Principles of law and rules of law are important concepts in the interpretation and application of law. Let’s take a closer look at the differences between the two concepts and how they affect legal judgment.
Legal principalism divides legal norms into legal rules and legal principles. Rules of law have determinate normative content, while principles of law are ideological authorities, which have normative content that calls for the maximal realization of something in a given situation. Legal principles provide the background for understanding the existence and content of legal rules.
A rule of law is a legal norm whose constituent requirements and the occurrence of its legal effects are definitively stipulated. In other words, a rule of law is a legal effect that must occur if the requirements of the rule of law are true. The process of interpreting and applying rules of law consists of performing logical operations. This logical operation, commonly referred to as the legal syllogism, treats the application of law as a self-evident inference that is deduced from two premises. The large premise is a rule of law and the small premise is a fact that has been identified as a condition for the application of the rule of law. The identification of the conditions of application is made by determining that the facts examined fulfill the requirements of the law. The legal conclusion is drawn by applying the legal norm to the facts. If there are conflicting rules of law that provide for opposite legal effects for the same act, they are resolved by applying the principle of supremacy of special laws, the principle of supremacy of new laws, etc. to declare that only one rule of law is valid, or by making an exception.
A legal principle is a legal norm that has a form in which the occurrence of a legal effect is realized to the maximum extent possible under given conditions. In other words, a legal principle is not a definite legal effect that will occur if the requirements set by law are met. Principles of law contain values and ideologies that should be considered in making legal decisions, and they play an important role in the application and interpretation of the law. Principles of law are also the basis for legal interpretation and are essential to understanding the meaning and purpose of legal norms.
Legal principles play an important role in solving specific legal problems. Understanding how legal principles affect the interpretation and application of legal norms is crucial to the study and practice of law. Legal principles provide flexibility in legal interpretation, which allows the law to adapt and apply to different situations. For example, legal principles such as fairness, justice, and equality are important guides in interpreting and applying the law.
If the principles of law conflict in a particular case, they are resolved through the use of interest sentencing. Beneficial adjudication is a judgment that chooses which of the legal effects of conflicting legal principles should apply in a particular case. Beneficial sentencing is an integral part of the legal decision-making process, which allows the values of the law to be realized to the fullest extent possible. Therefore, conflicts between legal principles are dealt with in terms of which legal principle carries more weight, as opposed to rules of law. One way to measure the weight of conflicting interests is to look at the optimization of benefit realization.
Legal principalism views rules of law as the product of interest sentencing. This is because the norms of law that are obtained as a result of the interest sentence will be in the form of rules of law with specific requirements and legal effects that are specific enough to apply to a particular case. In this context, legal principles provide a background basis for understanding the existence and content of legal rules. Legal principalism is a legal theory that seeks to achieve legal stability and flexibility at the same time, which has the advantage of being able to respond to changing social needs while maintaining consistency in the application of the law.
