RELEVANCE OF NATURAL LAW

Different legal theories developed throughout societies. Though there are a number of theories, only four of them are dealt with here under. They are Natural, Positive, Marxist, and Realist Law theories. Natural law theory is the earliest of all theories. It was developed in Greece by philosophers like Heraclitus, Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. It was then followed by other philosophers like Gairus, Cicero, Aquinas, Gratius, Hobbes, Lock, Rousseau, Kant and Hume.

n their studies of the relation between nature and society, these philosophers have arrived at the conclusion that there are two types of law that govern social relations. One of them is made by person to control the relations within a society and so it may vary from society to society and also from time to tome within a society.

Before the 19th Century, natural law was the prevalent theory of jurisprudence. In short, natural law proposes that certain universal moral principles transcend man-made laws. From a Judo-Christian perspective such principles might be perceived as ‘laws set by God to men.’ Natural law theorists, from St Thomas Aquinas onward, believe that ‘…a human law which conflicts with [natural law] is no law, but a corruption of law”[1]

The other one is that not made by person but controls all human beings of the world. Such laws do not vary from place to place and from time to time and even used to control or weigh the laws made by human beings. These philosophers named the laws made by human beings as positive laws and the laws do not made by human being as natural laws.

BRIEF HISTORY OF NATURAL LAW

Historically, natural law refers to the use of reason to analyse human nature to deduce binding rules of moral behaviour from Nature's or "God's" creation of reality and mankind. The law of nature, as determined by nature, is universal[2]

Natural law first appeared in ancient Greek philosophy[3]  and is alluded to in the Bible, and was subsequently revived and developed in the Middle Ages by Catholic philosophers such as Albert the Great and Thomas Aquinas.

Although natural law is often confused with common law, the two are distinct. Even though natural law theories have exercised a profound influence on the development of English common law,[4] the latter is not based on inherent rights, but is the legal tradition whereby certain rights or values are legally recognized by virtue of already having judicial recognition or articulation.

The Greeks -- Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle emphasized the distinction between "nature" (physis, φъσις) and "law," "custom," or "convention" (nomos, νуμος). What the law commanded varied from place to place, but what was "by nature" should be the same everywhere. Aristotle (BC 384—322) is considered by many to be the father of “natural law.” In Rhetoric, he argues that aside from “particular” laws that each people has set up for itself, there is a “common law” or “higher law” that is according to nature (Rhetoric 1373b2–8).

The Stoics -- The development of natural law theory continued in the Hellenistic school of philosophy, particularly with the Stoics. The Stoics pointed to the existence of a rational and purposeful order to the universe. The means by which a rational being lived in accordance with this cosmic order was considered natural law. Unlike Aristotle’s “higher law,” Stoic natural law was indifferent to the divine or natural source of that law. Stoic philosophy was very influential with Roman jurists such as Cicero, thus playing a significant role in the development of Roman legal theory.

The Christians -- Augustine (AD 354—430) equates natural law with man's Pre-Fall state. Therefore, life according to nature is no longer possible and mankind must instead seek salvation through the divine law and Christ’s grace. Gratian (12^th century) reconnected the concept of natural law and divine law. “The Human Race is ruled by two things: namely, natural law and usages (mos, moris, mores). Natural law is what is contained in the law and the Gospel. By it, each person is commanded to do to others what he wants done to himself and is prohibited from inflicting on others what he does not want done to himself.” (Decretum, D.1 d.a.c.1; ca. 1140 AD)

Natural law is often contrasted with the human-made laws (positive law) of a given state, political entity or society. In legal theory, the interpretation of a human-made law requires some reference to natural law. The use of natural law, in its various incarnations, has varied widely through history. There are a number of theories of natural law that differ from each other with respect to the role those morality plays in determining the authority of legal norms.

THE NATURAL LAW CONCEPT

Natural law is given different names based on its characteristics. Some of them are law of reason, eternal law, rational law, and principles of natural justice.

