Article by our Founder “Common law and civil law regarding commercial digital advertising”

Common law and civil law regarding commercial digital advertising

Camilo Alfonso Escobar Mora[1]

 

 

Abstract: Common law and civil law are just law when are compatible with the juridical foundation. That is why more than common law, civil law or any other legal system there has to be a juridical way of existence. That is why more than a legal system there is the law. The law being. The law way (form) of existence.

 

That (this) is why the juridical valid way of existence in a State is the Rule of Law. That, properly, means the State whose (which its) existence is based in the juridical foundation. In the way of existence of the law. In the law. This is why, properly, more than a ruled States it is about the State which its form of existence coincides with the law.  That is why, properly, it is about the juridical State. That means, some (any) State way of existence harmonic with the juridically valid way (form, condition) of existence of a State.

 

This article shows the universality of the law (because there is just one law, the law, being; the law way, form, of existence) using (the) commercial digital advertising (being; when it is subject to the law because, it, exists in a juridical case) as an example.

 

Keywords: Law; common law; civil law; juridical validity; juridical diligence.

 

Table of contents

I. Introduction.

II. Development.

III. Conclusions.

 

 

I. Introduction

 

The objective (the purpose) of this article is to show how Law (how the Law) is just one. There can exist manifestations (that try to be) related with law but there are just juridical (manifestations, juridical forms of existence, juridically valid beings) if they are in accordance with what is defined in the law (being). So (for example) there can exist legal systems but they are just juridical forms if (they are) compatible with the law. If they coincide with the juridical must be. That means, the Law (being). The law is one being. It is unique. It is universal. It is clear.

 

That (this) is why (for) example the law applies to (the) commercial digital advertising (being). When that kind of advertising exists inside a juridical case (that means, a juridical relationship which its form of existence is defined throught the time and space, that means, through the form, necessary for the existence of, all, the juridical rights and duties that exist, apply, in that relationship). So, there can be different juridically valid ways (forms) of existence (beings) of (the) commercial digital advertising. Tailored to each juridical case form of existence in which it (this being; each being; that being; all the form of its existence; the advertising) exists.

 

Because through juridical diligence each advertising being (way of existence) can coincide with its (respective) juridical must be (that means, with the law) in different ways. Because there is (there exists) the juridical freedom (liberty). And because the juridically determinant thing (aspect, form of existence) is the existence of the enjoyment of all the juridical rights and the fulfillment of all the juridical duties that has each human being in each juridical case. Depending on each juridical case way of existence.

 

That is why the juridical compliance (the compliance of, with, the law) means the duty to enjoy all the juridical rights and to fulfill all the juridical duties that each human being has in each juridical case. Because that is the only (unique) way in which juridical effectiveness exists. But it is through the (juridical) freedom (liberty) in which each human being does it (that) in each juridical case. So, there is (only) one (there is a unique) juridical valid condition of existence. That means, the juridical validity is just one being. There is just one juridical validity being. Because there is just one law. The law. Law. Properly, because there is (there exists) the law.

 

The juridical norms included in the article are just for illustrative purposes.

 

Some quotations are extensive because they are needed in that form to let each of them explain the respective topic linked to it.

 

The quotations are presented (communicated) in a clear (including, explicit) way.

 

Some words are repeated constantly for giving a clear communication (a clear understanding).

 

 

II. Development

 

If there is a relationship between the juridical way of existence face to commercial digital advertising this will communicate why the law is just one and, in consequence, why it is just possible to get juridical validity if there is just (universal) law. Because (as it was said before) the law is just one being and each (humanly) being exists universally. This is why there can not exist two beings of the same being. Another thing is that each being could have different forms of existence. If in each of those forms it is attended (to) its (universal) estructure. That means, its elements of existence. Its conditions of existence. That is why the law structure (foundation, basis, elements of existence, conditions of existence, structure) is just one.

 

This is why the philosophy of law (not philosophies about law that are not in accordance with the philosophy of law nor philosophies that try to be related with the law being and that are not because exist in a juridically invalid arbitrary way, that means, that does not coincide with the law; another thing is the existence of ideas related with the law that are in accordance with the law and in that way are part of the law, total, being) clarifies the structure of the law (being). Of the law way of existence. Of the juridical  foundation.

 

And that is why the juridical diligence is (means) the attendance of the juridical foundation tailored to each juridical case. That means, is the form of (the human being) existence (subject to the law due to the fact that exists inside a juridical case) that coincides with the law. Tailored to each juridical case form (way) of existence. And this is why the juridically valid juridical relationship created based on a commercial digital advertising (creation, existence) is juridically valid when it (the advertising) exists in a juridically diligent way (thanks to the existence of the juridical diligence in, on, each human being related with its way, form, of existence tailored to the way in which the respective juridical case involved exists). Because it (that, this) is the way in which it (the advertising, being) coincides with its (respective) juridical must be. That means with the law.

 

And (also) this is why the noncompliance of law does not have a solution (remedy) for giving back the invalid juridical effect, way of existence, (that it, that this, that that, causes). Another thing is that some things can be recovered. Inclusive, repared. But even in those cases the (total) effect of compliance with the law does not exist. Because (the) juridical effectiveness does not exist (including, totally, plenty, fully, continuously, permanently). For example, if something (if some thing, if a thing) can be repaired there is the inexistence of the juridical effectiveness since the moment (time and space) in which it was affected until the moment in which it is repaired. And (also) in some cases it is just possible to repair some aspects, not the entire (total) being (being that could be, for example, the being of a human being, the being of another subject, as the other animals or the plants, or the being of an object).

 

That is why if there is an exclusive focus in the short term some time the “short term” (that exists in the short, middle and / or long term with respect to that, initial, short term, depending on each juridical case way, form, of existence) will be juridically inviable because that short term will be the (form of existence) of the juridically invalid effect of the (initial) short term that existed in a juridically invalid way (form) of existence. That is why it is determinant to (always) exist in a (total) juridically valid way (form, of, existence). LEGUAY shows:

 

“In this digital world, more people than ever are dependent on social media platforms and the influencers using these platforms to help them decide what to buy. From promoting luxury cars to fast fashion trends, social media influencers hold extensive power to affect the consumption decisions of many individuals worldwide through platforms including Instagram, Facebook, TikTok, and Snapchat.

 

However, a recent determination by the Australian Ad Standards Community Panel (Panel) provides a clear reminder to all commercial brands and social media platforms that influencers are required to make it clear when their posts are actually advertising. The case involved an Instagram post by social media influencer, Anna Heinrich that was found in breach of Section 2.7 of the Australian Association of National Advertisers (AANA) Code of Ethics (Code) which requires advertising to be clearly distinguishable as such. Since 1 February 2021, amendments to Section 2.7 of the Code no longer requires advertising to be distinguishable ‘to the relevant audience’. This means the argument previously adopted by brands, that because their targeted social media audiences understand how influencers work they do not require a transparent disclosure of the sponsorship or paid partnership at play between the brand and influencer, is no longer permissible. There is now a positive obligation imposed on influencers to disclose commercial relationships in a clear, upfront manner than can be easily understood.”.[2]

 

This shows the worldwide (universal, regarding human being existence) impact of law. And of (and about) digital means (when there is one digital form inside a juridical relationship that causes a worldwide juridical effect; there are other juridical relationships that cause national or transnational juridical effects, depending on the way of existence of each juridical relationship; the human being is universal, in all contexts in which a human being exists). All is based on the fact that there are human beings. And human beings are (the human being is) universal (in all related with the human being’s existence). It is a (humanly) universal being. Another thing is that there are diverse human beings forms (ways) of existence. But there are not humans that are no humans. That is why there is the (one, universal) law. MONTGOMERY and SMITH delimit:

 

“Personalization is a key component of an interactive marketing strategy. Its purpose is to adapt a standardized product or service to an individual customer’s needs. The goal is to create profit for the producer and increased value for the consumer. This goal fits nicely into traditional notions of segmentation. Applications of personalization have advanced greatly in conjunction with the Internet, since it provides an environment that is information rich and well suited to interactivity. This article reviews past research on personalization and considers some examples of personalization in practice. We discuss what we believe are key problems and directions for personalization in the future”.[3]

 

And (for example) there is no consumer law. There is law. And there has to be the enjoyment of (juridical) rights and fulfillment of (juridical) duties tailored to each (juridical) case. So, it must be (it must exist) juridical validity in each juridical relationship. Because juridical validity means accomplishment with the law. So, juridical validity exists when there is juridical effectiveness. That means when (juridically) there is that enjoyment of rights and fulfillment of duties. In the respective juridical case involved.

 

A juridical right is (means) the way for enjoying (the) freedom (liberty; the juridical freedom, liberty; the juridically valid freedom, liberty, way of existence). A juridical duty is (means) is the way for making the enjoyment (way of existence) of the juridical rights. Each juridical duty exists (is attended) through the juridical freedom (liberty) that exists tailored to each human being juridical way (form) of existence tailored to each juridical case way (form) of existence.

 

That is why each (juridical) right and duty is exercised (exists) in a juridically valid way when it exists based on the juridical diligence that applies for its respective form of existence (that means, tailored to the juridical diligence that applies to its respective right or duty, way of existence, being, depending on the kind of juridical form existing; that means, depending on if it is a juridical right or a juridical duty and depending on what kind of juridical right or duty it is). That is why the law applies tailored to the respective (that means, tailored to each) juridical case form of existence existing (that means, based on the respective, that means, based on each, juridical case, way of existence, involved). Because (as it is continuously say in this article) the juridical diligence is the juridically valid human being way (form) of existence in each juridical case.

 

That is why juridical validity is (means) to comply with the law. And that is why the juridical effectiveness is (means, the, a way of, existence of the) effect of complying with the law. That means, is the existence of the juridical rights enjoyment and the juridical duties fulfillment. That is why when there is (when there exists) juridical validity exists (there is) juridical effectiveness. Properly, that is why juridical validity involves (properly, is; means) the law way of existence. It is the law being way of existence.

 

And that is why the juridical effectiveness is the effect of the juridical validity existence (that means, is the effect of the compliance of, with, the, law; is the effect of the effectiveness, of the existence, of the application, of the efficiency and efficacy, of the total attention, of, the, law; in each juridical case, including the case of the creation of the law, being, way, condition, form, of existence, foundation, that means, of the juridical foundation). That is why, the juridical effectiveness exists when there is (when there exists) juridical diligence because it is the way for creating (making) juridical validity (that means, because it is the way for complying with the law, tailored to each juridical case way, form, of existence). SANDERS sensitizes:

 

“Although natural law has had its detractors, with Jeremy Bentham having decried natural rights to be “nonsense upon stilts,” the notion has exerted a significant influence on understandings of human rights. The Magna Carta, the English Bill of Rights, the French Declaration of the Rights of Man, and the U.S. Bill of Rights all directly inspired the United Nations Universal Declaration on Human Rights of 1948, a document of immeasurable importance and influence.  Of particular note is the third paragraph of the preamble to the Declaration, which recites that “it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law.””. [4]

 

This lets show why the determinant aspect is that each so-called “legal system” to be juridically valid. Because the relevant element (condition of existence) is to comply with the law. That is why (for example) if a “legal system” is just based on the corrective application of law there is no, the, law. Because there is no compliance (accomplishment) of (with), the, law. That is why there is just a legal system when there is the existence of all parts (of all the being parts) and, properly, of the total (entire, whole) being of, the, law. And properly, that is why it is not about a legal system but a juridical system. Properly, this is why it (the, law) is about a juridical way of existence. A (some) way of (total, full, plenty, absolute, clear, effective) existence of (the) law. And that is why (juridically) the Rule of Law means the (a) State which exists (means a State existing) according (that means, in a harmonic way with respect) to, the, law. That is why (the) law does not just mean a rule. A law. Means the entire juridical being (the entire law way of existence; total, complete, integral, absolute, clear, harmonic, law being; the entire, total, way of existence of, the, law).

