial law such as the law enacted by the X liberation party which allows the government to punish by death any person who uses the word rendition in a publication. Kelsen specifically addresses the validity of a law where the ultimate sanction for breach is death.12 Kelsen believes that when one individual deprives another of his life the law will be legal only if it is prescribed by an individual legal norm, namely as an act that ought to be performed13. Such a severe law will be valid because this individual norm was created in applying a criminal law that contains a general norm according to whichthe death penalty ought to be inflicted14. Its validity stems from the fact that the law was created by the legislature, and the legislature, in turn, is authorised by the constitution to create general norms15. Therefore, as the party rule book is the valid basic norm of the legal order of the state of X, the general norms created by the X liberation party are also valid and must be followed by the Irish lawyers, including the norm that prescribes death as a punishment for contravening that norm. If the Irish lawyers contravene the laws of X, they themselves could face imprisonment or even death.BibliographyL.B. Curzon, Jurisprudence, 1995, second ed. Cavendish Publishing LtdM.D.A. Freeman, Lloyds Introduction to Jurisprudence, 2001, seventh ed. Sweet and MaxwellW. Morrison, Jurisprudence From the Greeks to post-modernism, 1997, Cavendish Publishing LtdJ. Penner D. Schiff R. Nobles, Introduction to Jurisprudence and Legal Theory Commentary and Materials, 2002, Butterworths Lexis NexisFootnotes1 L.B. Curzon, Jurisprudence, 1995, 2nd ed. Cavendish Publishing Ltd at para 12.32 ibid.3 Kelsen, The Pure Theory of Law, 1945, at pg. 2014 Kelsen, Professor rock n roll and the Theory of Law2, 1965, 17 Stan. LR 1130, at 11415 Kelsen, General Theory of Law bow, 2005, Transaction Publishing at p. 1156 ibid. at 1197 ibid. at 1178 J. Penner D. Schiff R. Nobles, Introduction to Jurisprudence and Legal Theory Commentary and Materials, 2002, Butterworths Lexis Nexis, p 1969 W. Morrison, Jurisprudence From the Greeks to post-modernism, 1997, Cavendish Publishing Ltd p. 33310 Kelsen, The Pure Theory of Law, 1945 at p. 11311 Kelsen, The portion of a Constitution, 1986, at pg. 11612 Kelsen, The Pure Theory of Law, 1967, translated from Kelsen, Reine Rechtslehre, 1960, 2nd ed.13 ibid.14 ibid.15 ibid.