Natural law is defined by Salmond as “the principles of natural justice if we use the term justice in its widest sense to include all forms of rightful actions.” Natural law theory has served different societies in many ways. The Romans used it to develop their laws as jus civile, laws governing roman citizens, and jus gentium, laws governing all their colonies and foreigners.

Natural Law Theory proposes that as physical laws of nature exist, so do universal moral laws. These laws disclose themselves to us upon close examination of the world and the nature of humans. Aspects of natural law theory date back to Plato, who posited the existence of transcendental “Forms” (Plato, 1992). Particular instances of these forms – such as the Good, the True, and the Beautiful – are reflected in human life. To “see” the form of the Good (to have a clear idea of it) and incarnate it in one’s deeds is both a cause and consequence of wisdom. While Plato alluded to what we today refer to as “natural law,” the Stoics developed the theory more fully. The Stoics claim the order of the universe is fundamentally rational. Human rationality, therefore, is a person’s innate moral compass. To reason and act rationally is to be in harmony with the universe. Violence and vice are consequences of irrationality and not being in harmony with universal laws.[5]

The Catholic Pope in Europe during the middle age become dictator due to the teachings of Thomas Aquinas that natural law is the law of God to the people and that the pope was the representative of God on earth to equally enforce them on the subjects and the kings. At the late of the Feudalism stage, Locke, Montesque and others taught that person is created free, equal and independent by taking the concept of Natural law as the individual right to life, liberty, and security. Similarly, Rousseau’s teachings of individual’s right to equality, life, liberty, and security were based on natural law. The English Revolution of 1888, the American Declaration of Independence and the French Revolution of 1789 were also results of the Natural law theory.

According to Aquinas’s theology, natural law is integral to divine providence. “Eternal law” is the overarching law, established by God, which gives order to the chaos of creation. The portion of eternal law pertaining to human beings is, to Aquinas, natural law. Unlike other natural bodies (earth and animals for instance), humans are not determined by natural law.  Instead, God has instilled in us our sense of rationality. With this reason we apprehend and participate in His eternal law if we so choose. 

Like the Stoics, then, Aquinas thinks that lucid reasoning is the means by which to discern universal moral truth and, by acting in accordance with it, fulfil our destinies (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2002).

Hence, Natural law is a theory of natural rights based on the supposed state of nature. They are principles of human conduct discoverable by reason, from basic liking of human nature and that are absolute, unchangeable and of universal validity for all times and places. It is a norm of conduct discoverable by experience and observation as prevalent and useful among different people. It is also the use of reason in the making and administration of law.

MAIN FEATURES OF NATURAL THEORY

A.    Natural law was God-given.

B.     It is channelled through the individual conscience of man to do what is good and not bad. 

C.     Man-made laws are unnecessary as natural law is not promulgated by any legislation.

D.    No direct need for a sovereign state.

E.     No separation between law and morals.

F.      Everyone is under the law including the sovereign.

G.    It is a moral theory which believes on the human will.

H.    It is a law based on reason.

I.       Stipulates what law is ought to be rather than what is.

J.       Natural law is universal as it applies to the entire human race and is in itself, the same for all.

K.    It has no formal written code nor a precise penalty for its violation.

L.     It is immutable and also extrinsic. It cannot cease to exist. It commands and forbids the same terror everywhere and always.

M.   According to Acquinas, the precepts of the natural law are universally binding by nature e.t.c.

MODERN NATURAL LAW

As major developments in science, industrialisation and enlightenment profoundly impacted economics, politics and society itself; the application of neo-scientific, empirical methods to address social issues became popular amongst academics. Numerous competing legal theories arose, which despite not sharing a common conception of jurisprudence, discredited natural law.

