Law and society 201 final study prep

Law and society emerged as a distinct field of study in the 1960’s. Focuses primarily on
problem-revealing as opposed to problem solving, like legal studies. Is also the study of how law interacts
with society. IE does law impact society or does society impact law? More on that later but is the study of
the interplay of the two. Puts law in its social context.

Very much post WW2 it emerged, (1960s) holocaust played a massive role in its development because of
international human rights laws, international legal policies and political science emerged at the same
time. Its development was also furthered as a result of the civil and political rights movements, LWSO
review/association were also founded around this time

Development was also funded by the idea of examining legal policies and their underlying social values.

Sociologists play a role in studying law by examining how legal processes and systems interact with
society. Further how law interacts with social structure, culture and behaviours. Involves the following as
well. They also practice Praxis (defined: practice as distinguished by theory; practice and action. )

Positivist: Involves looking at society as an external being; a separate perspective; examined from a
non-insiders’ view.

Post-positivist: Dictates it’s impossible to develop a purely objective and neutral stance without being a
member of said society. In other words, it is essential to be a member of the society/be in it in order to
form a valid opinion or gauge anything.

A concept is any form of idea we use to formally organize something. However it must be present
already. Cannot form a concept from nothing. The concepts can be abstract however it must be identified
in the world using indicators.

An institution is any formal body or anything providing stability, that makes human behaviours and
patterns more predictable and accentuated. Further, institutions can be formal or informal. This includes
formal bodies such as governments or regulatory bodies. These are defined as having strict and evident
rules, regulations and processes in which they operate under. There also exist informal institutions such as
cultural groups. These make human patterns and behaviors more evident, however they are not bound by
any strict rules or regulations. Informal institutions are further not bound by any strict punishments (if
applicable)

Law is the set of rules and regulations governing society. It is a formal institution with clearly laid out
processes and punishments. It is both a manipulated and responding variable of society. Is classified by
having external and clearly specified formal rules, bindingness and impartiality (equality)
 -​ Max Weber was the one to propose that law can and should consist of external pressures and
motives to comply, pressures involving coercion or force and official roles in enforcement. All of
these are within his definition of what law should be.

Several types of informal systems exist as well. A norm is a good expectation of appropriate behavior. IE
what’s considered normal and usual within society. A Custom is something that’s been practiced for a
long time and is based on tradition and history. A principal is how things should be. In other words, how
things “oughta” be.

Law has several functions as well. Social Control is having the intentions to gear society towards any
which direction and/or controlling our behaviours. Dispute Resolution is exactly as it sounds. To dispute
issues within society. We see tort law being especially useful here. Social Change is another function of
law, typically considered in a positive fashion. Things such as legalising gay marriage or abortion rights.

Types of law. There exist numerous types of law, some are subcategories of others. Each plays a
distinctive role within the legal system. Not only that, but each acts towards a certain function of law.

Substantive law: Concerns the content of law itself. In other words, the substance of law itself. The
criminal code is an example of it. Things like traffic laws, drug distribution/possession laws, etc.
Basically what the law is.
Procedural law: Defines how the law is laid out. It outlines the powers of the courts and the jurisdiction
of them as well. Who the law affects and how it affects them.
Public law: Defines issues of public interest. Things that concern the safety of the public. Also outlines
the duties of formal institutions, their relationship with the state and the relationship of the state with the
public.
Private law: Concerns private affairs. Is sort of the umbrella term for tort, custody, marriage, contract law
and so on. Affairs of individuals.
Tort law: The interaction of individuals with each other. Is ONLY concerned with the reparation of
damages and “paying back” the victims for what happened. Contrasts criminal law by focusing not on
legal punishments but focusing on reparation of damages.
Criminal law: Also considered to be public law but defines crime and the process of
punishment/prosecution and legal treatment of offenders.
Civil law: Is a form of law in which ALL things are codified/written down. Concerns private matters.
Quebec is the only province in Canada to practice civil law. Not based on legal precedence.
Common law: Is based on legal precedence. The courts take previous legal decisions into account when
practicing law. IE if this had happened before, look at what the punishment was and decide yours off of
that, etc.
-​ Both used in Canada

Legal systems contain the overall framework for how the law operates in accordance with society. Its
procedures, processes and content. The two dominant legal systems are common and civil law.

