gal Scholar Dr. Thamer Abdul Jabbar Abdul Abbas Al-Saeedi<br />Ph.D. in Private Law / Commercial Law / E-Commerce<br />Senior Chief Inspector at the Ministry of Communications / Administrative and Financial Department<br />Faculty Member at Al-Mustaqbal University / College of Law<br /><br />Article Objectives:<br />Achieving the 4th and 16th Sustainable Development Goals<br /><br />Two major philosophical schools have dominated the concept of natural law: the school of Thomas Aquinas and the school of Hugo Grotius. However, the philosophies of these two schools have faced criticism from opponents, as reflected in the following two sections:<br /><br />First: Philosophical Outcomes of Natural Law<br />Natural law is considered a set of legal rules derived by reason and aligned with the nature of things. It is objectively existent, and every legislator should reflect the principles of natural law in the rules of conduct they enact by incorporating them into positive laws and national legislation. The variation of positive laws across time and place implies that legislators have not reached a uniform awareness of the principles of this law. A conflict between natural and positive law suggests a rejection of the latter. This philosophical perspective contradicts the view of Thomas Aquinas, who asserted that even positive laws conflicting with natural law should be obeyed. In contrast, French revolutionaries advocated for the natural right to resist tyranny, driven by a desire to overthrow unjust laws, finding in natural law a powerful ally.<br /><br />If natural law is born of nature and reason, then it precedes the existence of society. Therefore, positive laws must guarantee the natural rights of human beings. This led to the prioritization of the individual in society—a philosophy rooted in Christian thought. The French Revolution and the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1789) embraced this idea, defining natural rights as liberty, property, personal safety, and resistance to oppression. These rights, however, were the product of particular class conditions and interests, with human reason used to justify and affirm them.<br /><br />Second: Critique of the Philosophical Concept of Natural Law<br />The traditional philosophical approach of natural law theorists has been critiqued on the following grounds:<br /><br />The metaphysical foundation of natural law posits that the rules governing individual behavior are derived from nature. Thus, nature becomes the supreme legislator, possessing purpose, will, and awareness—qualities only possible if nature is a creation of God. Therefore, natural law is divine law intended by God, the Creator of nature. This religious character implies that only God can grant rights to humans and that such rights carry a sacred status.<br /><br />The conflict between natural and positive law arises from the view that natural law is complete, while positive law is incomplete. This suggests that positive law is unnecessary and lacks value. However, positive law does exist in reality, supported by enforcement mechanisms. The presence of enforcement implies that the individuals subject to it are inherently flawed or corrupt, indicating that human nature is imperfect. This creates a contradiction: if natural law is derived from human nature, and human nature is flawed, then natural law cannot be perfect. To resolve this contradiction, proponents of natural law argue that it is not derived from actual human nature but from what human nature ought to be. Regarding the conflict between natural and positive law, some followers claim no such conflict exists, while others acknowledge it but describe it as exceptional and rare.<br /><br />Al-Mustaqbal University – The Top University in Iraq