• Neo-Thomism
• The Grisez, Finnis and Boyle Theory

Neo-Thomism is the vigorous and complex revival of the thought of the thirteenth century Dominican theologian St. Thomas Aquinas, who is perhaps the paradigmatic natural law thinker.  The most important source of the neo-Thomist revival was Pope Leo XIII’s 1879 encyclical letter Aeterni patris, in which Leo called for the rejuvenation of Christian philosophy and proposed St. Thomas Aquinas as its exemplar[6]. 

In the decades following Leo’s call, neo-Thomism coalesced into a number of contrasting schools that emphasized different aspects of Aquinas teaching, or focused on meeting the challenges of different modern philosophers such as Kant or Husserl. 

Key early figures in neo-Thomism are Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, Charles De Koninck, Joseph Maréchal, Etienne Gilson, and Jacques Maritain.  All of these figures were Catholics and most were clerics; concern for the natural law was just a part of their concern for elaborating a comprehensive philosophy and theology. Garrigou-Lagrange presented a Thomism that was indebted to the Scholastic commentary tradition; De Koninck emphasized Aquinas’ Aristotelianism; Maréchal reworked Aquinas to engage Kant and Descartes; Gilson and Maritain stressed, in different ways, the priority and distinctiveness of Thomistic metaphysics[7].

Maritain’s work on the natural law had the greatest influence on American thought.  He taught in the United States during and after the Second World War and was involved in politics at high levels (in particular the drafting of the UN Declaration of Human Rights).  In some respects Maritain’s political writings anticipated the work of Harvard philosopher John Rawls.  More recent figures who have developed neo-Thomism with a more exclusive focus upon natural law include: Russell Hittinger, J. Budzisewski, Ralph McInerny, Henry Veatch, and Martin Rhonheimer.  With the exception of Veatch, these neo-Thomists also self-consciously work within the Catholic tradition[8].  

Another, although smaller and less well-defined, strand of neo-Thomism originated in Anglophone philosophy with the work of Peter Geach, Anthony Kenny, G. E. M. Anscombe, Herbert McCabe, Alan Donagan, Mark C. Murphy, Eleonore Stump, Anthony Lisska, and Alasdair MacIntyre.  Although these thinkers have been influenced by the Catholic mainstream of neo-Thomism, many of their preoccupations and concerns are native to the analytic philosophical tradition that arose with Frege, Russell, and Wittgenstein. 

Many of the ‘analytic’ neo-Thomists, in particular MacIntyre, have made important contributions to contemporary moral theory.  The relationship of these contributions to the natural law tradition is contested, however, because they are often framed in terms of “virtue theory,” and the compatibility of an ethic of virtue with a morality of law is a debated issue.

The second category of contemporary theories is the version of natural law theory developed in collaboration among Germain Grisez, John Finnis, and Joseph Boyle.  It can be seen as part of the broader neo-Thomist revival, but also as friendly opposition to it.  The Grisez, Finnis, and Boyle theory is inspired by Aquinas, but is ultimately a novel philosophical enterprise that rejects central tenets of Aquinas’s thought, and is noteworthy for its systematic character and engagement with practical moral questions.  The theory emphasizes the priority of practical knowledge, as opposed to speculative knowledge of nature, in moral theory.  Other collaborators in the Grisez, Finnis, and Boyle project include Robert P. George, Patrick Lee, and Christopher Tollefsen[9].     

Hence, the characteristics of the contemporary natural law rest on moral idealist but it is always coached in terms of internal variety and morality. It is based on law with a changing content so that it does not rest on principle of immutability. Justice is emphasized much here since social experience has been evaluated and used as a basis for constructive search for legal criteria to define human rights internationally in charters and programs vested in social experience which is integrated with value and judgement.

The UN Charter which came into force in 1945 had a lot of natural law thinking and sentiments. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights o 1948 was made and it contained declaration ranging from moral liberty to equality and dignity of life. These rights were not new but were developed by earlier philosophers in the natural law philosophy.