 

For example, the European Union had involved and has some countries with different legal systems (properly, with different juridical systems, because the law is more that just laws, and laws have to be juridically valid to be part of, the, law; so there is just a juridical system when there is juridical validity, the rest is not related with, the, law) and, in general, has involved countries with their own rule of law (punctualizing that a rule of law just exists when the way of existence of the respective State involved is harmonic with the law, with what is defined on the law) but (it, the European Union) promoves harmony. Thanks to the law. The law way of existence. The law’s foundation. The law foundation. Because there is just one law. One juridical must be. One juridical foundation. So, (juridically) there can be (there can exist) pluralism because there is (juridically valid) freedom (liberty). So, it is not about unification. Properly, it is not about unrecognizing diversity. It is about the existence of freedom in an harmonious way with law. Because it is the only way in which each human being can enjoy the juridical rights and comply with the juridical duties. Tailored to each (juridical) case (form of existence).

 

The determinant aspect is to exist in some way according (harmonic, that coincides, which coincides) with the law (in each juridical case, that means, in each environment subject to the law, in each juridical relationship, in each, human, relationship subject to law, in each human relationship that causes, creates, juridical effects, in each, human, relationship in which there exists juridical rights and duties, that means, rights and duties defined on the law, on the foundation of, the, Law, on the law foundation, on the juridical must be being, that means, on the juridical must be defined in, on, through, the Philosophy of Law, which, at the same time, defines the being of the Theory of Law, which, at the same time, defines the Rule of Law way of existence).

 

That is why the pragmatic (the effective, including, the practical) way of life (related with the human being existence) is the juridical validity (way of existence). Because it is the way in which everyone (every human being, and every being related with every human being, way of, existence) lives (properly, exists), juridically, good (in each juridical case). That means (that is to say), because it is the way (of existence) in which every human being (existing in each juridical, human, relationship) enjoys the juridical rights and fulfills the juridical duties that has (tailored to the respective juridical relationship way, form, of existence).

 

And that is why juridically valid theory is needed for the existence of the juridically valid practice. Properly, that is why juridical foundation of (jurídical) diligence (way of existence) is needed (is necessary) for the juridically valid way of (human being) life (properly, existence). In (on, regarding) each juridical relationship. Because it is the way of existence of juridical (total, including, theoretical and practical) effectiveness. That is why the juridically valid way of existence is the being created by (as) the result of the union of (between) the juridically diligent theory and practice (way of existence). Tailored to each juridical case way of existence.

 

The harmonic juridical relationships that existed in the (so-called) Silk Road are an example that the foundation of law is just one. The Law is just one. The juridical virtue is just one. The juridical good is just one. Because the juridical diligence is just one. SANDERS tells (which also serves as an example):

 

“Difficulties in traversing the land path made more urgent the search for ever more efficient sea routes, particularly from China and South-East Asia to Europe. The voyages of the European seafarers are well known. But they were not alone. For example, in the early fifteenth century, Admiral Zheng He sailed his junks from China to the Persian Gulf and the coast of Africa, returning we are told with a giraffe on board. Possibly he traveled as far as Australia. These expeditions heralded what became known in Europe as the Age of Discovery, sparking a renewed interest in science and enquiry, especially that informed by the observation of nature and reasoning, opening up into the Enlightenment.

 

This period, the Age of Reason, is closely associated with the birth, or perhaps more accurately, the articulation, particularly in England and France, of liberal conceptions of the rule of law. These were forged by political events and philosophical reflections of contemporaries that are as well-known as they are seminal”.[5]

 

That is why the law can not exist (can not be created) when the (a) juridically invalid fact exists (occurs). Because the idea of, the, law (the juridical must be) is (means, needs) the existence of the enjoyment of juridical rights and the fulfillment of juridical duties. Not their frustration. Their unrecognizement. Their inexistence. That is why a so-called “legal system” fundamentally based on the precedent is juridically invalid. It is not law. It is not part of the law (way, form, of existence). Because it means (because it is based on, in) that first there has to exist a juridically invalid juridical relationship to then (to consequently) analyze and, properly, define how that juridically must have existed and to have that as a reference for future (juridical) cases.

 

And, on the other hand, and in the same way, that is why a so-called “legal system” based on the existence of juridical written norms but its non accomplishment is juridically invalid. Because it is based on an invalid juridical illusion of juridical effectiveness. When the juridical must be (juridical must) means the application of, the, law in the time and space (form) of existence of each juridical relationship tailored to each juridical case way (form) of existence. SANDERS relates:

 

“How, then, does all of this impact our consideration of the rule of law and the Silk Road?  Let me conclude with four thoughts:

 

First, when we talk about the rule of law we need to be careful that we are not speaking at cross-purposes. While most will think of the rule of law positively, we may not be talking about the same thing. In engaging on the subject, are we clear that by the rule of law we discard mere rules of law or rule by law? The outcome worth striving for is one where governments operate under the law and not arbitrarily and where the subjects of the law can reasonably know what it is. For some this is a sufficient outcome, with the correct view of the rule of law excluding considerations regarding how governments ought to be installed and removed and the standards of behavior by which they should abide in relation to their citizenry. For others, rule of law necessarily implies a system of democracy and respect for human rights. Within that latter category, there will be those who emphasize civil and political rights; for others these are either inadequate or, at the other extreme, need to be deprioritized in favor of realizing economic and social aspirations and selected elements of the right to development. We need to consider these differences because of the magnitude of what is at stake”.[6]

 

The law is not about some rights and duties. It is about the total existence of the juridical rights and duties (defined in, on, the law). Tailored to each juridical case. And that is why the law can not exist when there is not juridical effectiveness. That means, when there is not the existence of the (total way of existence of the) law (when the law does not exist). That is why there are origins about law and the origin (creation, existence) of law. The origins are related with the origins and development of philosophy. Its origin (creation, existence) is related with the existence of the law as a specific (total, clear) being. PECORINO articulates:

 

“Aristotle thought that Philosophy begins in wonder.  Wonder is some thing children do quite well.  It comes natural to them.  Unfortunately as a lot of us grow older we stop wondering and stop questioning and stop attempting to look at things in new ways or non-traditional ways.  We are rewarded for our acceptance and conformity to what is accepted by most people, for our adoption of whatever is popular.  Some of us stop wondering altogether”.[7]

 

And that is why the law is an evolving being based on the existence of the juridical effectiveness form on existence based on the juridical diligence form of existence in each time and space related with the law (way, form, of existence). PECORINO complements:

 

“People prefer order to chaos and it appears they are willing to pay quite a price for that order.  Humans are faced with a large number of important questions, such as: What is life all about?  Where do we come from?  What is the meaning of it all? How or where did the world come from?  What is the right thing to do?   Rather than figure out answers to these questions for themselves, most humans appear willing to accept those answers that are provided through their culture.  They learn them through their language, their religious belief systems, their educational system and other major social institutions.  Most humans appear ill suited to reject the answers of their culture or even to subject them to careful scrutiny.   Rather than live without answers and instead face the chaos, most humans accept the order as it is given to them”.[8]

 

Fortunately, (the) law is focused on (the) juridical validity. Not in the anti juridical validity. Another thing is that the juridical validity includes the validity of everything that exists in a juridically diligent way. So, the law is about the juridical must be. Not just about the being. Another thing is that the juridical must be applies tailored to each being (subject to, the, law) way of existence. And another thing is that the juridically valid being (that means, the being that exists in a harmonic way face to, the law) is the form of existence that creates juridical effectiveness. So, the being is the one that applies the law. And specifically, the juridically diligent human being is the being that creates juridical validity through making each being existing in each juridical case (including her /his respective being) to exist in a juridical valid way (that means, in a way that coincides with its respective juridical must be). PECORINO communicates:

 

“At the time of Socrates (472-399bc) many Greeks were no longer believers in the stories of the gods and goddesses.  Those stories had provided them with guidance for their lives.  They had believed that they could not go against the decrees of the deities and that they should follow the examples of the gods and goddesses which they knew of through the stories they all heard and memorized and repeated.  They accepted ideas such a fate and destiny.  Now they were hearing the stories being challenged and some declared their disbelief.  The playwrights were raising questions on the stages.  Some thought they could choose from among the tales those stories that supported whatever courses of conduct they choose.  They believed that they could show that some god or other approved of the conduct because the god had done something similar.  There were many who believed that morality was individual and relative.

 

At the time of Socrates Greek culture was undergoing a major revolution.  They were transforming from an oral culture to a literate culture.  They were acquiring paper and so they could write down the stories and the plays and important ideas.  They no longer needed to memorize what they heard and repeat it as exactly as possible in order to transmit ideas.  Plato could write down ideas and examine them.  He could write questions and reasoned arguments for readers to reflect upon”.[9]

 

This is why all (everything) juridically (that means, this is why, every being related with law) is important. Tailored to each juridical case. Because the total way of existence of, the, law, is important. Properly, its determinant. That is why there is just law when all its parts and its total being created as a result of the union of its parts exist. PECORINO finalizes:

 

“With Plato and his mentor Socrates we have a description of what Philosophy is about.   Humans are on a journey.  En route they face obstacles to overcome.  Major questions, problems and issues are like rivers that need to be crossed.  Now along one side of the river there are these rafts.  When you reach the river you may select any raft you want to use to get across the river.  There are many different types.  There are more than enough for everyone.  They differ in color, shape, materials, method of construction and size.  You want to select the best possible raft with which to cross the river.  No raft is perfect.  Each raft has a problem.  Each raft takes on water.  Some take on a lot and some very little.  Some are put together in a very shoddy manner and some are very well constructed. 

 

Some people select the raft to use based on its color.  They like certain colors and have a favorite and that is all they care about.  Others select their rafts based on size and they want the biggest one they can find.  Each who selects has a reason and a method for the selection.  What a reasonable sensible person should want is the best possible raft that will carry its occupants across the river safely.

 

Philosophy is a method of thinking used to make the best possible selection of the raft which is the answer to the most basic questions that humans have about life, knowledge, truth, goodness, beauty, etc…

 

Philosophers hope to develop the best possible position and hope that it will do well when tested.  Over the centuries those positions philosophers thought were the best have been revealed to have problems.  New rafts were constructed and tested and found wanting again.  So, Philosophy is the quest for the best possible raft, knowing that it is highly probable that there is  no perfect raft. As humans advance and progress and gather more experiences and develop more critical analysis and evaluation techniques philosophical positions are examined more closely and tested more thoroughly. Philosophy is a process. It is a method of thinking and as our knowledge grows so too will philosophy take all of it into consideration as the method attempts to produce the BEST POSSIBLE answers to the most important questions.

 

Philosophers want to examine every question form every approach possible to arrive at the best position possible.  They want to understand what is involved with every question and problem and issue.  They want to consider every position on every matter.  They want to acquire wisdom about what they are considering by the dialectical method of inquiry. 

 

…the only way in which a human being can make some approach to knowing the whole of a subject is by hearing what can be said about it by persons of every variety of opinion, and studying all modes in which it can be looked at by every character of mind.  No wise man ever acquired his wisdom in any mode but this; nor is it in the nature of human intellect to become wise in any other manner.” John Stuart Mill On Liberty,  Chapter 2, New York Liberal Arts Press, 1956, p.25 

 

Some folks look for the “correct” answer to a question or the “right” solution to a problem.  Philosophers have learned that what they do is look for the best possible answers and solutions.  So we shall look now at how Socrates developed a better method for finding the best answers and then we shall examine several important questions or issues and look at what philosophers have done with them over time.  In all of this the focus should be on the method of thinking that aims to arrive at the best possible, if not perfect, answers, solutions and positions.

