If it comes to a conflict between that which is legal and that which is lawful, which is superior law?

When a conflict arises between what is legal (i.e., in strict accordance with statutory laws) and what is lawful (i.e., in accordance with broader principles of justice and morality), the concept of superior law comes into play. Superior law refers to the idea that certain principles, often grounded in constitutional, natural, or common law, take precedence over ordinary statutory laws.

1. The Primacy of Lawful Over Legal

• Common Law and Natural Law: Common law, which is rooted in centuries of judicial decisions and principles of justice, often reflects what is considered lawful in a broader sense. Natural law, a philosophical concept, holds that certain rights and moral principles are inherent and universal, regardless of specific legal statutes. When statutory laws (what is legal) conflict with these deeper principles, many legal scholars argue that the lawful principles should take precedence.
• Judicial Review and Constitutional Law: In many legal systems, courts have the power to strike down laws that are legal but conflict with constitutional principles (which are seen as a higher form of law). For example, a law might be perfectly legal according to the letter of the statute but could be ruled unconstitutional if it violates fundamental rights or principles enshrined in the constitution.

2. Examples of Legal vs. Lawful Conflicts

• Civil Disobedience: Throughout history, acts of civil disobedience have often been illegal according to the statutory laws of the time but were later recognized as lawful in a broader moral sense. For example, during the Civil Rights Movement, many activists broke segregation laws that were legal but unjust. Their actions were later vindicated as lawful in terms of fundamental human rights.
• Judicial Nullification: In some cases, juries or judges may refuse to convict or enforce a law they believe is unjust, even if it is legal. This reflects the idea that the lawful principle—justice, fairness—can sometimes override what is merely legal.

3. The Role of Courts

Courts play a crucial role in resolving conflicts between legal and lawful principles. When a legal statute conflicts with broader lawful principles, higher courts (especially constitutional courts) can declare the statute invalid or interpret it in a way that aligns with broader principles of justice and fairness.

• Case Law: Through the development of case law, courts interpret statutory laws in light of constitutional principles and common law precedents, ensuring that the application of the law remains lawful.
• Human Rights and International Law: In many jurisdictions, international human rights laws or treaties can override domestic statutes, particularly when they conflict with fundamental rights. This further illustrates the primacy of lawful principles over legal statutes.

Conclusion

In conflicts between what is legal and what is lawful, the concept of lawful, representing higher principles of justice, fairness, and fundamental rights, is often considered superior. Courts, constitutional frameworks, and international human rights norms are key mechanisms through which lawful principles can override statutory laws when they are in conflict. Thus, while legality pertains to adherence to specific laws, lawfulness reflects a deeper, more enduring commitment to justice, and in many legal systems, it is seen as the superior standard.