LWSO has the ability (can and will) permeate each aspect of our life. As it can be viewed as both the
manipulated and responding variable. Certain aspects of our life have the ability to impact which laws are
written and how they’re laid out, while other aspects of our life are shaped by the laws themselves.
Further, how we develop as a society simply as a result of the law itself. Our laws reflect the ideological,
social, economics and political elements of society.

There are 3 main time periods in which sociology of law is examined. Ancient, medieval and modern.

Ancient focuses on society’s transition from hunter-gatherer to an agrarian society and economy. Further,
the institutionalization of religion and philosophy is seen as important because it formalises their rules and
procedures. ATP there are many different forms of legal, political and economic systems worldwide.
Hammurabi Of Babylonia is the first example we have of written law. 282 case laws were literally
written in stone. Ancient Rome saw a significant systemization of law which led to the western world
being heavily influenced by it. The largest influence on our legal system. Natural Law is the idea that
humans are bound to “fall into” law. In other words, it’s omnipresent and by virtue of being human we are
exposed to it as members of a society and by being human. It is a separate entity from the political and
social order. Its roots are present in many many forms of ancient society. Law is generally viewed by
natural law before it is with legal positivism. So being able to see that it exists by virtue of being human
before seeing its presence within an external body.
-​ St. Thomas Aquinas was the first person to propose reason over religion. He said we are
susceptible to law by simply being human rather than being religiously exposed. We are to
discover law through reason and rationality. Key word being discovered.

Medieval: Saw the development of primarily agrarian economies. The feudal system saw most of its use
here as well. Basically just the classification of society. Christianity was spread tons through here as well,
we saw the promotion of natural law within as well. The romano-germanic system was present too,
basically just a modified version of civil law based on the Roman legal system. Common law was
consolidated in England. The Magna Carta (1215) is viewed as one of the first steps towards legal check
and balance. It was a document outlining how royalty is subject to the same laws as common people.
Further, declaring a switch from rule of kings, to rule of law. Otherwise defined as religious ordination no
longer validates your power as a king. You are subject to the same rules as all else.

Modern: Strictly until 1945, everything after 1945 is considered contemporary studies of law and society.
The enlightenment was a period of time where people began to use rationality and logic to make their
decisions as opposed to religious faith. Further, the industrial revolution took a massive boom here and
that promoted the development of rules and regulations concerning it. Colonialism also saw a massive
boom. Modern law had clearly defined rules and regs, therefore making it a formal institution. As well,
more institutions in general had begun popping up and contributing to the omnipresence of law. Saw
many more developed and professional roles within law here. The Treaty Of Westphalia (1648) is
regarded as the first sort of “modern” treaty. Very early on, but the beginning of legal sovereignty (tiers of
legal power) was observed here.

Legal Positivism: Is deemed a rejection of natural law from a legal positivists’ perspective. To elaborate
further, Natural law is heavily morally based. So if a law were to be unjust for whatever reason, its
validity is now under question. Whereas, if an unjust law were to be created from a legal positivist
perspective, it’s still considered a valid law because it was created through a valid legal system.
Regardless of the contents of said law. Legal positivism is also a rejection of natural law because natural
law is seen as an instrument in society. This hurts the feelings of the legal positivist because, law is
considered a separate entity from society.
-​ Thomas Hobbes and Jeremy Bantham were the first to articulate this.

Post-colonial law: Is an idea where; a weaker state/nation lacks the efficiency to operate its legal system
effectively. An example in Canada is colonial law superseding indigenous laws and practices.

Theory in Sociology: Theories must be falsifiable. This is the whole point of creating a theory, to make
an idea that is possibly susceptible to disapproval. Sociological theory regards the interaction between the
behavior of people and the structure of their society. Ideas like marxism, socialisation theory and
constructivism.

Social theory: Is different in the sense that it’s much more abstract and focuses on the big picture as
opposed to specific ideas, like the interaction between societal structure and personal behaviour.