 

But perhaps some prefer the comforts of beliefs even of blind faith to the effort at reaching positions closer to the truth.  For many this choice is a real dilemma presenting a difficult choice.  This sort of choice has been presented to humans in the story of Adam and Eve and again represented in the movie, The Matrix”.[10]

 

The story of Eve and Adam permits to illustrate how freedom (liberty, including, clarity) is determinant for human being’s (human being) juridically valid way of existence (in, of, the human being forms, of existence, in which is subject to, the, law). Because the law is not about blind faith. It is about the juridical must be. Another thing is to have faith with respect to something. That is why (the) law is based on the juridical diligence way of existence. That means, on the way of complying (with) the law. Properly, on the way of (for) getting the enjoyment of juridical rights and the fulfillment of juridical duties existence in each juridical case.

 

And there is no dilema (or trilema, etc.) regarding the law. The accomplishment with the law. The compliance of (with), the, law. Because all its being has to be attended. Tailored to each juridical case. That is why there are no contradictions regarding the compliance of law. Because the juridical norms are just the ones (the norms) according to the juridical being (the juridical must be; the law being; the juridical foundation). And because all the juridical norms have to be (properly, must be) complied. And that is why the compliance of the law just exists when there is a harmonical (harmonic) way of attention of the law (being). Because it is the way for complying with the (total) law being. Proplery, because (that; it) is the way to comply with the law. Properly, to comply (with) the law. To fulfill the law. To make (create) the (a, some way of) coincidence between the respective (each, any) juridical case being with its respective juridical must be (being).

 

At this point it is important to say that the scientific method is just an idea. That is applied in practice. So science does not mean truth. Fortunately, the law is focused on (the) juridical validity (existence). That is to say, in the coincidence between the being subject to the law and its respective juridical must be way of existence. And that exists when there is (when there exists) juridical effectiveness. This controls the debate about absolute truth. Because (juridically) the determinant aspect is that each human being enjoys the existence of juridical effectiveness in each juridical case. Because it is the way in which harmonious coexistence is possible.

 

That is why the law is a virtue form of existence. It is a diligent human creation. Because (the) virtue is something good. And the good just exists (clearly) when (clearly) exists its (entire, total) being. That is to say, when there exists its complete (total) way of existence. That means, when its being exists in the short, middle and long term related with its ways of existence. That is why the (a) being (including, the well, the wellness) exists or not exists (or does not exist).

 

And this is why the juridical being just exists (just) when all human beings juridically exist good (well). That means, (as it is permanently said in this article) when each human being enjoys the juridical rights and fulfills the juridical duties that has in each juridical relationship in which exists. So, (juridically) it is not about, the, eastern (east) and, the, western (west) world. It is about juridical validity. That is why there can exist multiple reasons and ways of rationality face to each juridical case but the determinant element is the juridical foundation and its attendance tailored made to each (juridical) case. ROWE and COLLINS educate:

 

“THE CONSTITUTION OF CANADA is the body of rules deciding what decisions can be made by whom. It consists of the written constitution, Aboriginal and treaty rights, Indigenous self-governments, the conventions of the Westminster system of government, the laws and customs of Parliament, quasi-constitutional statutes, and constitutional jurisprudence. This article (originally given as a speech on February 15, 2017 at the University of Ottawa Faculty of Law) focuses on constitutional conventions, the privileges of the legislature, and jurisprudence referred to as “structural argumentation.” These are key parts of Canada’s constitutional arrangements, but they are often overlooked and they are infrequently dealt with in the jurisprudence”.[11]

 

It is determinant to indicate that there can exist different forms of existence of the law (being) tailored to each juridical case if each form is juridically valid. For example, there are different forms of existence of the law (being) inside this Constitution (regarding what coincides with law, that means, with the juridical foundation). In fact, the University’s of Ottawa Faculty of law has a Civil Law Section and a Common Law Section. That is why law is law and there is just law. Universally (totally, clearly). And that is why the law just exists when there is (when there exists) juridical validity. That means, when there is a being that coincides with the (total, entire, complete, being of the) law (way of existence). That is why that (this kind of) being (this being form) is part of the law. It is a juridical form. It is an element of existence of the law (it is a law element of existence; a law’s element of existence; a law’s existence element).

 

And that is why an anti juridical being (that is to say, a being that does not coincide with what is defined in the law being) is not law. It is not the law. It is not part of the law. It is an arbitrary being face to what is defined in the law as the juridically valid discrecional way of existence. That means, (it) is opposite of (to) the juridical diligence being. Because the juridical diligence is (means) the juridically valid discrecional way (form) of existence (with respect to the way of existence subject to, the, law, being, way of existence). That is why compliance of (with), the, law means (is) the (juridically diligent human being) discrecional way (of existence) that (in consequence, of being a juridically diligent way) attends its being (the being of the law, the law’s being, the Law being). LEITER and SEVEL determine:

 

“Often called ‘general jurisprudence,’ it is the branch of philosophy which investigates the nature of law, especially in its relation to human values, attitudes, practices, and political communities. Traditionally, philosophy of law proceeds by articulating and defending propositions about law which are general and abstract. That is, it involves claims about law which are true not of a specific legal system at a particular time (eg the United Kingdom in 1900), but of all legal systems, or perhaps of all laws at all times. Philosophy of law often aims to distinguish law from other systems of norms, such as morality or other social conventions. Views about the nature of law often depend upon, and occasionally have contributed to, answers to some of the most fundamental philosophical questions, for example regarding the foundations of morality, justice, and rights, the nature of human action and intention, the relations between social practices and values, the nature of knowledge and truth, and the justification of political rule. The philosophy of law is therefore an integral part of philosophy more generally”.[12]

 

There is the philosophy of (the) law (being form, way, of existence). Juridically, there is not a philosophy of law of the common law. Juridically, there is not a philosophy of law of the civil law. Properly (in general), there is not a philosophy of law of (for) a part of the law. There is just one philosophy of (the) law. There can be philosophies about legal systems. But that is different from the philosophy of (the) law being. LEITER and SEVEL share:

 

“But it is Plato (427-347 BCE), writing during the decline of the Athenian empire, who was the first to make enduring philosophical claims about the nature of law. The relevant Greek term is nomos; its meaning varied widely across contexts and often meant simply ‘convention’ or ‘practice,’ but by Plato’s time it had acquired the more specific sense of statute or a proclaimed or written directive which established a standard for human action. Plato’s work Crito fictionally cast his teacher, Socrates, imprisoned and sentenced to death, as faced with the choice of either accepting the penalty, or disobeying the law and escaping punishment. In the dialogue, Socrates makes the provocative argument, on behalf of the laws of Athens, that since he has received the benefits and protections of living under law for his entire life, and has never left the city out of protest, that he is obligated to either obey its laws or persuade the state otherwise. Since he has failed to persuade it, he must respect the laws by obeying their commands, regardless of their content. The Crito is the origin of several enduring ideas in philosophy of law, such as that the law by nature claims authority over its subjects, and the claim that the very relationship between law and its subjects somehow gives rise to an obligation of obedience. Plato’s later work makes scattered reference to law but fails to articulate a robust philosophy of law in the modern sense; what is thought to be his last work, The Laws, contains many specific proposals of how the law of his time should be reformed, but curiously fails to grapple with the broader philosophical questions”.[13]

 

That is why any law is not (part of) the Law (way of existence). A law is just part of (the) Law when its (formal and material; theoretical and practical; total) form of existence is according to the juridical must be. That is to say, with the law. With the juridical foundation. With the virtue defined in the law. With the juridical ideal. With the idea of law defined in the law (way of existence). With the way of existence of law defined in the philosophy of (the) Law being. Not in other ideas about the law. LEITER and SEVEL explain:

 

“A generation later, Plato’s student, Aristotle (384-322 BCE), gave more systematic expression to a number of influential ideas about law. Aristotle famously said that humans are ‘political animals’, meaning that they naturally organize themselves into distinct sorts of communities, the largest of which is the city, or city-state (in Greek, the polis). Cities are characterized by their politeia, a word which is often translated as ‘constitution’, but refers to any general way that a large human community organizes itself. Law, he said, is “a sort of order,” and thus provides a comprehensive framework of rules and institutions through which a society is constituted. A law (eg a statute) is by nature universal in form, ie, a standard of conduct that is general in its application, both in respect of the class of persons and types of conduct it governs. Because of its universal nature, a law can sometimes fail to apply, or to apply indeterminately, to a novel case unforeseen by the legislator. The problem here, Aristotle says, is not in the law or in the lack of foresight by the lawmaker, but rather in the ‘nature of the case’. In such cases, what is required is a corrective exercise he called ‘equity’, which involves speculating about how the deficient law would have applied had the lawmaker considered the novel case and apply it to the case at hand accordingly.

 

Aristotle was also the first to articulate a conception of what has come to be known as the ideal of the rule of law. He shared the common Greek view that, as a general principle, law had a share in eternal, divine wisdom. As such, law was an instrument by which to constrain the exercise of political power, particularly that of tyrants whose policies represented only their own interests and not the good of the community. On the (even by then) age-old debate as to whether the best law or the best person should rule a city, Aristotle’s position was clear: “He who asks law to rule is asking God and intelligence and no others to rule, while he who asks for the rule of a human being is importing a wild beast too…Law is intelligence without appetite.””.[14]

 

This is why the juridically diligent human being controls (any, every, all) anti juridical existence inside an (each, every, all) environment subject to the Law. Good (right) and bad (wrong) are not relative. Good is when all is good (as it was said before in this article). Because it exists when its entire (whole, complete, clear, total) being exists. Good is when there is no one being in a bad condition of existence (in a bad existence condition). Of course the dimension of this could be relativized. That is why the focus of (the) law is in the juridical good. The juridical good exists when there exists juridical effectiveness. That means, when every person enjoys the juridical rights and complies with the juridical duties that has in each juridical case. That is why the juridical good (right) exists when no one being exists in a bad condition (of existence) as a consequence of the bad condition of existence (existing) based on a juridical invalidity way of existence.

 

That is why something bad can not be good. Can not exist in a good way. Another thing is the existence of effective bad. That means, the existence of the (an) effective bad (wrong) way of existence. That means, the existence of bad in an efficient and efficacy bad, wrong, way of existence. Because the good (right) thing just exists when all (everything) related to its being (total) way of existence exists in a good (right) form (way of existence). That means, when all its being is effectively good (right). MARK founds:

 

“The word philosophy comes from the Greek philo (love) and sophia (wisdom) and so is literally defined as “the love of wisdom”. More broadly understood, it is the study of the most basic and profound matters of human existence. The topic of exactly when and where philosophy first began to develop is still debated, but the simplest answer is that it would have begun – at any place in the distant past – the first time someone asked why they were born, what their purpose was, and how they were supposed to understand their lives. The term philosophy may apply to a formalized secular or religious system of thought, a personal construct, or a communal understanding of proper attitude and conduct, but in each case, the purpose of the system is to answer such questions.

Philosophical systems are thought to have developed first in the East, and a working outline proceeds from Mesopotamia to Rome and on to the present:

 

  • Egypt by c. 4000 BCE: depictions of gods and the afterlife appear on tomb walls
  • Mesopotamia by c. 2150 BCE: written form of the philosophical narrative of The Epic of Gilgamesh
  • India c. 1500 – c. 500 BCE: the Vedic Period
  • Persia by c. 1500 BCE: development of Zoroastrianism
  • China c. 1046-256 BCE: the Zhou Dynasty
  • Greece c. 585-322 BCE: Time of Thales of Miletus to the death of Aristotle of Stagira
  • Rome c. 155 BCE onwards: Beginning with the arrival of Stoicism in Rome.

