On 24 September 2019, the United Kingdom Supreme Court gave one of the most important constitutional decisions of the twenty-first century. In R (Miller) v Prime Minister, the Court found that Prime Minister Boris Johnson's decision to prorogue Parliament was unlawful because it frustrated parliamentary sovereignty and democratic accountability. While the judgment settled a modern constitutional controversy, the legal ideas that informed the decision were older than two millennia.
The theory of government being governed by law rather than being superior to the law finds its philosophical roots from Ancient Greek and Ancient Roman philosophy. The connection between philosophy and law was initiated during the time of Greek polis in the fifth and fourth century BC where instead of focusing on the aspect of politics, philosophy focused on the purpose and morality of law.
Law was accordingly understood not only as an instrument of state power but as a system to promote justice, rationality and the common good. These philosophical issues remain the foundation of modern constitutional law, criminal justice, and international human rights.
“This systematic approach involved arranging regulations related to contracts, property, inheritance, commerce, and civil processes.”
Socrates, Plato, and the Purpose of Law
Socrates was one of the first to contribute to legal philosophy. He wrote nothing himself, but his ideas, mainly recorded in the dialogues of Plato, have had an enduring effect on legal theory. After his conviction for impiety and corrupting the youth in 399 BCE, Socrates refused to escape execution. Plato's work portrays Socrates as stating that the people in any society have a moral duty to comply with the law due to the fact that defiance of the law is a threat to the stability of the state. The dilemma created by the decision of Plato is whether individuals should conform to the laws or act based on moral principles. Plato built on the work of his mentor through discussing the connection between justice and political power.
In The Republic he argued that justice could only be achieved when rulers ruled by wisdom and virtue rather than by personal ambition or material interest. His notion of philosopher-kings has never been implemented, but the broader claim that public leaders should be honest, competent, and devoted to the common good remains influential. These principles are reflected in modern judicial systems as requirements for judicial independence, impartiality, and freedom from political interference.
Aristotle's Distributive & Corrective Justice
One of the most enduring legacies in legal theory is the contribution of Aristotle. He coined the theories of distributive justice and corrective justice in his work "Nicomachean Ethics." The former pertains to the equal sharing of wealth and opportunity, while the latter involves remedying of legal injustices in order to achieve justice. The two theories remain extremely relevant even in today's legal framework. Governments strive for distributive justice through their taxation laws, while civil courts pursue corrective justice. Aristotle also came up with the doctrine of equity, where he asserts that the enforcement of the statutory rules strictly may not necessarily lead to a just outcome because legislators cannot predict every situation. In this case, the judges must construe the laws based on their spirit and not by the letter of the law when the application of the literal meaning will result in an injustice.