RELEVANCE OF NATURAL LAW

Natural law is not an “old ” but a “timeless” principle, and it still stands valid against any positive law that would suppress natural rights for one reason or another through exceptional, urgency or other abusive regulations that politicians always tend to impose.

1.  MODERN CONSTITUTIONS AND DECLARATIONS WERE JUSTIFIED THROUGH THE PRINCIPLES OF THENATURAL LAW.

The positive law has thus incorporated the natural law. Actuality means that something is present today, now. A part of the natural law was transposed is a positive form. It has been proved that it must be a part of a written law in conformity with reason and human dignity. Reflecting natural law in the positive law maintains it in actuality.

2.      CONSTRAINS SUPRESSION OF NATURAL RIGHTS.

It stays relevant today not only as incorporated in the positive law, but especially when a constitution suppresses obvious natural rights. Declaration of Independence defining rights as inalienable and hold these truths as self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

3.      MONITORS POSITIVE LAW.

Even if modern constitutional law has achieved a correction of positive law through natural principles, the latter, as rational and ideal law must always stand to monitor the positive law. The state of exception, the urgency state, siege state or diverse urgent laws or abusive regulations always tend to turn positive laws against natural laws. The most recent example is Patriot Act, a limitation of constitutional rights that was possible in the biggest democracy of the world. In this sense, the natural law is not relevant today only, but always.

4.      REVEALS MODERN CONCEPTS

It reveals the concepts that has been  used to support different ideologies from time to time like absolutism, individualism etc., it has also been used by revolutionist to overthrow wild governments for a better national and global peace.

If you believe that every human being has dignity, that people should be free, that the individual should be empowered, that people should not be forced to do things against their interest unless there is some principled plan for doing so, that human relationships should be aligned with nature, or science, or reason, all of these underlying principles are not created out of the legal system, they are the premises on which a legal system can be built.[10]

5.      BETTER LEGAL SYSYTEMS

The natural principles like justice, morality and conscience have been embodied in the various legal systems. The moral principle of human rights declared in various constitutions has their historical content and origins in the enlightenment and existence of natural law theories.

Legal history testifies that natural law directly and indirectly provided a model for the first man-made law and as stated by Oppenhiem, “but for the system of law of nature and doctrines of its prophets, modern constitutional law and the law of nations would not have been what they are today”.

6.      NATURAL LAW AS A TEST OF LAW.

It is evident that law and morality appear to be in conflict but the fact remains that in order to truly decide the legality and justification of a law, it can only be tested through its moral applicability. Natural law is necessary as a yardstick to measure the laws regularly framed.

7.      FOSTERED UNIFORMITY AND STABLE INTERNATIONAL LIFE

Universal respect of the principles underlying “a legal structure in conformity with the moral order” [896] is a necessary condition for the stability of international life. The quest for such stability has led to the gradual elaboration of a “right of nations” [897] (“ius gentium”), which can be considered as “the ancestor of international law”.[898] Juridical and theological reflection, firmly based on natural law, has formulated “universal principles which are prior to and superior to the internal law of States”,[899] such as the unity of the human race, the equal dignity of every people, the rejection of war as a means for resolving disputes, the obligation to cooperate for attaining the common good and the need to be faithful to agreements undertaken (pacta sunt servanda). This last principle should be especially emphasized in order to avoid “temptation to appeal to the law of force rather than to the force of law”.

8.      THE SOURCE OF ALL OTHER LAWS

Natural law is not reducible to a codex of positive laws, but the law‐founding‐the‐laws—the source from which all legal enactments flow, and light in which they are judged to be valid.  If this is not the case, social conscience becomes progressively uneasy and conflicted; and positive laws will lack the fundamental authority to claim a responsible obedience on the part of society, and degenerate into arbitrary regulations in our often super‐regulated societies.

Still, any expression of natural law and basic human rights aims to provide a language useful and accessible to law‐makers.  Those professionally involved in the political process and the judiciary system work at the sharp end of social justice where decisions are made and laws enacted, interpreted, applied and enforced.  