 

Philosophical systems would continue in Europe during the Middle Ages (c. 476-1500 CE), primarily focused on Christian teachings, and would develop further during the Renaissance in the West. In the East, Islamic scholars after the 7th century CE as well as those of other faiths continued to develop their own systems. Philosophical schools have continued on this same trajectory up through the modern day as people continue to ask the same fundamental questions as their ancient ancestors and work to develop systems of thought to answer them”.[15]

 

It is important to say that history is not absolute truth but when it exists in a juridically diligent way it gives clarity about some facts (when history is received in a juridically diligent way). But history itself does not define the good way of existence. Human being is the one capable of defining (capable to define) the good (including, right) way of existence. And that just exists when all is good. It does not mean perfect. Means in a good way. In a way in which every being could live (properly, could exist) according to the (juridically valid way of existence of the) laws of nature (not in the nature existing in a juridically invalid way) and not based on juridical invalid arbitrariness. That is why Law is more than just laws. And that is why laws are not enough. Human being juridically diligence is enough. Because it is the way to create the (a, some) way for the enjoyment of juridical rights and the fulfillment of juridical duties that (juridically, that means, that according to what is defined in Law) exist in each juridical case.

 

That is why the juridically arbitrary (that means, the arbitrary, way of existence, from the juridical point of view, form the juridical foundation) is something opposite of (to) law. It is not law. Because in (from) the Law (point of view) there must exist the enjoyment of (all) the juridical rights and the fulfillment of (all) the juridical duties that apply in each juridical case according to the way in which the law applies to it. And the (juridically) arbitrary (human being) way of existence does not let exist that juridical effectiveness. Does not let exist (does not make) the (a) compliance (way of existence) of (with, what is defined in, on, by, through, regarding) the law. Because it (the, juridical arbitrary, conduct) is (means) the unfulfillment (non-fulfillment, non-compliance) of (with, respect to) the law. Because it does not coincide with the law. It is against the law. It does not consider the law.

 

That is why (for example), juridical, crimes (that means, crimes defined in the law) are a way (a form) of existence of the juridical arbitrary way of existence. In general, that is why (for example), juridical, corruption (that means, any way of human being existence subject to the law that exists in a contrary way with respect to what it is defined in, on, the law for that existence to be juridically valid, that means, to exist in a juridical valid way, form) is a juridical arbitrary way of existence (it is a juridical arbitrary conduct). That is why the only (unique, clear, harmonic, integral, complete) way of existence for the enjoyment of juridical rights and fulfillment of juridical duties is to exist (is to act, is to be) juridically diligent. Tailored to each juridical case existing.

 

And that is why human being juridically valid (way of) existence (in each juridical case) creates (makes) the juridically valid society, politics, economics, etc., way of existence. Creates (makes) the juridically valid (human existence related) word. Creates (makes) a (juridically valid) harmonic (way, form, of) existence. Creates (makes) a juridically valid coexistence. SWARTZ promoves:

 

Laws of Nature

 

Laws of Nature are to be distinguished both from Scientific Laws and from Natural Laws. Neither Natural Laws, as invoked in legal or ethical theories, nor Scientific Laws, which some researchers consider to be scientists’ attempts to state or approximate the Laws of Nature, will be discussed in this article. Instead, it explores issues in contemporary metaphysics.

 

Within metaphysics, there are two competing theories of Laws of Nature. On one account, the Regularity Theory, Laws of Nature are statements of the uniformities or regularities in the world; they are mere descriptions of the way the world is. On the other account, the Necessitarian Theory, Laws of Nature are the “principles” which govern the natural phenomena of the world. That is, the natural world “obeys” the Laws of Nature. This seemingly innocuous difference marks one of the most profound gulfs within contemporary philosophy, and has quite unexpected, and wide-ranging, implications.

 

Some of these implications involve accidental truths, false existentials, the correspondence theory of truth, and the concept of free will. Perhaps the most important implication of each theory is whether the universe is a cosmic coincidence or driven by specific, eternal laws of nature.  Each side takes a different stance on each of these issues, and to adopt either theory is to give up one or more strong beliefs about the nature of the world”.[16]

 

Fortunately, (the) Law is focused in each juridical case way of existence. So, a juridical case is (juridically) valid when it is (when its, physical, form of existence) is according to the theory of the law. That means, when (it) is according to the application way of (the) law tailored to each juridical case total fact way of existence. That means, when (it) is according to the physical (practical, specific) and metaphysical (theoretical, abstract) way of existence of the law (being). Tailored to each juridical case (juridically theoretical and practical) way of existence.

 

And that is why when in the facts of a juridical case (when in the juridical case facts) there is the enjoyment of (the, juridical) rights and the fulfillment of (the, juridical) duties there is (there exists) the juridically valid total fact of existence of the juridical case (way of existence). That means, there is the juridically valid juridical case fact. Fact (total fact) of existence created by the result of the union of its facts. MARMOR and SARCH humanize:

 

“Lawyers are typically interested in the question: What is the law on a particular issue? This is always a local question and answers to it are bound to differ according to the specific jurisdiction in which they are asked. In contrast, philosophy of law is interested in the general question: What is Law? This general question about the nature of law presupposes that law is a unique social-political phenomenon, with more or less universal characteristics that can be discerned through philosophical analysis. General jurisprudence, as this philosophical inquiry about the nature of law is called, is meant to be universal. It assumes that law possesses certain features, and it possesses them by its very nature, or essence, as law, whenever and wherever it happens to exist. However, even if there are such universal characteristics of law—which is controversial, as we will later discuss—the reasons for a philosophical interest in elucidating them remain to be explained. First, there is the sheer intellectual interest in understanding such a complex social phenomenon which is, after all, one of the most intricate aspects of human culture. Law, however, is also a normative social practice: it purports to guide human behavior, giving rise to reasons for action. An attempt to explain this normative, reason-giving aspect of law is one of the main challenges of general jurisprudence. These two sources of interest in the nature of law are closely linked. Law is not the only normative domain in our culture; morality, religion, social conventions, etiquette, and so on, also guide human conduct in many ways which are similar to law. Therefore, part of what is involved in the understanding of the nature of law consists in an explanation of how law differs from these similar normative domains, how it interacts with them, and whether its intelligibility depends on other normative orders, like morality or social conventions.

 

Contemporary legal theories define these two main interests in the nature of law in the following terms. First, we need to understand the general conditions that would render any putative norm legally valid. Is it, for example, just a matter of the source of the norm, such as its enactment by a particular political institution, or is it also a matter of the norm’s content? This is the general question about the conditions of legal validity. Second, there is the interest in the normative aspect of law. This philosophical interest is twofold: A complete philosophical account of the normativity of law comprises both an explanatory and a justificatory task. The explanatory task consists of an attempt to explain how legal norms can give rise to reasons for action, and what kinds of reasons are involved. The task of justification concerns the question of whether people ought to comply—morally speaking or all things considered—with law’s demands. In other words, it is the attempt to explain the moral legitimacy of law and the subjects’ reasons for complying with it. A theory about the nature of law, as opposed to critical theories of law, concentrates on the first of these two questions. It purports to explain what the normativity of law actually consists in. Some contemporary legal philosophers, however, doubt that these two aspects of the normativity of law can be separated. (We will return to this later.)

 

Thus, elucidating the conditions of legal validity and explaining the normativity of law form the two main subjects of any general theory about the nature of law. In section 1, we will explain some of the main debates about these two issues. In section 2, we will discuss some of the methodological debates about the nature of general jurisprudence. In the course of the last few centuries, two main rival philosophical traditions have emerged about the nature of legality. The older one, dating back to late mediaeval Christian scholarship, is called the natural law tradition. Since the early 19th century, natural law theories have been fiercely challenged by the legal positivism tradition promulgated by such scholars as Jeremy Bentham and John Austin. The philosophical origins of legal positivism are much earlier, though, probably in the political philosophy of Thomas Hobbes. The main controversy between these two traditions concerns the conditions of legal validity. Basically, legal positivism asserts, and natural law denies, that the conditions of legal validity are purely a matter of social facts. In contrast to positivism, natural law claims that the conditions of legal validity are not exhausted by social facts; the moral content of the putative norms also bears on their legal validity. As the famous dictum, commonly attributed to Saint Augustine, has it: lex iniusta non est lex (unjust law is not law). (Augustine, De Libero Arbitrio, I, 5; see also Aquinas, Summa Theologica, I-II, Q. 96, Art. 4.)”.[17]

 

That is why Law is a whole. It is not about (for example) naturalism and positivism (regarding Law). And thi is why (the) juridical justice is not about (it is not based on) external (concepts, visiones, about) justice. Properly, it (the juridical justice; the juridically valid justice, way, form, of existence) is not an anti juridical justice. That means, it is not defined by (juridically invalid) arbitrary concepts about (the) justice. Juridical justice (juridically valid justice) means juridical validity. Juridical effectiveness. Means any way of juridical effectiveness in each juridical case.

 

That is why, for example, (the) juridically valid (the juridical justice regarding) commercial digital advertising is (means) the juridically effective form (of existence) which (that) exists (including, which creates, causes, juridically valid effects) in the (in each) environment (properly, in each form, way, of existence) of each human being (properly, of each, physical, that means, natural, and / or moral, that means, juridical, person) involved (existing) in each juridical relationship existing with (through, related to) its (that means, with, through, related, in some way with, the commercial digital advertising form, way, of) existence. Tailored to each juridical case.

 

That is why Law is Law. There is just one juridical validity criteria for that situation (for that condition, for that juridical effectiveness, for that compliance of law, for that juridical justice, regarding, for example, commercial digital advertising) to exist (tailored to each juridical case form, way, of existence). That is why (juridically), for example, the consumer and, properly, each human being existing in a juridical case which (a) commercial digital advertising exists has to (properly, must) enjoy each (juridical) right and to fulfill each (juridical) duties that would have in that situation’s way of existence to let (that) advertising to be juridically valid, to let the juridical case to be juridically valid and, properly, to enjoy the effect of (the) juridical effectiveness (existence). That is why there could be different Rules of Law but there is just one Law. MARMOR and SARCH close:

 

“Accordingly, we seem to be left in the following dialectical situation. Whether or not legal theory is inherently evaluative in the relevant sense depends on whether the argument from interpretation succeeds. Whether that argument succeeds, in turn, depends on its key premise, i.e., the claim that understanding the law necessarily requires giving a constructive interpretation of it. If a non-question begging argument can be given for this claim, then there would be reason to think that legal theory necessarily is evaluative in nature. By contrast, if no non-question begging argument can be given for thinking that understanding law requires a constructive interpretation, then one would be free to maintain that there can be purely descriptive first-order legal theories.

 

Of course, even if the argument from interpretation fails and purely descriptive legal theories remain possible, it could still be a worthwhile project to attempt to give a constructive interpretation of legal practice, and the output of this project would indeed be a partially evaluative theory. Nonetheless, these two types of theory would not genuinely be in conflict, as they would be addressed to answering different questions. In the end, therefore, “methodological pluralism” may be the most apt characterization of the state of play in jurisprudence”.[18]

 

It is necessary to clarify that more than pluralism it is about the complete (total) attention of Law. Because it is not about one part of Law. It is about the (entire) Law being. The entire Law way of existence. The total Law (form). The total way of (for) its existence. Another thing is that its existence requires the (a) harmonization (a harmonical, harmonic, way of existence). Between (all) its parts. Because that (it) is the only way for (it is the only way that permits; it is the only way that creates) its (way, form, of) existence.

 

This is why it is determinant to indicate that if there is no just one Law there is no Law. There would be ideas about (something called) Law. But not Law as a specific (unique, particular, delimitated, known, clear) being. As a unique form (of existence). Properly, as a being. And it is important to recognize that there is (there exists) the juridical case (there are juridical cases). It (that) is a (an, juridically diligently, objective) fact. And there is (there exists) the juridical effect. And there is (there exists) the juridical foundation. And there is (there exists) the Rule of Law. And there is (there exists) the enjoyment of juridical rights and the fulfillment of juridical duties. So, there is (there exists) the Law.

