There are two ways in which a rule can exist within a social Rules group, as a social roles principle, and as an “institutional principle”. There is a social rule within a group if the members of that group follow this rule, if they see the violation of this rule as (self) criticism, and if they think that other members of the group Members do the same.
Social Rules Examples
An example would be a movie club. They have a rule (but no legal rule) that a club member must go to the cinema at least once a week and write a movie review for the club’s website. The existence of the principle is mainly evident from the fact that most of the members actually go to the cinema every week and write about it.
In addition, if a member of the club does not go to see a movie on a particular week, she blames herself for it, and so other members of the group may criticize her. Furthermore, she expects other members of the club to feel somewhat guilty if they do not go to the movies and therefore expect criticism.
Unspoken social rules
This situation should be separated from the group of young people whose only habit is to visit the cinema every week and then blog. If they do not go to the cinema on a particular week, they do not regret it, nor do they criticize. These young people have a tradition or a habit, but no rules.
Social Rules laws can only exist if they are largely effective. This effect requires that the members of the group in which the rule exists comply with the rule as well as consider the violation of the rule as a reason for criticism.
Institutional rules exist if they exist from the application of another principle. This second rule, for example, can assume that all the Social rules made by Parliament are correct.
Such a rule exists in (almost) all legal systems, but only as a principle of customary law. It is not clearly defined.
In that case, there is a rule and it is valid if it is made by Parliament. Another example would be that Social Rules were made by agreement. One of the rules about contracts will be that the rules made by the contracts are correct.
Of course, there is a difference between the laws made by the parliament and the laws of the treaty. The former binds everyone in a country, while the latter binds only the contracting parties.
Effectiveness Not Required
Effectiveness is not a condition for the accuracy of institutional rules. If, for example, Parliament has made a rule that hardly anyone obeys, this rule may still be a valid rule.
The principle of prohibiting pedestrians from crossing the road if the crossing signal is red is an example of such a correct principle, which is widely violated in the Netherlands.
Most of the time, however, a proper institutional rule will be an effective rule.
If an institutional rule is no longer used (desuetude in Latin), it can be seen as a reason to assume that the rule has lost its validity again. If this is the case, then the effectiveness of an institutional principle has some effect.
- Nuisance Law Example – What is a Public Nuisance?
- Proximate Cause – What is the meaning of proximate cause?
- Defamation Law – What is an example of defamation?
- Equity vs equality – What is an example of equity law?
Most Rules Institutional
Today, most legal rules exist as institutional Social rules. They are valid legal rules because they meet the requirements of another rule which states which rules are considered valid legal rules. Often, this second rule gives an individual or entity the power to make new laws. If this person or entity then uses the power of this regulation, then this regulation is considered a valid legal principle.
A common example would be the rule that gives parliament the power to make legal rules. If Parliament exercises this power and makes a law, then the rules contained in this law are regarded as valid legal rules because of the empowering principle. Therefore, these legal rules exist as institutional rules. They are valid legal principles, independent of whether they are effective.