But without the recognition of natural law related to basic values it affirms and the seminal virtues it inspires, the legislative outlook is deficient.  It is more likely to magnify the self‐serving elements of society untroubled by larger responsibilities for the good of all. Hence, the question: Who are legislators acting for? For the socially powerful and competent?  Or, for the disempowered and the defenceless who do not figure notably in the presumed “common good” of society? The institutional voice of law can easily boom over the silence of society’s victims whose claims remain inaudible in the halls of power.  

But natural law finds it focus in the human dignity of all human beings.  It inspires a

common moral language and not just an exclusive dialect.  It includes in the common good. Those whose humanity is most threatened.

9.      POLITICAL CORRECTNESS

The various manifestations of “political correctness” have inspired a new linguistic etiquette of social inclusiveness.  But when there is no way of appealing to deeper social values, cynicism and well‐deserved satire are the results. Proliferating regulations lose their moorings in the dignity of the human person and its associated range of values and relationships.  As a result, social ethics become increasingly brittle and superficial. The human proportion is lost.

Laws cannot do the work of virtues.  Virtues cannot exist without the moral values they intend; and even the most desirable value appears oddly abstract and remote from conscience.  Neither legalism nor political correctness can substitute for a social morality based on the deeper aspirations of the human heart.[11]

10.  GLOBAL CONSIOUSNESS

So much for prevalent prejudices, but there are problems, and the most obvious problem is that of connecting natural law to the new historical situation of “globalization”. While this term and its derivatives are frequently invoked, the meaning of globalization is seldom clear, given its numerous connotations and the variety of different contexts in which it is employed. It is not enough to keep repeated

The now worn‐out metaphor of the “global village” when a small minority of the world’s people live in the splendid isolation of gated communities, consume most of the produce, own most of the natural resources, and control the means of production.  

In its best connotation, globalization connotes a newly emerging stage in world history.  Despite the differences and divisions inherited from the past—in relation to different geographical locations, nations, languages, cultures and religions—a new consciousness is emerging.  In the background there is a growing awareness of the larger cosmic story of planet Earth, and the emergence of our humanity out of a long evolutionary history spanning the immensity of space and time.

Humanity can now situate itself within a 14 billion year pre‐history.  In this regard, human consciousness awakens to a new humility. To be aware of the uncanny emergence of the cosmos, and of the singularity of life on this planet, is to live with a new sense of proportion. Whatever our national, ethnic, cultural or religious differences, we have a common origin within an unimaginably immense and fecund cosmic process. Given the sheer contingency of our existence, despite the infinitesimal insignificance of our physical being in the physical universe, human consciousness has a unique capacity to ask big questions: what is the significance of human existence?  How do we belong together? How should we collaborate to bring a distinctively human contribution to the history of life in which we participate? 

Cosmic humility leads undermines all egocentric pretensions.  The universal order into which all are born does not revolve around any particular individual, group, nation or culture.  A self‐centred pride appears as the ultimate absurdity, and the destructive conflicts to which it gives rise are a profound dislocation of the reality in which we share.  A new found humility is the backdrop against which the phenomenon of globalisation and its appropriate ethics can be approached.  

11.  AIDS INTERNATIONAL TRADE IN GLOBALISATION

Much Christians thought over the centuries, had an anti-economic streak, with a bias against foreign trade. Mercantilist thinking dominated in the two centuries before Adam Smith’s publication of The Wealth of Nations. Mercantilist writers generally approved of self-interested, profit-seeking behaviour, but believed that the state had to guide it forcefully to serve national interests. It was incumbent on the state to make trade flow in the “right” while avoiding the “wrong” channels[12].

Free-trade doctrine, in contrast, emerged in the interstices of mercantilism. It set up the principle of non-intervention in trade, akin to the French Physiocrats’ governing principle of laisser faire.