 

Another thing is to consider that there are other rights and duties different than the ones defined in (on) the Law. So, another thing is to consider that there are cases that are not juridical cases (because they are not related with juridical rights and duties existence) that are subject to the Law (when, juridically, they are not). So, an arbitrary vision of (about) the Law is different from the juridical diligence way of existence. That is to say, (an anti juridical conduct, vision, action) is different from the juridical diligence being (form). SIMONTON participates:

 

“The effect of this is that as the legal system of a given country becomes more and more developed there is less and less recurring to first principles and a decreasing consciousness in the mind of the lawyer or the judge that he is basing his opinion or his decision on the fundamental or immutable principles of justice and right. But in so far as he follows precedent, he is simply adopting the judgment of his predecessors as to what is right and in accordance with the fundamental principles of justice”.[19]

 

At this moment it is important to clarify that the law (including, the way of existence of the, a, some, any, all, knowledge about law) is (directly) not about beautiness. Aesthetics. In itself. It is about (clear, specific, accurate, juridically diligent) juridical knowledge and its (juridically diligent) application tailored to each juridical case. Another thing is the juridical aesthetics (including, the juridical beauty) way (form) of existence. Properly, another thing is the aesthetics (including, the, beautiness) of (the, clear) juridical validity way (form) of existence. In each juridically valid juridical case. Thanks to (that means, as a consequence of) its harmonic way (form) of existence.

 

And the juridical way of existence exists when the juridical case being coincides with its respective juridical must be. With (the) Law. Another thing is that this coincidence way of existence exists based on the laws of nature (according to the juridical diligence way of existence existing face to those law tailored to each juridical case juridical state of the art and, properly, based on each juridical case juridical must be regarding to its juridical effectiveness way of existence). But Law is a human creation. Based on the juridical diligence way of existence. It is not just something created by (the, total) nature. It is created by the nature of the human being in his / her juridical diligent (human being) way of existence.

 

That is why the Law (being; the law way, form, of existence) has a foundation and evolvs through the complementary elements of that foundation. That is to say, with the elements that (the, each, the whole, properly, the total, being created by the result of the union of each) juridically diligent human being creates. That means, with the elements that are harmonic with that (with the) Law foundation (basis). That is why (the) Law has a structure (as it happens with any being) and all (everything), that is, harmonic with that (estructure) is part of the Law (is, it is, an element of existence of the law; is, it is, a juridical element, is, it is, a juridical form, is, it is, a juridical being, is, it is, a juridically valid being). GLAESER and SHLEIFER detect:

 

“The laws of many countries are heavily influenced by either the English common law or the French civil law.1 The common law tradition originates in the laws of England, and has been transplanted through conquest and colonization to England’s colonies, including the United States, Australia, Canada, and many countries in Africa and Asia. The civil law tradition has its roots in the Roman law, was lost during Dark Ages, but rediscovered by the Catholic Church in the eleventh century and adopted by several continental states, including France. Napoleon exported French civil law to much of Europe, including Spain, by conquest. French civil law was later transplanted through conquest and colonization to Latin America and parts of Africa and Asia.

 

Structurally, the two legal systems operate in very different ways: civil law relies on professional judges, legal codes, and written records, while common law on lay judges, broader legal principles, and oral arguments. In addition, recent research reveals significant differences between common law and (French) civil law countries in a variety of political and economic conditions. At the same level of development, French civil law countries exhibit heavier regulation, less secure property rights, more corrupt and less efficient governments, and even less political freedom than do the common law countries [La Porta et al. 1999; La Porta, Lopez-de-Silanes, and Shleifer 2002; Djankov et al. 2002b]. One area where the greater insecurity of property rights in the civil law countries shows up clearly is the development of financial markets. On just about any measure, common law countries are more financially developed than civil law countries [La Porta et al. 1997, 1998]”.[20]

 

It is important to be clear (about) that the so-called common law has a roman law influence. And the so-called roman law has a greek influence. And the so-called civil law has Ethics influence. All is related. And any being is just part of the law being when (it) is compatible with the ideal defined in the law. With the juridical ethics. With the moral defined in the law being. With the juridical virtue. With the juridical validity form of existence. Properly, with the juridical diligence (way, form, of existence).

 

This is why, juridically, every (juridical) right and duty is important. Not (for example) just property rights. And the determinant fact is the effective existence of (the) Law (being) in every State. That is why every State can have its own legal system if (it) is coincident with (the) Law. With what is defined in (the) Law. That is the way (form) of existence of the (a, any, juridically valid) Rule of Law. Because it (that) is the way (form) of existence of (the) juridical validity in (face to) a State.

 

And (for example) the property is just a juridical right when (it) is a form of existence (that is, that exists in, a, in some) harmonic with the law. As it happens (as it occurs) with any other being when its way of existence is subject to the law. For example, a financial form (being) is just juridically valid when (it) is a form for (that makes, that creates, that has, that gets, that provides, that gives) juridical effectiveness. COVER is contundent:

 

“We inhabit a nomos ― a normative universe. We constantly create and maintain a world of right and wrong, of lawful and unlawful, of valid and void.2 The student of law may come to identify the normative world with the professional paraphernalia of social control. The rules and principles of justice, the formal institutions of the law, and the conventions of a social order are, indeed, important to that world; they are, however, but a small part of the normative universe that ought to claim our attention. No set of legal institutions or prescriptions exists apart from the narratives that locate it and give it meaning.3 For every constitution there is an epic, for each decalogue a scripture.4 Once understood in the context of the narratives that give it meaning, law becomes not merely a system of rules to be observed, but a world in which we live.

 

In this normative world, law and narrative are inseparably related. Every prescription is insistent in its demand to be located in discourse ― to be supplied with history and destiny, beginning and end, explanation and purpose.5 And every narrative is insistent in its demand for its prescriptive point, its moral. History and literature cannot escape their location in a normative universe,6 nor can prescription, even when embodied in a legal text, escape its origin and its end in experience, in the narratives that are the trajectories plotted upon material reality by our imaginations.7

 

This nomos is as much “our world” as is the physical universe of mass, energy, and momentum. Indeed, our apprehension of the structure of the normative world is no less fundamental than our appreciation of the structure of the physical world. Just as the development of increasingly complex responses to the physical attributes of our world begins with birth itself, so does the parallel development of the responses to personal otherness that define the normative world.8”. [21]

 

It is necessary to indicate (to recognize, to be clear about) that the human being will always define (the) beings (the subjects and objects; the facts, the forms, the existence) in some way of judgement. Juridically, the determinant aspect is to do so in a (in some) juridically diligent way. That is how the juridical norms are created. Properly, that is how the law (being) is created. That is how (the) law exists. This is the way (form) of existence of the Law (being). And that is why the Law is the (only, unique, juridically diligent, clear) juridical must be (being). That is why the law is the being of the juridical must be. And that is why the law is the only (unique), juridical, must be that has (properly, that must) to be accomplished with. In each (any, every) juridical relationship.

 

We are humans. Human beings. So we are the direct (natural, original) being that defines (the) Law. We can not be focused on beings that are not related with the juridically diligent human being to know the Law. Another thing is that the juridically diligent human being creates the juridical norms (like the, juridically valid, laws; and this is why the Law is not just composed by juridically valid laws, is composed by every, any, all, juridical form, way, of existence, that means, each, every, all part of the law being, that means, each, every, all being harmonic with what is defined in the law, that means, each, every, all element of existence of the law being, that means, each, every, any, all juridically valid form of existence, that means, each, every, all juridical norm; that is why every form coincident with what is defined in the Law being is a juridical norm and that is why the juridical validity exists when each, every, all juridical norm existent, applicable, in each juridical case is accomplished, and that is why the juridically valid juridical case is the, juridical, case being that coincides with, the, Law because, it, coincides with its juridical being because, its being, coincides with what is defined in each juridical norm that applies to its, juridical case, being tailored to its juridical case being way, form, of existence). In a (some) juridically diligent way. That is to say, in a (some) juridically valid way.

 

That is why the Law is a juridically diligent human creation. And it (the, law) has a clear (juridically diligent) foundation. That means, estructure. That means, way of existence. That means, elements of existence. That means, conditions of existence. And its creation has a history. Since the creation of the juridically diligent form of existence. Properly, the juridically diligent human being is the one (is the being) who creates, applies, knows, proves and evolves the law. So, there are different juridical norms. But the determinant being is the juridically diligent human being. Because the creation of the law is inside the juridical diligent human being and the effect of the application of the law exists in the (way of existence of the) beings existing (in a, some, way, that is) related with his / her existence (including, the own being of that juridically diligent human being). Based on each juridical case way (form) of existence. THE ROBBINS COLLECTION synthesizes:

 

Common law is generally uncodified. This means that there is no comprehensive compilation of legal rules and statutes. While common law does rely on some scattered statutes, which are legislative decisions, it is largely based on precedent, meaning the judicial decisions that have already been made in similar cases. These precedents are maintained over time through the records of the courts as well as historically documented in collections of case law known as yearbooks and reports. The precedents to be applied in the decision of each new case are determined by the presiding judge. As a result, judges have an enormous role in shaping American and British law. Common law functions as an adversarial system, a contest between two opposing parties before a judge who moderates. A jury of ordinary people without legal training decides on the facts of the case. The judge then determines the appropriate sentence based on the jury’s verdict.

 

Civil Law, in contrast, is codified. Countries with civil law systems have comprehensive, continuously updated legal codes that specify all matters capable of being brought before a court, the applicable procedure, and the appropriate punishment for each offense. Such codes distinguish between different categories of law: substantive law establishes which acts are subject to criminal or civil prosecution, procedural law establishes how to determine whether a particular action constitutes a criminal act, and penal law establishes the appropriate penalty. In a civil law system, the judge’s role is to establish the facts of the case and to apply the provisions of the applicable code. Though the judge often brings the formal charges, investigates the matter, and decides on the case, he or she works within a framework established by a comprehensive, codified set of laws. The judge’s decision is consequently less crucial in shaping civil law than the decisions of legislators and legal scholars who draft and interpret the codes”.[22]

 

This is why the law defines the juridical must be (being). That means, the juridical must be form (way) of existence. Which means (that is) the law (total, being). That is why there is just some part of the law when there is a form consistent (coherent) with the juridical must be (that means, with what is defined in, on, the, Law). That is why the (each, any, all) being subject to law is (juridically) valid when its being exists (fully, realized) in a way according to the way which (the, Law) applies to it. THE ROBBINS COLLECTION specifies:

 

Historical Development of Civil Law

 

The term civil law derives from the Latin ius civile, the law applicable to all Roman cives or citizens. Its origins and model are to be found in the monumental compilation of Roman law commissioned by the Emperor Justinian in the sixth century CE. While this compilation was lost to the West within decades of its creation, it was rediscovered and made the basis for legal instruction in eleventh-century Italy and in the sixteenth century came to be known as Corpus iuris civilis. Succeeding generations of legal scholars throughout Europe adapted the principles of ancient Roman law in the Corpus iuris civilis to contemporary needs. Medieval scholars of Catholic church law, or canon law, were also influenced by Roman law scholarship as they compiled existing religious legal sources into their own comprehensive system of law and governance for the Church, an institution central to medieval culture, politics, and higher learning. By the late Middle Ages, these two laws, civil and canon, were taught at most universities and formed the basis of a shared body of legal thought common to most of Europe. The birth and evolution of the medieval civil law tradition based on Roman law was thus integral to European legal development. It offered a store of legal principles and rules invested with the authority of ancient Rome and centuries of distinguished jurists, and it held out the possibility of a comprehensive legal code providing substantive and procedural law for all situations.