Consensus Paradigm/functionalism: Society can be understood in terms of how interests conflict.

Often, viewed as a struggle for natural resources. In this sense, coercion is deemed the concept holding
society together. Functionalism is understood as a consensus.
-​ Emile Durkheim (more on this later)

Classical theorists
-​ Marx (Economy)
-​ Proposed that the economy is something that holds society together. The buying and
selling of goods is the controlling factor in society. To continue Marx’s thoughts, law is a
result of evolving economic conditions and the necessity to regulate or control. As well,
having the division of class play a role. Historically, it has led to revolt. An example
today is how money goes a long way in the legal system. IE having better lawyers
typically results in a less severe punishment. Or, how large corporations are less
susceptible to legal penalties as a result of their contribution to the economy.
-​ Weber (Rationalization)
-​ Max Weber proposed that we need to replace tradition and faith with reason and
rationality. Further, that we must control rather than be controlled. IE change our belief
 systems in order to be properly informed and make decisions after as opposed to letting
our traditions or faith dictate our decision-making. Also proposed the ideas of rational
law (“normal”) vs irrational (charismatic law, trump is an example)
-​ Durkheim (Functionalist)
-​ Emile Durkheim is a functionalist. Understood society through the consensus paradigm,
that we must all come together to understand society as a whole. Believed in the sharing
of ideas to lead to better comprehension of what society “oughta” be. Social solidarity,
whether it’s mechanical (homogenous) or organic (heterogenous) He also spoke about
how law plays a central role in social solidarity. The crimes committed are the definition
of our society, they define the parameters of legal punishment.
Contemporary theorists
-​ Foucault (Power V. Knowledge)
-​ Michelle Foucault spoke on the emphasis between power and knowledge within society.
Power is consistently present however law is only one place where law can expand itself.
-​ Habermas (Communicative Rationality)
-​ He brought the idea of communicative rationality to light. Similar to Durkheim, how we
must come together and share ideas as a collective to further our shared understandings.
This has the ability to develop a universal moral framework. In other words, personal
beliefs, self-interests and debates must be put to the side in order to better form said
shared understanding. This will help create a just and fair legal system.
-​ Black (Conflict Management)
-​ He proposed that, in order to navigate conflict management law can be used as a tool.
Further, it is now quantifiable as a result. Law’s role in society can be determined through
numerous things; Classification of people, morphology, culture, social organization and
control.

Critical legal studies is the idea of understanding how law interacts with social classification. IE law is
what and for who. As well, this is deeply understood through the already-existing idea of power relations
(classification again) and it rejects it as being value-free.

Social control is a way in which an institution can further the predictability of human behaviours. Social
conformity is the goal here. This is fundamental in society and isn’t only applicable to governmental
functions. Different forms exist, including internal social control which is essentially in your own head,
your own beliefs/ideas. External social control is everything not in your head. Gov institutions,
education, laws/legal systems, enforcement agencies and so on. Can also exist as formal or informal, same
definition as an institution.

Administrative law as social control speaks to how administrative law can dictate forms of social
control. Really only applies to self-governing, independent or governmental regulatory bodies.

Criminal law as social control is what the state deems as tolerable or intolerable public deviance.
Classifies conviction and punishment. Offence against a person, property or something deemed wrong in
and of itself are the categories. This ranges from small fines to the death penalty. Civil commitments
(mandatory AA meetings for DUI) as example are an alternative to a charge. Having a criminal record is
also considered a form of informal social control as it dictates what the person is able to do after.

Death penalty only exists in 4 democracies worldwide. Super controversial. The likelihood of
prosecution is typically much more effective in deterring deviance than the severity of the punishment
itself.

Social control; Victimless crimes are considered wrong in and of themselves, things like prostitution,
drug possession are all very hard to enforce. Harm is only brought to the participating individuals.

Social control; White collar crimes are defined as crimes committed by large corporations, IE those
with money. It’s argued that they are more serious because it reduces the faith in regulatory bodies.
Marxist insights.

Defamation is handled by tort law, the reparation of victims. Libel is written defamation and slander is
spoken.

