1. LAW AND JUSTICE

2. In order to achieve justice; countries institute a legal system of some sort. Justice is an entirely subjective concept, largely depending on political affiliation, and previous experience of the legal system. Similarly to law, there is a vast amount of documentation providing different definitions and different theories of justice.

3. RELATION This discussion begins with two major conflicting views about justice and law. One view sees justice as no more or less than what the current authority says it is. There are no universal principles by which justice or injustice can be defined other than the way in which the government has made its laws. Thus, in different societies and under different authorities, justice is different. In this view, the idea that there is some sort of universal ideal or natural law is often just an argument by those who do not like the laws of the government in power.

4. The opposing view argues that there is a natural ideal of justice that law aspires to that can be used as a criterion to measure whether laws are just or not. This school of thought is traditionally described as people who support the concept of natural law or natural justice.

5. Socrates (470BC-399BC), Plato (427BC-348BC) and Aristotle (384BC-322BC).

6. Plato For Plato, justice was not just what the government or the stronger said it was, it was yet something else: “Justice is the virtue which keeps everything in its proper place, both the parts of the soul and the citizens of the State. It is the virtue of good order, and the just man is he who keeps the parts of his soul in proper order internally and in the State and maintains and fulfills all his rights, duties and responsibilities to the State as a whole and the other members according to his position in the social organism.”

7. Aristotle, Aristotle, in his book Ethics, describes justice in several ways. One of his discussions describes two sorts of political justice, one legal and one natural. Legal justice is the sort that can take one form in one government and another form in a different society. Natural justice is that which has the same validity everywhere and does not depend upon acceptance.

8. what is the relationship between law and justice? That question can be tackled from many different directions. One angle of approach would be to ask whether there is some essential or necessary connection between legal validity and justice. The view that only just laws are legally valid is usually associated with natural law theory, whereas the view that there is no essential or necessary connection between law and justice is characteristically associated with legal positivism. But whether one is a natural lawyer or a legal positivism, one could say that the laws should be just. Thus, theories of justice can be seen as guiding the science of legislation.

9. LAW AND STABILITY

10. RELATION This law shows, and tells us, how everything in this universe works - and this means EVERYTHING. Law changes with time and with change in the society. Society is stable as well as dynamic. Similarly law at its base is formed on one principle but developed with time in different shapes.

11. “The social interest in general security has led men to seek some fixed bases for an absolute ordering of human action whereby a firm and stable social order might be assured.” - Roscoe Pound, Interpretations of Legal History

12. LAW AND PEACEFUL CHANGE

13. Peaceful Change Strategies To Negotiate or Not to Negotiate: Parties in conflict, as well as conflict scholars, often perceive a dilemma about when to negotiate and when to confront their opponent in an adversarial or even coercive way. Moderates often advocate a "soft path" of conciliation and negotiation, while hardliners advocate using force, either nonviolent or violent, to try to prevail.PartiesModerateshardliners

14. Negotiation and Direct Action Together Despite this image, negotiation and coercive action can actually be paired together very successfully. Both Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr.specify the use of negotiation in their steps for addressing injustice. In fact, both advocate attempting to resolve issues through direct talks with the adversary prior to planning a nonviolent action. Since their philosophies do not treat their adversaries as enemies, there is no intention to harm the adversary. Rather, if the adversary is given an opportunity to respond to the grievance, there may be no need to mount a nonviolent action.addressing injustice nonviolent action

15. Education Education involves efforts to increase the awareness of parties relevant to the conflict. Education is likely to take different forms, depending on the nature of the party. In the case of members of the aggrieved group, people may need further information on the sources of the conflict as well as training in the discipline of nonviolence. Potential allies need to be clear about both the strength of the aggrieved case and ways in which they can support it. Adversaries may need to understand the ways in which their own actions create or exacerbate the injustice and the possible impact on themselves, should people organize to redress it.

16. Confrontation While education is geared to all groups with any stake or interest in a conflict, confrontation is directed only at the adversary. Confrontation tactics are designed to make it uncomfortable, if not impossible, for the adversary to proceed with business as usual. They highlight and help build the strength of the aggrieved group, so that any power imbalance begins to be equalized.

17. Bargaining Bargaining refers to efforts between parties to work out a resolution to the conflict which both find acceptable. In some cases, the parties may be able to fashion an agreement with no external assistance through negotiation. More likely, they may need a third party to help them reach a mediated resolution. In either case, it is important that parties do more than simply reach an agreement.third party

18. Reconciliation During the course of the conflict, parties tend to develop negative, mistrustful feelings toward one other. It is conciliation that sets the stage for moving toward what called as development, "the restructuring of unpeaceful relations to create a situation, a society, or a community in which individuals are enabled to develop and use to the full their capacities for creativity, service, and enjoyment."

19. Legislative and Judicial Remedies There is in fact, another category of peaceable means of approaching conflict. Sharp calls this category "traditional institutional mechanisms" which includes enacting legislation and filing court cases.

20. Conclusion Combining classes of strategies in the service of bringing intractable conflicts to just and constructive conclusions is a challenge. Those who have expertise in conflict resolution are not likely to have expertise in nonviolent action or legislative and judicial processes. People who have devoted their whole lives to one set of mechanisms may have difficulty seeing its limits. Some may be reluctant to combine methods. Nonetheless, each method of peaceful change has its strengths and its limits. A movement to resolve intractable conflict will be empowered by bringing different types of actors into the planning and strategy sessions and by casting the widest net possible for participation. In all probability, conflict-resolution processes will also be helpful in the planning processes rather than simply with opponents.