 

As civil law came into practice throughout Europe, the role of local custom as a source of law became increasingly important—particularly as growing European states sought to unify and organize their individual legal systems. Throughout the early modern period, this desire generated scholarly attempts to systematize scattered, disparate legal provisions and local customary laws and bring them into harmony with rational principles of civil law and natural law. Emblematic of these attempts is the Dutch jurist Hugo Grotius’ 1631 work, Introduction to Dutch Jurisprudence, which synthesized Roman law and Dutch customary law into a cohesive whole. In the eighteenth century, the reforming aspirations of Enlightenment rulers aligned with jurists’ desire to rationalize the law to produce comprehensive, systematic legal codes including Austria’s 1786 Code of Joseph II and Complete Civil Code of 1811, Prussia’s Complete Territorial Code of 1794, and France’s Civil Code (known as the Napoleonic Code) of 1804. Such codes, shaped by the Roman law tradition, are the models of today’s civil law systems”.[23]

 

That is why the foundation of law (the juridical foundation, the Law foundation, the Law base, the base of, the, Law) is not in (on) documents. It is in the human being. In (the) humanity (humanly, human) juridical diligent clarity. Another thing is that some clarity is written in (on) documents. That is why, for example, what was said (juridically diligently) by Aristotle is clear. Without depending on quotations. That is why (the) juridical diligence is a human (being) way of existence. It is a virtue. The juridical virtue. Because it is the way for getting juridical validity in (on) each juridical case (form, way, of existence). THE ROBBINS COLLECTION specifies:

 

Historical development of English Common

 

Law English common law emerged from the changing and centralizing powers of the king during the Middle Ages. After the Norman Conquest in 1066, medieval kings began to consolidate power and establish new institutions of royal authority and justice. New forms of legal action established by the crown functioned through a system of writs, or royal orders, each of which provided a specific remedy for a specific wrong. The system of writs became so highly formalized that the laws the courts could apply based on this system often were too rigid to adequately achieve justice. In these cases, a further appeal to justice would have to be made directly to the king. This difficulty gave birth to a new kind of court, the court of equity, also known as the court of Chancery because it was the court of the king’s chancellor. Courts of equity were authorized to apply principles of equity based on many sources (such as Roman law and natural law) rather than to apply only the common law, to achieve a just outcome.

 

Courts of law and courts of equity thus functioned separately until the writs system was abolished in the mid-nineteenth century. Even today, however, some U.S. states maintain separate courts of equity. Likewise, certain kinds of writs, such as warrants and subpoenas, still exist in the modern practice of common law. An example is the writ of habeas corpus, which protects the individual from unlawful detention. Originally an order from the king obtained by a prisoner or on his behalf, a writ of habeas corpus summoned the prisoner to court to determine whether he was being detained under lawful authority. Habeas corpus developed during the same period that produced the 1215 Magna Carta, or Great Charter, which declared certain individual liberties, one of the most famous being that a freeman could not be imprisoned or punished without the judgment of his peers under the law of the land—thus establishing the right to a jury trial.

 

In the Middle Ages, common law in England coexisted, as civil law did in other countries, with other systems of law. Church courts applied canon law, urban and rural courts applied local customary law, Chancery and maritime courts applied Roman law. Only in the seventeenth century did common law triumph over the other laws, when Parliament established a permanent check on the power of the English king and claimed the right to define the common law and declare other laws subsidiary to it. This evolution of a national legal culture in England was contemporaneous with the development of national legal systems in civil law countries during the early modern period. But where legal humanists and Enlightenment scholars on the continent looked to shared civil law tradition as well as national legislation and custom, English jurists of this era took great pride in the uniqueness of English legal customs and institutions.

 

That pride, perhaps mixed with envy inspired by the contemporary European movement toward codification, resulted in the first systematic, analytic treatise on English common law: William Blackstone’s (1723-1780) Commentaries on the Laws of England. In American law, Blackstone’s work now functions as the definitive source for common law precedents prior to the existence of the United States”.[24]

 

This is why the Law is just what is related to juridical (juridically) diligence. The rest is anti juridical. This explains why (the, a, any) juridically corruption (properly, the, a, any, juridically invalid way, form, of existence, when the, being, involved, existence must comply with the Law and it does not) is anti juridical. Because it means juridical ineffectiveness. Unrecognizement (non recognizement) of (the) Law (being). And that is why, for example, (juridically diligently) the (a) debate is for communicating ideas but more than that the determinant aspect (of its existence; a, juridically diligent, debate) is for creating juridical validity clarity about the forms (themes, topics) involved in the (respective) debate. That is why it is a way for collective knowledge creation. Based on the juridically valid form expressed (communicated) in the debate. Not in arbitrary postures. That is why the (juridically diligent) dialectics are relevant. For creating knowledge (because if, the, respective, dialectic, form of existence, exists in a juridically valid way, that means, in a juridical diligent way, that means that exists in a, some, juridical effective way of existence).

 

This is why (for example) the juridical validity way of existence of the (a, any) commercial digital advertising (being) depends on what is (clearly) juridically valid in each juridical case (in which its being exists). That is why (juridically) it must (just) exist when (it) is a juridically diligent way of existence based on the form of existence of the respective juridical case involved and when it properly exists in a juridically valid way based on the foundation about why in a juridical case it is juridically diligent that the advertising must exist and on the application of law regarding the way in which the advertising exists (including, will exist, is existing, have been existing, had exist and its total being exists) in the respective juridical case way (form) of existence in which its (the advertising) existence is a juridically diligent form.

 

That is why (in general) a being (a being way of existence; a form) is a juridically diligent form when it is a being that creates (causes, generates, gets, obtains) juridical effectiveness (tailored to its way of existence in the respective juridical case way of existence in which it exists). That is why the juridically diligent being just exists when it is a juridical valid being. A juridically valid being. ADAMS precises:

 

“It is clear then that the new common law considered as a whole comes from two different sources; its substantive law from one source and its adjective law from another. Its adjective law as made a part of the national judicial system was new; its substantive law as defining rights and obligations was old, that is, it was old as compared with the new judicial system which could now be used to enforce it. It belonged in the time of the old judicial system of the popular courts which was now beginning to be pushed out of use. But it was not itself pushed out of use with the old system to which it originally belonged. Taken up by the new system, it formed nearly the whole of the body of substantive law which was enforced by the courts, at least until the first great legislative age of English history, which was opened by the statute of Marlborough in 1267.

 

By general consent Glanvill’s Tractatus de Legibus et Consuetudinibus Angliae, written probably between 1185 and 1 19o, is regarded as the first in the series of great books on the English common law. There was, however, an earlier period which may be considered roughly the first quarter of the twelfth century when there was a remarkable activity in writing books about English law. In that time or only slightly outside its limits, seven books were composed, or collections put together, purporting to give contemporary law. They were, as now entitled: Hic intimatur; Leis Willelme; Quadripartitus; Leges Henrici; Instituta Cnuti; Consiliatio Cnuti; and Leges Edwardi Confessoris.9”.[25]

 

That is why (the) Law means right (that means, the point, form, in which it is possible the enjoyment of all the juridical rights and the fulfillment of all the juridical duties) not (the, an, any) arbitrary deviation. This is why juridical invalidity generates juridical uncertainty while juridical validity involves juridical certainty and, properly, (juridical) effectiveness. ADAMS alerts:

 

“But the importance of these facts in themselves and as historical explanation should not lead us to forget that procedure is after all only the practical method by which the law is applied and enforced. It is not the real substance of the law. It is not substantive law. The new procedure was the one great interest of the time, but the growth of the new procedure into a national system made possible another transformation in the end of even deeper significance, the bringing of Saxon and Norman substantive law together into a unified national law, as they appear in Glanvill. To understand how this was brought about we turn again to the adjective side of law. It was in the prerogative courts that this process of unification was accomplished”.[26]

 

This is why the structure of law (the Law’s structure) is (just) one. And that is why to comply with the law (juridical compliance, Law compliance, compliance of, with, the, Law) means a juridically valid form of existence. That is why the existence of a juridically diligent process and procedure for complying with the Law is needed. Tailored to each juridical case form of existence. Because it (that) is the way of (for the) existence of the juridical valid self-regulation. Properly, it is the juridical validity way of existence. And it (that) is not based on the corrective view of law. It is not (directly) based on the judiciary power action. It is based on the human being juridical diligence (juridical diligent; juridically diligently) existence. That means, in that each human being existing in each juridical relation complies with the Law (with, all, the, Law) according to her / his respective juridical rights and duties in the respective juridical case way of existence.

 

This is why the system of Law (the systematic way of existence of, the, Law; properly, this is why the form, of existence of, the, Law) is based on (the) juridical diligence. That means, on the juridical foundation. On the basis and complementary elements of the Law being (of the Law way of existence). That is why more than a legal  system there has to (there must) exist a juridical system. Properly, a juridical way of existence. A juridical form. A juridical being. A Law system. Law. A Law way of existence. A juridical effectiveness way of existence. A juridically diligent way (form) of existence.

 

By nature (naturally) each human being has particularities. Singularities. It is a unique being. And thanks to the juridically diligent human being foundation created by the (diligent) human being all human beings can exist in a harmonic way. And thanks to the evolution of the human being juridical diligence capability that harmony can exist in an effective way based on the form of existence of evolution in each juridical case. So, it is not about uniformization of human beings (of human being). It is about the human being (the human being’s) juridically free (liberated) existence. In each juridical case. This is why juridically valid development means an environment in which each human being enjoys her / his juridical rights and fulfill her / his juridical duties in each juridical case. That is why juridical effectiveness existence is determinant. This is why juridically valid progress means an effective way for complying with the Law. That is why a juridically valid advance means a juridically diligent way for getting an effective way for creating the juridically valid quality of life (related with human beings; with the human being). And that is why the juridically invalid backward is a condition in which there is not juridical effectiveness. That is why Law is for the human being realization through the enjoyment of the juridical effectiveness existence through the juridically valid freedom (liberty) that exists (applies) in (regarding) each human being in each juridical case. BROWN suggests:

 

“Because of my interest in preventive medicine as related to preventive law, I wondered whether this experience was an example of preventive medicine. In this situation, I had no subjective symptoms. Nothing signalled to me the existence of disease. I was also begining to learn that medicine had reached the point where a remedy for my sort of heart disease was available. The remedy was not preventive in a primary sense; that is, the remedy (open heart surgery) would not prevent the disease. Rather, it would be a sort of secondary prevention, a treatment to prevent the further development of the disease.

 

In law, there is prevention of that sort too, although my chief interest is in primary preventive law. Yet, my experience fits in with the notion that the doctor (or lawyer, as the case may be) is equipped to detect the presence of disease (legal trouble). How marvelous is medicine! We in law are years behind in our ability to provide a comparable service to clients. On this I have written much. Among other things, preventive law seeks to enable lawyer to diagnose legal risks and unexercised legal benefits even with the symptomless client”.[27]

 

This is why the idea of Law is to comply with what it is defined by (in, through) its being. And it is important to say that, properly, (juridically) human being (a human being) is not (always) a client. And Law is not just focused on businesses. Juridically, each human being has to comply with the law according to the juridical condition (profile, form of existence) that has in each juridical relationship. Another thing is that (for example) in some juridical cases the existence of a lawyer is something juridically diligent (it is juridically needed; it is not an unnecessary complexity way of existence because to the contrary, it is a juridically valid simple way of existence) in (regarding, face to, with respect to) a juridical case for its juridically valid existence (and that is why in that case the, a, lawyer has to exist in a juridically diligent way according to the juridically form of existence that has in the respective case).

 

So, law (as it is said repeatedly in this article for giving clarity) is focused on the enjoyment of juridical rights and the fulfillment of the juridical duties. It is not about just juridical risks, losses and / or benefits. Another thing is that the juridical effectiveness includes the juridically diligent management of risks, losses and benefits. In general, law is not just focused in preventing (in general, it is not focused in avoiding) juridical conflicts.