Contentious politics is a form of social control where society is moved towards something that doesn’t
hurt the norm, or the status quo. Not really “making progress” depending on how you view it. Dissent
based politics should also be taken into account here. Basically just another way of saying shared ideas
can help further any certain motive or idea within society

Social change is an idea in society, where numerous factors are always in play. Is never linear, multiple
factors will always have an influence on it. Cannot ever be as a result of one singular thing. Another way
of thinking is when we see law becoming the result of social change rather than provoking it. Faster
change gives people less opportunity to become used to something, therefore resulting in a greater chance
(or severity) of pushback. Rarely are we ever in control of social change. Conspiracy theories almost
always emerge out of a fear of losing control. It can also be defined as any change to the basic ways
people live their lives. Provision of goods for example, amazon before vs now.
-​ Jeremy Bantham articulates that law is typically sufficient to provoke social change within a
society.
-​ Friedrich Savigny argued that law isn’t typically sufficient to provoke such a change. We must
address underlying social issues first.

Law can be looked at as the dependent variable because it has the capacity to be moved by society.
Law being dependent on social change in order for something to happen. Social conditions, societal
values/attitudes and technological change are the three things most likely to provoke legal change.

Social change can be looked at as the dependent variable from the opposite perspective, society has
the possibility of being moved by law. A large boom in this was seen during the industrial revolution,
massive booms in revenue and technological changes provoked the need for greater regulation and change
in society. Law is used as a tool for driving social change in this case then. It can be oppressive or
regressive.
Law is a driver of social change through numerous means. These include criminal law being the
definition of acceptable public behaviour and having this public law dictate the punishment for deviance.
Administrative law dictates how the punishment plays out. Tort law concerns paying someone back and is
seen as a deterrent in some cases. You must be able to prove how you were wronged and therefore it is
quantifiable. An indirect effect of law being a driver of social change is something like having education
laws become mandatory in society during the industrial revolution. A direct effect is literally just
something being made illegal. Disruption and planning are understood as disrupting anything in that given
moment vs planning for the future respectively.

In order for law to be a catalyst for social change two things must happen; it must be institutionalized
(official rules/processes/boundaries/enforceability) and internalized (understanding what and why it’s
deemed wrong in society. Evan’s (1965) dictates that the enforcement of law must have two things;
reducers (positive) and enforcers (negative) in order to be effective.

The advantages of having law as an instrument for social change is that there is typically a well laid
out intention and deliberate actions. However, social/economic/societal values have no intent. Legitimacy
and bindingness consist of how law should have clearly defined boundaries and rules around how it can
be laid out.

Case studies of LGBTQ rights in Canada: numerous ones exist, but these are the most important.
-​ Egan V. Canada (1995) was a case that had discrimination because of sexual orientation, read into
the Charter of rights and freedoms as prohibited.
-​ Vriend V Alberta (1998) was a case where the Supreme Court made the decision to add a clause
to Alberta’s Individual rights protection act that discrimination because of sexual orientation ain’t
cool.
-​ Civil marriages act (2005) was when same sex marriage was legalized across Canada.
-​ Bill C-4 criminalized conversion therapy.

Case studies of indigenous rights in Canada: Again, multiple ones exist but these are the most notable
-​ R. V. Drybones was when someone was found drunk away from a FN’s reserve and this was
deemed illegal under the Indian Act. Then the Supreme Court did a review of said act and
determined it was a violation of the Bill of Rights (the Charter’s predecessor)
-​ Lovelace V. Canada was where the UN human rights committee deemed the Indian Act as
discriminatory based on gender. A man marrying a non FN woman wouldn’t lose his status as FN
but a woman marrying a non FN man would lose her status as indigenous.
-​ Haida Nation V. BC was where the Supreme Court ruled a decision over disputed land
obligations.

Many limitations to social change exist and most notably these are rooted in power. Whether it’s
through power relations or dynamics, most of the limitations to social change lay here. Critical legal
studies examines this further. The most powerful groups in society are typically the ones who are creating
and influencing the creation of laws the most. This is the biggest limitation. As well, this leads to fatalism;
think of our generation’s “why vote? It doesn’t matter”
Morality and societal values also play a role in generating some of the limitations we see. VERY BIG
correlation with Jeremy Bantham/Thomas Hobbes

Resistance to change is seen as a healthy, omnipresent part of society. Weber’s notion of external forces
to comply and Durkheim’s functionalism/pluralism are present here. People coming together to share
opposition to ideas, etc.