It was left to Adam Smith to come up with a sweeping synthesis of the economic system and its interrelated parts, with its governing principle of “natural liberty” (or non-intervention) – though with the crucial proviso that it depends fundamentally on an appropriate framework of rules (“justice” in Smith’s terminology). This he extended to a comprehensive defence of freedom to engage in international trade, which subsumed a full frontal attack on mercantilism[13].

The nineteenth-century English economists overhauled and refined technical economic analysis, including the theory of international trade. Nineteenth-century free-trade thinking went into headlong retreat in the first half of the twentieth century. But it enjoyed a partial restoration post-1945. “Smith abroad”, i.e. freer trade.

The common understanding of natural law is that, from the Romans to the scholastic doctors and beyond, it embodied the dictates of reason (ratio recta) or, theologically speaking, the will of God. Strictly logical, abstract premises, emerging from the realm of reason, were used to derive maxims and laws for a rational order in conformity with human nature (or divine will for the religiously inclined).

Such natural law is invariant, without regard to time and place. It stands in opposition to “positive law”, conditioned by historical and social changes, expediency and necessity.[14]

This was the inescapable flaw in the natural-law approach to free trade. As indicated in the quote from Vittoria at the head of this paper, it comes across as mere sweeping assertion. The aim of the natural-law philosophers was to formulate an objective code, consonant with “nature”, for the just conduct of nations in their relations with each other. Thus free trade became a pillar of their ius gentium.

Hugo Grotius, the most illustrious of natural-law thinkers, strongly denounced the Portuguese exclusion of the Dutch from the East India trade along the following lines: “Under the law of nations, the following principle was established: that all men should be privileged to trade freely with one another.” The Abbé Morellet argued that man, being naturally free, should be free to buy and sell wherever he pleased. Hence restrictions on his freedom, i.e. protectionism, stood condemned as a violation of natural law.[15]

12.  CAPITALISM

Private Property Ownership is according to St. Thomas Aquinas, since experience shows that property given to a certain person is better cared for than property not given to anyone’s care at all and since property parceled out to specific persons rather than left “up for grabs” is less likely to cause strife, the existence of private ownership of property is in accord with natural law.

13.  CRIME CONTROL

Aquinas also maintains that b/c God made material goods for the sake of All of his children, a person in dire straits-in danger of dying from want-may take the property of a person who has an abundance of goods in order to save his or her life or the lives of his or her family.  In other words, the practice of private property can be temporarily suspended if the original purpose for material goods is not being met.

14.  FOSTERS MONOGAMY AND POPULATION CONTROL

Aquinas maintains that reason shows that polygamy is  an unhealthy human arrangement: it causes friction and jealousy among multiple spouses, leaves certain children feeling neglected and slighted by the single dominant spouse, and militates against the formation of a partnership of healthy friendship and equality between husband and wife.

15.  SELF DEFENSE

The legitimate defense of self/others is in keeping with the Natural Law. How about lethal (deadly) force to accomplish defense of others? Deadly force can be used only if absolutely necessary. Note throughout that the “true” intention is to defend/protect not to kill.

CONCLUSION

The relevance and application of Natural law in the present contemporary global society largely depends upon the laws framed by the state, on which is directly or indirectly opposed by Natural. In my point of view, even though the framing of any law should begin from the individual laws framed by individuals while considering the society, the positive law theory which exalts man made laws should not be ruled out.

The application of natural law will depend on whether it is purely natural law or natural law mixed with positive law. The positive law should be based on the natural law but natural laws should not apply within it alone. Just as Aquinas believed that human nature came from God, I also believe that the dark part of humanity did not come from him, but from other alterations that can only be checked with the making of necessary laws.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

TEXTBOOKS

a.      Dr. S.R. Myneni, Jurisprudence Legal Theory, 2^nd Ed. 2014.

b.      Howard P. Kainz, Natural Law, an Introduction and Re-examination, Open Court, 2004.

c.       William B. Erdmans, Natural law and divine law, Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1999.

d.      Hutchinson University Library, Natural law, an introduction to legal philosophy, A. P. d'entrèves, 1951.