 

Another (a different) thing (being; form of existence) is that it is needed to solve any juridical problem related with the juridical validity form of existence in each juridical case. That is why the juridical diligence is the way for creating the (a, some) juridical solution of that problem. Because it (the juridical diligence) is the way for creating the juridical validity form of existence. Because it (the juridical diligence) is the way for complying (to comply, with) the law. It (the juridical diligence) is the way for creating the enjoyment of juridical rights and the fulfillment of juridical duties. In each juridical case. Tailored to each juridical case form (way) of existence. According to (that means, based on) each juridical case form (way) of existence. That is why (the) juridical diligence is the way for creating juridical effectiveness. Because it is the (proactive juridical diligent) form (of existence) for (clearly) attending the (total) law (being, way, form, of existence).

 

This is why Law is focused in the human being harmonic way of existence based on the realization of each human being through the enjoyment of the juridical (that means, the juridically valid) freedom (liberty) when each human being exists in a juridical diligent form (way) of existence in each juridical case in which (his / her being) exists. For example, this is why an artificial intelligence (A.I.) way of existence is a juridically diligent way of existence when its being creates juridical effectiveness in the juridically valid aspects related to its product (that means, a good and / or service, depending on each juridical case form of existence) way of existence tailored to the respective juridical case existing. And that is why in that example it is the juridical diligence of each human being related with the artificial intelligence product way of existence the form that creates the juridical effectiveness The so-called artificial intelligence is just a form (a product, a means) for the existence of that human being juridically diligent way of existence (in the aspects related with the respective artificial intelligence product way of existence in the respective juridical case involved). And that is why (for example) it is the juridical diligence the way in which human beings create (the, a) juridically valid commercial digital advertising.

 

And that is why (for example) in some cases the so-called artificial intelligence (that when exists in a juridically valid way it is an expression of the human being intelligence because it exists by the human being juridically diligent way, form, of existence) is a juridically diligent being when its being creates juridical effectiveness regarding the commercial digital advertising in the aspects (juridically validly) related with its (with the artificial intelligence) way of existence in the respective juridical case involved. That is why juridical valid scienze gets juridical effectiveness. In general, this is why juridically valid knowledge is a juridical diligent way of existence.

 

Properly, that is why juridical validity is the art of creating a juridical effectiveness way of existence. That is why the clear juridically diligent human being is the artist of compliance of (with), the, Law. This is why juridical validity is created by the juridical diligent human being through the juridical effectiveness existing through her / his (juridically diligent) human being (way, form, of existence). This is why Law is based on the juridical validity.  And that is why (juridically) technical means any juridically valid way of existence. Because it (that) is the way for creating juridical effectiveness. That is why the law is based on the clear existence of human being juridically diligent existence. That is why (the) juridical diligence exists when there exists a harmonic way of existence that creates juridical effectiveness. That means, when there is a juridical case form of existence in which every human being involved enjoys her / his rights and fulfills her / his juridical duties. Tailored to the way in which law applies to it. And there is teaching when there is (when there exists) learning. Because teaching is for learning. And knowledge is (must be) for all. That is why the Law (the juridical) knowledge (the knowledge of, about, Law) and its application (tailored to each juridical case) is determinant for the existence (including, for the enjoyment) of (the) juridical effectiveness (that means, it, that, this, is determinant for the juridical effectiveness existence). POGGI concludes:

 

5 Conclusions. About the rational legislator (again)

 

As we have seen, according to the objective notion of implicatum – as drawn by Greenberg (who nevertheless criticizes it) – a statute implicates what a cooperative (or rational) speaker should implicate according to the maxims, or, better, to the legal interpretative criteria that are supposed to be the equivalents to conversational maxims, and the listeners’ contextual mutual assumptions.

 

This model presents the undeniable advantage of not requiring any effective legislators’ intention: however, this is exactly the main reason for its collapse.

 

Firstly, as repeatedly stated, there is not a unanimous consent about which legal criteria are to be considered as the analogues to conversational maxims or about the hierarchy between them: in the legal field, there is not that general expectation of conformity that founds the functioning of maxims in ordinary conversation.47

 

Secondly, even if we limit the relevant context to the listeners’ contextual mutual assumptions, it is doubtful whether this is univocal, and sufficiently determined and rich.48

 

Finally and above all, in statutory interpretation, the objective notion of implicatum does not find a counterbalance in any (univocal, determined) intention to implicate on the part of the legislators: i.e., a criterion to establish the success of the communication is missing. This is the reason why this model ends up being a sophisticated variant of the normative criterion of the rational legislator: this model does not describe what happens in statutory interpretation, but it prescribes to interpret the statutes as if they were the product of a cooperative speaker. But there is neither a cooperative speaker nor the model assumes that there is. Precisely because there is no parameter to establish communicative success, and because, in fact, there is no consensus either on the relevant context or on the interpretative criteria to be employed, each interpretative proposal has theoretically the same validity as the others. But is this not what actually happens in statutory interpretation? It happens in statutory interpretation, but not in ordinary conversation, and this shows that these are two profoundly different practices”.[28]

 

This is (for example) why the branches of power have to exist in a juridically valid way. And because they are composed by human beings each human being has to exist in a juridically diligent way face to her / his form of existence in the respective branch of power tailored to each juridical case way of existence.  That (this) is the way in which every branch of power exists in a juridical way.

 

Properly (in general), if every human being exists in a juridically valid way in each juridical case every (juridical, that means, moral, and natural, that means, physical) person exists juridically validly in each juridical case. And if in that context every person is juridically validly each juridical case is juridically valid. That is why juridical diligence is the way for creating juridical effectiveness. That is to say, that is why juridical diligence creates the juridically valid form of existence. That means, the juridically valid quality of life. Because it (that, form of existence) is the way in which there exists harmony thanks to the existence of the enjoyment of every juridical right and the fulfillment of every juridical duty that applies (exists) in each juridical case.

 

So, more than interpretation, argumentation, justification, etc., regarding law it is about the juridical foundation (which includes the juridically valid interpretation, argumentation, justification, action and, properly, condition way of existence). WIDIYANINGTYAS, HIDAYAH  and ADJI permit an example:

 

“The exponential growth of information on the internet causes users can get huge information resources to dig up and collect. This flood of information causes users difficulty accessing the desired information [1, 2]. Users have to spend more time and more energy finding the information they want, but users may not necessarily get satisfactory results. Fortunately, user behavior on e-commerce sites and other social networks can be recorded and be tracked, making it easier to analyze user interests [3, 4]. One of the tools to solve this problem in analyzing user interests is a recommendation system.

 

The recommendation system helps users get relevant items among millions of items in the database [5, 6]. The recommendation system’s main task is to offer users personalized item recommendations through information filtering. This system has become a commercial platform that recommends users to select the desired items. The recommended items are useful to support users in various decision-making processes, such as what books to read, which locations to visit, what news to read, and more [7].

 

Based on the utilized data source and computation method, the recommendation system is divided into three approaches collaborative filtering, content-based filtering, and hybrid filtering [6, 8]. The collaborative filtering approach uses the collaborative power of ratings given by users to make recommendations. The content-based filtering approach uses descriptive attributes of items to make recommendations. Meanwhile, the hybrid filtering approach combines several filtering methods to get a list of items according to user preferences [9]”.[29]

 

That is why human initiatives (subject to law) are juridically valid if they are juridically diligent. This is why juridical diligence is the (a, any) simple (direct, a non unnecessary complexed, a non unnecessary complex, properly, a juridically valid) way for getting juridical effectiveness. It is juridical compliance simplicity. Juridical validity clarity. Juridical diligence in the enjoyment of (juridical) rights and (the) fulfillment of (juridical) duties. Tailored to each juridical case. So, it is not just about (to) criticize (criticizing). Including, it is not just about being skeptical. It is also about (to) propose (proposing). Including, it is also about being propositive. It is about to be (juridically diligent) propositive. To create (it is about creating) juridical validity existence solutions in (for, tailored to) each juridical case. That is why knowledge creation (including its application, because that is a necessary way, of existence, for knowledge, complete, way, form, of existence) is a collective goal. That is why it requires juridically diligent compromise and, properly, action. Not just a reactive conduct of answering without being focused in the creation of (juridically valid) clarity. That is why law is based on juridically diligent existence.

 

So, it is not just about describing. It is also about proposing. Properly, it is about creating the juridically valid way of existence through the juridically diligent way (form, condition, including, conditions, elements) of existence. That is why it is not about speculation. It is about juridically (juridical) validity. Properly, (it) is about complying (with) the law. And that is why the law has its must be and (it) is clear because it exists (it is defined) in the juridical foundation. That is the way of existence of law. Because the juridical foundation being are (means) the conditions that have to (properly, that must) exist (that must be attended) for the (total, complete, clear) existence of the law being.

 

That is why the juridical diligence is the juridically valid technical form for complying with (the) Law. Properly, that is why the juridically diligent human being is the being that complies with the law through her / his own naturally direct means and through the other juridically diligent means (beings; that means, the other juridically diligent subjects and / or objects; forms) that juridically validly would be (are; that juridically validly exists in) a way (for) for letting human being comply with the law. Tailored to each juridical case. VENEZIANO links:

 

“This article presented a series of eras that have characterized the practice of the United States in utilizing the regulatory tool, extraterritoriality.  Throughout each era, we have seen how the United States grew as a world power and, simultaneously, changed the way it conducted internal and global affairs. Specifically, the United States no longer had the need to rely on strict notions of sovereignty and territoriality as it gained more power and stability in the international realm.  Further, to advance its own goals, the United States over time has found it less necessary to consider foreign impact and evaluate international law considerations during its policy making and judicial decision-making.

 

The  desire  for  economic  independence  and  stability  is  not  bad  nor  does  it automatically cast the nation as a global dominator.  But there comes a point where the greed for power becomes hegemony, and this is a thin line that the United States tends to straddle. What makes this trend dangerous for the United States’ use of the regulatory tool,  extraterritoriality,  is  its  consistent  denial  to  consider  international  comity  and foreign  friction  possibilities  in  a  world  that  is  becoming  increasingly  globalized. To better align with the realities of today’s interconnected world, the United States ought to return to an era where it fosters its economic and social progression but does so with a consideration of international-related concerns”.[30]

 

That is why (as it is said in different moments) juridical validity is (means) existing according to (with) the law. That means, according with (to) the juridical must be. This is why a State is a human being creation and (it, its being, the, a, State) is juridically valid if it exists according to the foundation of law (law foundation, law basis, juridical foundation). And (in general) this is why human being is juridically valid when exists in a (juridical) diligent way because that is the way of existence in which each person can enjoy the rights and fulfill the duties that has in each juridical case. And (in general) that is why the juridically valid society is the one (is the society) in which every human being enjoys the effect of (the) juridical effectiveness existence tailored to each juridical case existing inside of (regarding, face to, with respect to, related to, in) the way (form) of existence of that society. And that is why the Rule of Law is the way of existence of the juridically valid human being existing in a juridically valid society existing in a juridically valid State.

 

And that is why (properly) there is no international community. Juridically, it does not exist. Because it is not a person (personal) way (form) of existence that could exist in a juridical relationship. Juridically, what exists are juridical relationships between (physical, that means, natural, and / or moral, that means, juridical) persons. And there are (there exist) human beings existing for the respective existence of the respective person form of existence in each juridical relationship. So, there is (there exists) the human being. And there are (there exist) human being (human beings’) ways of existence. And there is (there exists), the, society. And there is (there exists) the State. And each of those forms (of existence; existence forms) are (juridically) valid when (the respective form, of existence) coincides with (the) Law and (juridically), those forms, are persons in a juridical relationship when they have juridical rights and duties. Properly, there is a person in a juridical case when its being has juridical rights and duties. Tailored to the respective juridical case form of existence (that means, tailored to the respective juridical case’s existence form).