Liberalism consists primarily of individual liberty. This is the central/driving concept. Must be taken into
consideration that this is distinctly very different from left-wing/libertarianism.

Modern liberal society is one that consists of a society understood in terms of a social contract. This is a
concept where the state of things currently are used to determine the nature of society itself. Includes
Secularism, (separation of state and church) democracy (democratic/civil/political rights) and Capitalism
(the disembedded economy)

Liberalism and the law have numerous ties, including but not limited to constitutionalism, where
fundamentally law is the basis for governmental authority. Rule of law, where all are subject to the law.
Private property is considered an aspect of liberalism, brought forward by John Locke. Political and Civil
rights are the rights to participate in a democracy

Modern liberal human rights concern the rights that are given to you by virtue of being human. These
are natural rights. Human rights are considered to be equal, inalienable and universal. 3 distinctions exist,
including civil/political, economic/social/cultural and collective rights. Our legal obligations (human
rights) are separated to international ones and domestic. These are institutionalized in Canada through the
Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Outlines our natural rights in a modern liberal society. Internationally,
included in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights laid out by the UN. These are all VERY different
from the notion of social justice; the individual side, (considered bad) and is economically class tied to
equity under law.

Economic liberalism is classified under 3 categories. No singular political or economic definition exists.
Classical Individually based, where the state is obligated to leave people to their own
liberalism devices/have minimal impact or control over everything. Just supervision. When
the state pulled out, we saw the Great Depression because of a lack of government
regulations and processes. WW1/WW2 saw many trade wars and a reliance on
dependency as opposed to cooperation. This is the pre war to post war era.

New/embedded Speaking in terms of political and economic ideas. This was to save the idea of
liberalism capitalism and NOT to replace what was already going on. Society felt disobeyed
by liberalism and this led to further control by the government and more provisions
to “soften” the blow of what was going on. Post WW2 - 70’s era.

Neoliberalism Why such an economic slowdown? This came as a result of state over-involvement
and resulted in a massive pull back on state regulations and provisions. Post 70’s
era.
Liberal thinking dates back a long time. Ideas about society itself supersede the thoughts of liberalism
today. This is heavily reinforced by the scientific revolution and the enlightenment era.
-​ Thomas Hobbes and his idea of the social contract in Leviathan

The enlightenment was a movement in Europe emphasizing the importance of rationality over belief.
This formed part of the scientific revolution of the era. Also the same era where St. Thomas Aquinas
presented the idea of natural law Rationally deduced natural law. Challenging the religious rule at the time
and the divine ordination of kings. Rene Descartes is important here too.

John Lock was an important figure during the enlightenment era. His thinking included; an empirical
“theory of mind” which was just the summation of knowledge through reason. As well, he offered a
different approach to social contract theory; whereas T. Hobbes’ Theory was inherently self-interest
based, Locke’s was more a collective rationalization based on voluntary collective action. Equal and
natural human rights are present here. Private property was understood as such. He also emphasized the
importance of secularism.

JJ Rousseau was another critical liberal thinker of the time. His findings offered another alternate take to
social contract theory, his state the importance of the collective will of the people. Humans in nature are
“noble savages.” Think of collectivism again, but a shared understanding of important resources. Think of
two tribes at the watering hole, not attacking each other. This is relevant with Rousseau. Collective
interest drives this. This furthered the idea of having society vote for everything. IE not having elected
officials, but having the people vote for everything in their society. He also stated that private property
was one of the biggest sources of inequality in society.

Emmanuel Kant argued that reason is developed in a social context. Moral law should be present based
on reason. The categorical imperative is an idea proposed by him, where we have certain rules we follow
because they’re seen as a duty and therefore good in itself. Human rights are seen like this today

John Stuart Mill outlined the ideas of “principle of liberty” which was based around the harm principle.
Further, utilitarianism is being used to promote the most amount of good for the most amount of people.
He also warned of the tyranny of the majority, in which the ideas of the majority supersedes those of any
other group.

