Legal Norms: Cornerstone of Law and Order

What are legal norms?

Legal norms are the backbone of any legal system. They are the rules that govern the actions of its members and establish the framework for order and predictability. In a broad sense, legal norms are the laws that define the rights and responsibilities of individuals within society, and they come in many forms. Legislative acts passed by the legislature, judicial precedents established by courts in judicial decisions, and administrative regulations issued by administrative bodies all serve as a vehicle for social norms to be transformed into legal norms. Legal norms are therefore the formal expression of the unwritten social norms by which members of society are expected to conduct themselves.
They come in different forms and have different characteristics. Legal norms are generally divided into two types: prescriptive and permissive. Prescriptive legal norms dictate duties and obligations, such as the requirement to pay taxes or drive within speed limits. They restrict or prohibit behaviors within society. On the other hand, permissive legal norms grant permissions and privileges , such as the right to vote or the freedom of speech. These grant freedoms.
Legal norms also vary in scope, from general to specific. General legal norms are those that apply to a broad range of actions, while specific legal norms are those that apply to specific situations or individuals. For example, a general legal norm might be the criminalization of murder. Specific legal norms would be an individual murder conviction for someone who committed murder.
The characteristics of legal rules also differ from those of social norms. Legal rules generally are negative. They define what one cannot do. They are also public and published for all to see—unlike social norms, where some people may not be aware of a social norm. Legal rules do not discriminate between different individuals, whereas social norms are culturally specific. Legal rules are enforced and backed by the authority of government—unlike social norms, which rely on social pressure for enforcement. Legal rules are definitive. Individuals are either complying or they are not. Social norms are not so black and white, as psychological pressures of groups of peers can result in irrational behavior.

Different forms of legal norms

The universe of legal norms embraces a wide variety of texts that impose a particular kind of obligation. Statutes are the texts that we associate with legislative responsibility, such as the comprehensive code of federal law or the criminal code of a state. Statutes are present-tense rules and regulations; they establish rules about how the world currently works and how it should now operate. The purpose of statutes is almost always to declare substantive and procedural rights.
The procedures by which statutes are created are relatively straightforward. A legislative body submits the text of a desired statute to a specific process that includes an opportunity for debate and public comment. The text is improved as necessary, and is then set to a vote. If the text is approved by both voting bodies and the executive, it is executed (which is a synonym for ‘execute’) by being published as the law of the land within the jurisdiction only if it is not deemed in violation of existing legal norms, e.g. collective bargaining statutes or state or federal disability legislation.
Regulations are legal norms that are developed in response to statutes. Regulations are an acceptable modification of generally acceptable statutory rules that are designed to incorporate social, philosophical, technological, cultural or political changes. Regulations serve to provide experimental or temporary solutions to problems that statutes have addressed, in order to allow for the statutory rules to be modified to reflect the new solution. Because of their unique characteristics, as well as the fact that regulations may be given the force of law, the Supreme Court has ruled that the words of statutes are susceptible to several legitimate meanings. However, the Court has also ruled that the average person understands the meaning of most standard statutory words and leaves the question of the exact meaning of a statute unresolved on other grounds, e.g. upon the issue of whether the challenged regulation contradicts other laws on the same subject matter.
Case law refers to rules, usually expressed in judicial opinions that are authoritative because of their application to a specific set of facts. Case law will experience a number of normal alterations. In order for a decision to be authoritative, it must be the decision of the appropriate reviewing body, i.e. appellate courts or the Supreme Court. The use of precedent is appropriate in order to preserve stability in the body of statutes, regulations and case law. In addition, a decision must not be overruled, meaning that the position taken in the opinion at issue is a legitimate alternative rational that has not been disavowed by subsequent rulings or repudiated by a more recent body of legislature, i.e. "subsequent legislative enactments".

Legal norms essential to societies

Legal norms are pivotal to maintaining order and justice in society. They serve as the building blocks for a reliable legal system. When people understand what is expected of them and the potential ramifications of their actions, society is more likely to function harmoniously. The alternative is chaos.
Their role in conflict resolution is one of the most important legal norms. Taking away the ability of the government to punish people will lead to vigilante actions. People will resort to brute force to settle their differences. Legal norms, such as sentencing guidelines, provide a fair and impartial judgment of individuals who violate the law. The fact that the government has these generalized rules helps keep people in line. Without them, people would not be held to the same standards.
Legal norms can also help people stay out of trouble. For example, understanding the difference between slander and libel could keep you from being sued. If you understand and obey the legal expectations for purchasing a car or a house, the process should go smoothly. Without these guidelines and rules, the entire system would fall apart and degrade into anarchy.
Legal norms are also used to protect your rights. You have the right to assume people are telling the truth. You have the right to call the police if you feel threatened. You have the right to not testify against yourself. There are also limits on what the police can do to you or search and seize. Without all of these precedents, there would be no judge to mediate these situations. The arbiters are given power only by the existence of these legal norms.
Legal norms also promote social stability. No matter what kind of system the norm is promoting, it is encouraging order. People can predict what is going to happen in their daily lives. Legal norms help us peacefully coexist with one another. They make up the foundation of our culture and identity.