ARTICLES

a.       George A. Finch, Sources of modern international law, William S. Hein, 2000.

b.      T. J. Hochstrasser, Natural law theories in early enlightenments, Cambridge University Press, 2000.

c.       Perez Zagorin, Hobbes and the law of Nature, Princeton University Press, 2009.

d.      Robert P. George, Contemporary natural law theory, Clarendon Press, 1994.

e.       Yves R. Simon; Vukan Kuic, The tradition of natural law, a philosopher’s reflection, Fordham University Press, 1992.

f.       Thomas Aquinas, 1-11, q 95 a 2, quoted in JM Kelly A Short History of Western Legal Theory (Oxford University Press, 1992) 144.

g.      Rommen, Heinrich A., The Natural Law: A Study in Legal and Social Philosophy trans. Thomas R. Hanley, O.S.B., Ph.D. (B. Herder Book Co., 1947 [reprinted 1959] ), p. 5.

h.      Blackstone, William. Commentaries on the Laws of England. Clarendon Press.

i.        Anthony J. Kelly, The Global Significance of Natural Law:  Opportunities, Quandaries and Directions.

WEBSITES AND ONLINE JOURNALS

a.      Natural law, natural rights and American constitution-contemporary theories of natural law, available at http://www.nlnrac.org/contemporary, last seen on 14/04/2017.

b.      Gil Silberman, is natural law still relevant today-Why or Why not?, available at https://www.quora.com/Is-natural-law-still-relevant-today-Why-or-why-not, seen on 14/04/2017.

---

[1]Thomas Aquinas, 1-11, q 95 a 2, quoted in JM Kelly A Short History of Western Legal Theory (Oxford University Press, 1992) 144.

[2]  Strauss, Leo (1968). "Natural Law". International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. Macmillan.

[3] Rommen, Heinrich A., The Natural Law: A Study in Legal and Social Philosophy trans. Thomas R. Hanley, O.S.B., Ph.D. (B. Herder Book Co., 1947 [reprinted 1959] ), p. 5

[4] Blackstone, William. Commentaries on the Laws of England. Clarendon Press.

[5] http://sevenpillarsinstitute.org/morality-101/agency-theory/natural-law

[6] Natural law, natural rights and American constitution-contemporary theories of natural law, available at http://www.nlnrac.org/contemporary, last seen on 14/04/2017.

[7] Natural law, natural rights and American constitution-contemporary theories of natural law, available at http://www.nlnrac.org/contemporary, last seen on 14/04/2017.

[8] Id.

[9] Natural law, natural rights and American constitution-contemporary theories of natural law, available at http://www.nlnrac.org/contemporary, last seen on 14/04/2017.

[10] Gil Silberman, is natural law still relevant today-Why or Why not?, available at https://www.quora.com/Is-natural-law-still-relevant-today-Why-or-why-not, seen on 14/04/2017.

[11] Anthony J. Kelly, The Global Significance of Natural Law:  Opportunities, Quandaries and Directions.

[12] Irwin, op cit., chapter 2; Viner, “Mercantilist thought”, in his Essays on the Intellectual History of Economics, op cit., pp. 262-276; Joseph A. Schumpeter, History of Economic Analysis, London, Routledge, 1950, pp. 335-78.

[13] Irwin, op cit., chapters 6,7,8; Lionel Robbins, A History of Economic Thought: The LSE Lectures, Steven Medema and Warren Samuels eds., Princeton NJ, Princeton University Press, 1998, Lectures 17-25; Schumpeter, op cit., Part III, chapters 2-5.

[14] James, op cit., p. 434; Viner, “History of Laissez Faire”, in his Essays, op cit., p. 205.

[15] Id.