John Rawls spoke of how “justice is fairness” by having almost a distribution of wealth. As well, he
outlined how an original position can be present under a veil of ignorance.

Conservatism is seen as a challenge to liberalism, because it involves conserving certain values in

society. These values may not align with those who are more progressive and liberal in nature. In other
terms, we may not be able to evolve liberally as a society if we are still trying to preserve previous beliefs
and values. Burke’s insights can be seen here.
Fascism is also a clear challenge to liberalism, in the sense that it prohibits the individual pursuit of
freedom by having a government that limits individual liberty. Specifically ideas such as equality by
nature, political democracy and human rights.

Resolving disputes between two parties involves the legal or non-legal settling and/or managing of
contending interests between two parties. As well, this involved many forms of resolution throughout
history. It is seen as very very important because it maintains relationships and social order, de-escalates,
and “dispenses” justice.

Legal dispute resolution is a crucial and fundamental function of law. It doesn’t necessarily involve the
specific resolution of settling disputes, but more concerns the management and regulation of disputes.
Law has no interest in addressing the underlying issues behind these disputes, only the dispute itself. In
this context we will be using a neutral third-party intermediary to help address. Grievance/pre-conflict,
conflict and the dispute are the 3 stages of a legal dispute resolution.

Many forms of dispute resolution exist, they are mostly classified into legal and non legal methods.
Methods can vary according to the voluntariness of the parties involved, including 3rd party. Inaction is
the most common form of resolution, mostly concerned with just doing nothing.

Methods of dispute resolution are as follows:

LEGALLY BINDING Has legal enforceability

Arbitration The involvement of a third party to assist in decision making, is usually

less formalized.

Adjudication A formal and legally binding (judicial) method. Involves litigation

(initiating legal action) with an emphasis on the legal rights/duties of
disputants.

Hybrid resolution Involves different forms of legal dispute resolution, like taking a
retired judge to give an opinion, fake mini-trials etc. Essentially both
parties sign an agreement beforehand giving it legal weight, as well as
anything in this category can be brought forwards to real judges to be
enforced.

Alternative resolution Beyond hybrid resolution, things like indigenous practices etc.

NON LEGALLY BINDING No legal enforceability

Negotiation An interpersonal resolution where the complainants settle the dispute

themselves. Multiple types exist too; Dispute negotiation resolves
conflict that’s already occurred with an end goal of finding a mutually
 acceptable solution to the problem, focusing mostly on rights,
obligations and/or fairness. Distributive is a win/loss scenario, think
divorce negotiations about property and finance. Transactional is
something like a business contract in which both parties establish a
beneficial agreement.

Mediation A voluntary process where a mediator assists in a resolution between

the two parties. A facilitator is just to offer solutions, facilitate and a
rights-based mediator has more authority about the result, not legally
binding but ensures people are owning up to their obligations.

Ombudsperson An investigative mediator. Either private or governmentally

orchestrated.

Tort Law is obviously heavily applicable here because it concerns the addressing of wrongdoings and the
compensation for the plaintiffs. Legal liability is strictly based on the probability of something
happening, whereas legal guilt is your criminal legal responsibility and the reasonable doubt in juries.

Punitive damages are those that are awarded to the victim for their troubles. Basically doubling down on
what’s already owed, almost like a little double jeopardy. Giving the plaintiff more than what they
deserve. Specific deterrence is focused on deterring one singular person from committing an act again
whereas general deterrence is the idea of deterring society/the public from acting this way or committing
whatever crime.

Torts can be separated into numerous types. NOTHING about intent.

Intentional tort Is the result of a direct and intentional physical/mental/reputational harm to a

person. Things like assault, slander/libel are here. Typically where we see the
highest awards and punitive damages awarded.

Unintentional Is legal negligence. Not meeting a duty of care while having a standard of care laid
tort out. Not meeting a reasonable standard. Something like slipping on someone's
sidewalk 25 hours after a snowfall. You are technically legally liable because you
didn’t act on the standard of care and failed to meet your duty of care.