Enforcement of legal norms

The enforcement of legal norms and rules varies according to the nature of the norm. Primary norms (those prohibiting or requiring certain behavior) are most often enforced through punitive measures such as fines, incarceration, or other penal actions. However, the enforcement structure allows the possibility of remedial measures, particularly when individuals have the capacity to harm the rights or freedoms of others.
Legal norms regulating the structure and organization of the State are primarily enforced through the actions of the governing body, which will enforce rights and obligations through punishment or reparation. These actions are typically not connected to the personal conduct of private individuals.
Private behavior norms are followed and enforced by the affected individuals through sanctions that may include litigation, bills, eviction, or other forms of appeasement. In civil law systems, the enforcement of these norms is often connected to a reduced state role. Parties to a conflict follow the rules of social interaction in order to regulate their own relationships and affairs.
Specialized regulations creating control norms are enforced by the State through its administrative organs. The power to punish violations is allocated to these regulatory entities , which have the authority to intervene in pronounced or suspected violations of administrative regulation.
Control norms are also created by specialized professional regulation. Certain professions such as engineering, architecture, surveying, accounting, and the like, have their own controlling standards. The violation of these norms results in collective sanctions imposed by associations and official bodies. Compliance with these standards may be certified by regulatory bodies that monitor professional work.
In all cases, the State retains ultimate authority over the validity and acceptance of its norms. The Constitution grants the highest status to the general norms of conduct. Further regulations and prohibitions (primary norms) are sanctioned with harsher degrees of punishment than those applied to norms of shape and organization (secondary norms) or norms of control (tertiary norms). The State can only accept that norms are violated based on the punishments applied and the type of prohibited action involved.

Implementation problems with legal norms

The effectiveness of legal norms can be severely tested by the inherent challenges that come with their practical applications. Ambiguities and vagueness inherent in legal language can cause uncertainties about what is expected from those who must comply. In some legal systems, the existence of multiple courts and conflicting decisions might create a patchwork of legal interpretation that is confusing and counterproductive. Moreover, social attitudes and values may all too often clash with what the law prescribes. The existence of laws against certain behaviors does not guarantee compliance. Social backing, or the lack thereof, can prove to render many otherwise efficient norms virtually toothless. For instance, legal norms regarding drug use are often ineffective in societies where the public perception posits that such usage is unproblematic. In fact, rather than reducing drug use, such laws may only serve to transform offenders into social pariahs, without advancing any of the intended corrections. In cases where the force of law attempts to regulate social norms, the failure of the population to comply reasonably with legal dictates creates a rift in society between dissenters and those who do not conform to the breaches of law. Where the majority of individuals struggle to comply with legal dictates, the norms become more like a societal fiction than a functional part of society.

The origins of legal norms

Legal norms have evolved significantly over time, as societies have undergone substantial transformations in their structures and workings. Those transformations sometimes result from relatively sudden social shifts, as when a new entity or profession can change expectations about how certain activities should be conducted. Sometimes, those transformations result from a series of relatively minor incidents, which together suggest that the overall framework is not functioning well and that reform is needed. The resulting body of law itself becomes more complicated and far less clear than it happens to be in other areas.
An example is the modern tendency to regulate the activities of corporate entities through statutory law. By the nineteenth century, American courts had begun to grapple with the significance of this new form of organization by placing corporate behavior on the same footing as individual behavior, treating a corporation as an artificial person, and subjecting corporations to significant direct legal responsibility for their activities. But by the early twentieth century, it was clear that the old common law rules that governed corporate behavior were not sufficient to ensure that those entities would act responsibly. Many viewed the legal regime as too weak to prevent the excesses of powerful business interests, as illustrated by conditions surrounding the meatpacking industry and the railroads. The result was a flurry of statutory law addressing corporate abuse in various popular and legislative reforms, including the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887, and the Elkins Act of 1903. Those laws regulated a wide range of corporate behavior, including price fixing, the awarding of rebates, bribery, and monopolistic practices.
The same problem arose in international relations after World War II, when the United Nations was established to prevent global conflict. Experience showed that the pre-war system had been enfeebled by the lack of a centralized agency in charge of carrying out decisions, enforcing those decisions, or facilitating the means for countries to collaborate. Hence, the post-war reforms took steps to address those deficiencies. By the 1960s, the establishment of various international regulatory bodies had transformed the originally fractious framework into one that was expected to address issues of global concern, from debts, and development in the Americas to weather forecasting and economic cooperation in Africa.
Similar efforts have been made in the human rights arena following the atrocities of World War II , culminating in the establishment of the International Criminal Court, notwithstanding clear patterns of rodent behavior by some leaders in parts of the world. Means and methods developed to facilitate international cooperation, from advance planning, pooled resources and the abatement of prominent risks, proved important as a vehicle to managing risks and a host of other issues. Accordingly, as domestic and state-level issues emerge, countries increasingly recognize that they will suffer a peculiarly disadvantageous position if forced to cope with those problems by themselves. Adding to those concerns is the steady growth of cross-border transactions and contacts, which weakens the relevance of domestic legal systems and demands international responses to address the matters that are most likely to give rise to conflicts.
In many ways, the U.S. judicial system represents one means of responding to the consistent recognition of the shortcomings of the common law, which has spawned a variety of unusual modifications, such as punitive damages and the class action. But while the United States has made clear use of those other means, the nation has also been slow to apply the lessons from international experience to enhance its own framework for managing disputes. Indeed, the option of establishing a specialized court has never been considered seriously in the United States, despite its success in other countries. In many other jurisdictions, states equally conscripted into an international legal system have developed mechanisms to implement various treaty-based provisions in order to provide more predictable legal frameworks and help assure their compliance with certain obligations; while the United State has applied that solution as well in limited circumstances, it still lacks a comprehensive approach. And many countries have recognized the importance of aligning government agencies to responsibilities for what might be considered baseline rules for actions to ensure a minimum standard of compliance with international obligations. By contrast, the United States over the years repeatedly has responded with a piecemeal approach to address international problems, relying heavily on overarching traditions that were once beneficial but that now apply a little too evenly to matters that are quite different—such as the foreign activities of closely held companies, and a one-size-fits-all approach in a country with such a broad range of local approaches.