LAW, RIGHTS, AND JUSTICE: THE DEFENCE OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FREEDOM

Abstract

It is a legal axiom which is both old and new for those that has endured time. Its legal metronome (time varies) varies in stability and legal security as a form and content. A "legal idiom" has in itself some questions that require answers in legal focus through an elaboration of a contemporary perspective of the right concepts. Simultaneously, this recognizes the functions of law in the modern era and the modern theories which are legal. This study analyses the implementation of legal norms in a confrontational system of values and concepts of comparative legal categories and contemporary legal science. This is carried out in the context of contemporary legal interpretation of science in achieving its ultimate goal: - "Delivering justice." Consequently, this is the greatest victory that mankind possesses. Therefore, in interpreting this phrase: “La Legge e` uguale per tutti!= The law is equal for all!,” the following questions was put into consideration: a) Is the law equal for all? b) Is the law the same for all? c) Is the law approximately the same for everyone? In giving answers to these questions, I always refer to the right expression "Roman" which states that "The logic of the lawyer is approximately equal to the logic of the mathematician." Therefore, between these two logics, there is a connection because the logic of the mathematician serves to interpret the laws of mathematics. In the same vain, the logic by another lawyer serves to interpret its laws and jurisprudence. In recognizing this causal connection, we make use of formal logic which helps us to shed light on the importance of using this logic in these types of sciences. If mathematics is an exact science, the logic of mathematician would lead us through a due outcome of open science and not exact. Thus, this is in connection with the integral (- ∞, + ∞) minus infinity to plus INFINIA. Also, it is in connection with the conclusions of some exercises and problems that arise at the end which is approximately equal, greater, or smaller etc. Nevertheless, this gives logical answers and solutions to these problems. The sheer concept that 1 +1 = 2, is more realistic than 5:3 is approximately equal to 1.7 following the example between the concept of absolute and relative. As such, the logic of the mathematician has led to the exact science of mathematics from the absolute to the relative. Furthermore, the question arises even though it is clear that there is an exact science which is the relative and absolute. It is clear that jurisprudence is not an exact science or absolute, but is relative because justice is the truth in dynamic. Specifically, if you will stick to the adaptation and connotation of the expression, the agreement reached in the speech was that: "The law is equal for all"! Thus, we will have an answer that it is absolute. Consequently, if you will stick to the adaptation and connotation of the expression, the agreement reached in the speech was that: "The law is the same for all"! Then, there would be a response that it is relative. In addition, if you will stick to the adaptation and connotation of the expression, the agreement of the speech stated that: "The law is approximately the same for everyone"! Then, we had an answer that it is between absolute and relative. However, this legal prudence helps us today because we are in a contemporary legal pluralism. Here, the re-conceptualization of the right clarity that comes through its protection of freedoms and human rights, the globalization of law, or the right of other globalized context are stated below: "La legge e`uguale per tutti constitucini". = “Law is equal for all constitutions”.