Strict liability Where all possible actions have been taken to avoid legal liability, like if a dog
tort bites your child even after they’ve been tied up, caged and fenced in. A remaining
legal responsibility still exists even if all precautions have been taken. Vicarious
liability

Criteria for the courts in dispute resolution include, justiciability; When an actual legal line has been
crossed, justifying the dispute resolution. Legal standing; basically you have to either be the defendant or
plaintiff - you can't sue someone on your friend’s behalf. Importance: obviously how important
something is. Temporality; you have 2 years to sue someone, EXCEPT for sexual assault cases; in
Alberta there is now no timeline for when a victim is able to press charges. Resources; as it sounds, but
also why some lawyers offer pro bono work. Willingness; is key for a civil case, but also something like
a sexual assault victim won’t come forwards for a while due to fear of rebuttal.

Remoteness in tort law; is a concept where if the damage was not reasonably foreseeable, the defendant
cannot be held liable. The damage is said to be “too remote.”

Litigants are the people who are initiating legal action. Can be one-shotters or repeat players. Between
individuals, disputes are almost entirely economic or non-economic. Whereas, between an individual and
a corporation, many exist; Economic and damage claims, an organization’s actions/policies/procedures
can all dictate what goes on. Larger organizations are typically more successful and they may use the
courts as a collection system.

Litigation and the increasing role of the courts leads to a larger role of the courts in society. Jobs within
the courts have also expanded significantly, development model approach here but as the scope of law
expands, so does the amount of litigation. With the introduction of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms,
litigation has been on a rise in Canada ever since.

Litigiousness across other societies include how they measure litigiousness; the % of disputes involving
the court and the % of disputes being taken to the court by the adult population. Modernity, culture,
economic shifts and government spending all impact litigiousness within a society.

Democracy is a highly contested concept, in which the rule of the people dictate what goes on. Heavy
emphasis on individual political/civil rights here; A democracy consists of regular elections and
CONSTITUTIONALIZED civil and political rights. Wide participation is considered an asset, things like
equality, transparency, lack of corruption, etc.

Civil societies concern the realm of voluntary associations. Things like independence of the state and the
market, pursuing public interests etc. Is a necessity for democracy. Basically a group that comes together
and collectivises about what happens. Does good things for other people, specifically the provision of
public goods.

Goods of democracy include a peaceful transition of power, the ability to have multiple political parties
work together to ensure peace and stability. Civil/political rights, which a democracy can’t exist without.
Political participation is obviously crucial, having people interact with their government in order for their
voice to be heard. Accountability is also present here. Healthy democracies have more social tolerance,
and economic growth is seen as important as well.

Vertical Accountability concerns accountability from institutions above or below. Quite literally vertical,
think power relations, between society and institutions and so on. Mostly present through elections.

Horizontal Accountability is mostly present within the government. Think again, quite literally, across
branches of government. So things like having the 3 branches of government in the states or having
judicial review in Canada. Forms part of the check & balance system.
Liberal democracy is seen in tie with John Locke, his notions of private property deemed as part of your
rights. Further, less self-interest based and collective rationalization through voluntary collective action.
Liberal democracy is heavily tied to the individual. Focused on equal opportunity and birth rights.

Social democracy is more emphasized through an equitable distribution of wealth. Equality of

outcomes/2nd generation rights.

The media plays a role in democracy through informing us of what happens. Is extremely important for
us to have multiple sources of media, as they’re typically heavily influenced. This is called a Buy-me
bias. Especially evident in the oil and gas industry. The role of the media is to have a form of mass
communication. Media bias and manipulation form part of the challenges towards democracy. Intentional
disinformation is VERY harmful towards democracy, whereas disinformation in general is less harmful.
Social media and the internet prey on the vulnerable crowd.

More challenges for democracy include the tyranny of the majority, the paradox of tolerance (where we
must consider that not all ideas are great - we gotta say no to some things in order for us to be able to
allow all ideas to shine through.) Armed conflicts as well, constantly undermine democracy. An economic
decline is also when people take on a more authoritarian stance and this also forms part of the conflict.
FATALISM - the “oh well” mindset.

Imposing democracy can look like many different things. Post WW2 japan was debatably a success,
whereas post 9/11 Iraq/Afghan conflicts saw a failed attempt at the imposition of democracy. This is
heavily criticized as democratic imperialism and therefore bad.

Some alternatives to democracy exist though, these are things like authoritarianism; a catch-all form of
government. Definitely not a democracy. Consists of a political hierarchy, no transparency, limitations on
rights and the rule of law and limited accountability. An autocracy is one person whereas an oligarchy is a
group.

Freedom in the world is measured through an annual report done by the freedom house, it measures a
country’s civil and political rights. In 2024, we saw the 18th consecutive year of a democratic decline
worldwide

The rule of law is where all people, regardless of political and social power, are subject to the law.
Things like the monarchy and members of government. Things like the supremacy of law, legal equality,
accountability, legal consistency and participation are all important aspects of the rule of law. The law
regulates itself so it is by definition legally positivist. This is where vertical and horizontal accountability
are present.

Rule of law in terms of state strength and democracy; These are all self-enforcing. State strength is the
strength of a state to perform its most basic functions, a certain degree is required in order for the state to
ensure the rule of law. Also called the fragile state index. Democracy again here, horizontal/vertical
accountability.
The rule of law index is a measurement of a country’s efficiency to apply the rule of law. Created by the
World Justice Project. It measures 9 different dimensions; the constraints on gov power, open gov,
absence of corruption, order/security, regulatory enforcement, criminal justice, fundamental rights and
civil/informal justice. The absence of corruption is only perceived as you can’t accurately self-report this.
In 2024 we also saw another decline here, the 7th consecutive year of rule of law decline. Many
correlations here and with other indexes/measurements.

Constitutions are a fundamental part of society. They constitute a political society. They are the
foundation and supreme laws that form the basis of a legal system in any political society. Democratic
constitutions typically limit the exercise of power. They are obviously very different across societies; The
Canadian constitution consists of a hybrid, written constitution. Multiple pieces exist, whereas the USA’s
is strictly written and only has 1 piece. In Canada, no judicial decisions can conflict as a result of the
judicial review system. Thi is a form of horizontal accountability.

To continue constitutions, they are typically very hard to change because they outline the fundamental
laws in a society. Many forms of amending them exist. In Canada, we have a few systems of amendment;
The 7/50 rule, where 7 provinces must be in agreement and of those 7 provinces, they must hold at least
50% of the population. We also have a state of emergencies act, which allows us to revoke certain rights
temporarily and have executive control over something. Things like national emergencies constitute the
use of this.

Types of constitutions can also vary, democratic and authoritarian constitutions. Written (USA)
unwritten (UK) and hybrid (CAN) The UK has a flexible constitution because it’s unwritten, whereas we
have an inflexible constitution because it’s hybrid and we must have the 7/50 rule in place to protect it.

The Constitution of the US is the world’s longest standing codified constitution; it contains the preamble
of “We The People” with 7 articles and 27 amendments. 2nd amendment is to bear arms and 1st
amendment is the very strong protection of freedom of speech (which includes hate speech)

The Constitution of Canada was created around the British North America Act (1867) this was the
foundation to our constitution today and was a rule enacted by the Brits to create Canada as its own
country. This included outlining powers and levels of government and so on. Canada wasn’t fully
sovereign until 1982. The constitution act of 1982 renamed the BNA as the constitution act. This added
things like indigenous rights, an amending formula and equalization rights (equal collaboration between
all provinces)

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms replaced the Canadian Bill of Rights. Quebec and Alberta were
skeptical about it and Quebec never fully endorsed it. Section 1 is the limitations clause, so limits on free
speech (hate speech) and things like national emergencies constitute the use of the emergencies act.
Section 33 is called the notwithstanding clause and this can be invoked by any level of government. It
allows these institutions to temporarily create a law that goes against certain things in the Charter. Cannot
go against mobility, democratic or language rights.
Judicial review is the process where the Canadian Courts review governmental legislation and/or
administrative decisions to ensure constituency with the Charter and/or the constitution. This also then
gives them power to override or overturn these decisions as needed. A form of check and balance.