 

That is why (properly, juridically) the society is not a person. The Nation is the person who represents a (each) juridically valid State (form, way, of existence). Properly, the (each) State is the person. And when the (a) States exists in a juridically diligent form it is a juridically valid State. Because there is (there exists) juridical effectiveness in all (what is, what exists) related with its form of existence in each juridical case in which it exists. That (this) happens with every juridically diligent person. That is why the juridically diligent person is a juridically valid being (it is a juridical valid person). Tailored to the respective juridical case (form of existence) in which it (the being; its being) exists.

 

This is why the juridical power is the most powerful form of power. It is the most powerful being. Because it is the stable power (including, in the short, middle and long term). Because it is the way in which every person enjoys its juridical rights and duties. So, it gives (the juridically valid) stability. Properly, (the juridically valid) harmony. It gives the (juridically valid) balanced way of existence. Recognizing the dynamics of existence (that means, the existence dynamics). Promoving the existence of life. In general (properly) the existence. Including, (the) evolution. Properly, the coexistence (tailored to each juridical case).

 

And (for example) that is why (juridically) there is no international law. There is law. Another thing is that there is something called international law. But (juridically) there is no international law. Because what exists are persons, juridical relationships, juridical cases, juridical rights, juridical duties, juridical forms of existence and the law form (way) of existence. That is why there is (there exists) the (juridical; the juridically valid; the juridically diligent) virtue. And it is not relative. It is when all exists in a good way. That is why evolution is (signifies, means) the performing in (of) the way of virtue. And that is why (the) juridical validity is the way for complying with the law. Because it is the effective way for attending the law being. And that is why (the) virtue is the way for the existence of harmony. Because (the) harmony is the (only) way (of existence) in which every one exists in a good way. And that is why (the) virtue does not mean the existence of frustration, sadness, boringness, etc. Because it is the way in which each being exists in a (juridically valid) free (liberated) way. And that freedom (liberty) signifies (could signify, could be) happiness if for a being the (juridical) freedom (liberty) is used for happiness.

 

At this point it is important to clarify that the Law does not indicate how to attend its being in a specific way. It gives (it defines) how to comply with the law. That means, its being communicates the juridical foundation. That means, the way of existence of law. The conditions of (including, for) the existence of law. The foundation of (including, for) the existence of (the) juridical diligence. That is why (the) juridical diligence is the (juridically validly) way to attend (including, comply with) the law. In each juridical case.

 

That is why if every person existing in each juridical case exists in a way that coincides with its respective juridical diligence way of existence there is the knowledge (including, the clarity) about how the law applies (exists, specifically) in (including, for) the respective case and how to comply with it. That is why the juridical diligence is the juridically valid (creative, proactive, accurate, clear, harmonic, etc.) action that creates (including, makes) the (including, a, some, way of existence of the) juridical effectiveness (being way, form, of existence).

 

This is why (for example) the juridically valid commercial digital advertising exists when all its being (when its total being, when its being) coincides with the law in each juridical case in which (it) exists. That is why (for example) if each person existing (juridically validly), in a (some) way, related with its way of existence (that means, with the, a, commercial digital advertising way of existence, that means, with the, a, commercial digital advertising being) in a juridical case is juridically diligent its way of existence (that means, the, respective, commercial digital advertising form of existence) exists in a harmonic way with the law (that means, with what is defined by, in, through, the law for its way of existence, that means, for the way in which exists, including, for the way in which is existing, including, for the way in which will exists, including, for the way in which have been existing, including, for the way in which had been existing, including, for the way in which had exist, including, for the way in which existed, its being in that situation).

 

That is (for example) why the respective advertising piece, the way in which the advertising (digital and analogical) form of existence operates, the way in which the advertising is communicated to the (to each, to every) consumer and the way in which the advertising (juridical) effect is attended exists in a juridically valid way if the respective juridical case in which it (the advertising) exists exists in a juridical valid way (that means, in a juridical effective way) thanks to the existence of the juridical validity which exists thanks to the existence of each person (and of each human being existing related with each person way of existence) in a juridically valid way (tailored to the respective juridical case way, form, of existence). REESE summarizes:

 

“Abstract. American legal scholarship focuses almost exclusively on federal, state, and local law. However, there are 574 federally recognized tribal governments within the United States, whose laws are largely ignored. This Article brings to the fore the exclusion of tribal governments and their laws from our mainstream conception of “American law” and identifies this exclusion as both an inconsistent omission and a missed opportunity. Tribal law is no less “American law” than federal or state law. It is made, enforced, and followed by American citizens, and tribal governments have a distinct place as subsovereigns within the American system of overlapping sovereigns. Nor is tribal law an unimportant or small part of the American legal landscape, since these 574 legal systems govern millions of Americans and as much land as California. And yet, tribal law is excluded from our shared conception of “American law”—and therefore from our research projects, classrooms, and even conversations. This exclusion perpetuates the othering of Indians and the invisibility of both Indian people and their governments. Tribal governments were previously delegitimized and described as “lawless” in order to legitimize legal theories of conquest. But tribal law is real, and it is time to end its marginalization. Moreover, tribal law is vast, varied, and often innovative. As demonstrated by the three examples in this piece, tribal governments struggle with the same problems that the other American sovereigns face, and their similarities, differences, successes, failures, and innovations can inform other American sovereigns’ work or public law questions more broadly. Omitting tribal law from American legal scholarship is not only a troubling inconsistency; it is a missed opportunity to tap a potentially valuable resource—a disservice to the search for good government ideas. Tribal law belongs in the mainstream study of American law and legal systems. This Article places it there”.[31]

 

And (according to the clarification done, inclusive, made, in this article) there could be something called Tribal Law and something called Indian law but there is no Indian law (and, properly, the word Indian is related with the people from India, that is why the word indigeonous means a different thing than Indian, because Indiguenoues means any native person from any native territory, so there can be indigenous people from India and from other place; another thing is that maybe when the America continent was known for first by people from Europe some of them thought that were in the Indies, referring to Asia). There is law. And (based on that law is just one) something is just part of the law when it is compatible with what (it) is said in the foundation of the law being (that means, the juridical foundation). So, indigenous people (that, properly, means any human being depending on her / his native territory) create law when they are juridically diligent. That means, when each person involved in the initiative (in the intent, in the act) of creating law exists in a juridically valid way of existence. REESE clarifies:

 

“B. Marginalization Through “Indian Law”

 

A second-order task is a reckoning within the field of Indian law. There are several dynamics within the field that marginalize tribal law. “Indian law” as a field lumps together two very different kinds of law: “tribal law” and “federal Indian law.” This is the doctrinal equivalent of lumping together “federalism” and all of “state law.” It is also a poor name choice. While both kinds of law have to do with Indians, federal Indian law was made primarily by non-Indians to govern Indians, to legitimize conquest, and to erode tribal sovereignty. Therefore, federal Indian law is more accurately “conquest federalism” than “Indian” law. We would never call the contemporary study of Jim Crow laws or even the Reconstruction Amendments “Black law.”133 The far better candidate for the name “Indian law” is simply and exclusively tribal law—the law made by Indians.134 In this section, I explore three ways this lumping—aside from being intellectually incoherent—contributes to the invisibility of tribal law”.[32]

 

That is why there is just Law (there exists, the, Law) when there is (when there exists) coherence between the (a) being (governed by, subject to, the, Law) and its juridical must be. That means, when there is (when there exists) juridical coherence. And that is why there is law when each human being existing inside each juridical case is acting (existing) in (over, based on) the juridical diligence way of existence. And that is why the most serious (bad, negative) aspect of the non-compliance of (with) the law is not the existence of the juridical invalidity (that is serious, bad, negative) but the nonexistence (the absence) of the juridical validity. The nonexistence (the absence) of the effect of the juridical validity existence. And this is why the juridical validity exists when what must be juridically (including, what should be juridically) coincides with what exists (with what is, with the way of existence of the being subject to the law). WOOD and NISSIM coordinate:

 

“This position paper observes how different technical and normative conceptions of privacy have evolved in parallel and describes the practical challenges that these divergent approaches pose. Notably, past technologies relied on intuitive, heuristic understandings of privacy that have since been shown not to satisfy expectations for privacy protection. With computations ubiquitously integrated in almost every aspect of our lives, it is increasingly important to ensure that privacy technologies provide protection that is in line with relevant social norms and normative expectations. Similarly, it is also important to examine social norms and normative expectations with respect to the evolving scientific study of privacy.

 

To this end, we argue for a rigorous analysis of the mapping from normative to technical concepts of privacy and vice versa. We review the landscape of normative and technical definitions of privacy and discuss specific examples of gaps between definitions that are relevant in the context of privacy in statistical computation. We then identify opportunities for overcoming their differences in the design of new approaches to protecting privacy in accordance with both technical and normative standards”.[33]

 

That is why the law is the juridical must be and it is applied (accomplished) with (through) the juridically diligent being. That means, with (through) the being (with, through, each being; with, through, the beings; with, through, the, total, entire, clear, juridical case, being, way of existence) that according to (that based on) the juridical case way of existence attends the law. That means, attends the juridical rights and duties that exist for (according to, in) that (juridical, case) way of existence.

 

And that is why it is not about a confrontation between the law and other fields (beings). It is about how each being subject to the law (ruled by the law) coincides with its respective juridical must be through (with) the beings (including, through a diligent way of existence of the form of existence of the being subject to the law and of the beings that because of its relation to that being, now, are subject to the law) that make it (that make that happen, exist; that make that coincidence). Tailored to each juridical case. That is the way of existence of the juridical diligence (that is the way in which the juridical diligence exists, including, applies, including, works).

 

And that is why the juridical being is just what is harmonic with the law. With what is defined in the law way of existence. That is why the juridical norms are just the ones (the norms forms of existence, the norms with the, a, form of existence) that coincides with the juridical foundation (with the structure of law, with the basis of law, with the elements of existence of the law being, with the law being, with the total being of the law, with the law). This is the (only, unique) juridical must be. That is why the law is the juridical must be. It is the juridical must be. WILLIS adverts:

 

“V. CONCLUSION: FAIR MARKETING BY DESIGN

 

The proliferation of unique variations of digital marketing and sales materials designed and targeted by artificial intelligence in real time poses a looming threat to consumer protection and fair competition. Unchecked, algorithmic marketing simultaneously makes the deception of consumers inevitable and renders impotent the traditional methods by which deceptive trade practices claims are proven in our legal system. Business intent evidence is disappearing, the distinction between the reasonable consumer and the actual consumer is collapsing, and the results of facial analyses and consumer subject testing for deceptiveness have weak population and ecological validity. Further, as a practical matter, the volume of permutations of a business’s digital materials overwhelms the capacity of courts to review or experts to test even a representative sample. Courts must modernize consumer protection and fair competition law to rearm the legal system against the deception that unrestrained artificial intelligence will otherwise inevitably produce”.[34]

 

That is why the juridical diligence consists in (is) complying with the law. It is foreseeing and, properly applying the law. Based on what has to (properly, on what must) be applied according to each person juridical condition (form, of existence) in each juridical case. And that is why this does not depend on a judge. Depends on each human being. On the application of each human being juridical diligence in each juridical case tailored to its (to the case’s) form of existence.

 

And because some cases involve different Rules of Law thanks to the fact that the law is one being (the law is just one being) it is possible to apply the law in each juridical case. Because it is possible to harmonize all (everything). Thanks to the juridical diligence way of existence. And because a Rule of Law is a Sate’s way of existence that coincides with the law. That is why a State’s Rule of Law is (just) composed by its juridical norms. Not by the norms against (not by the norms contrary to) what is defined in the law. That is why each Rule of Law is the being created as a result of the union of its juridical norms. That is why every juridical case can (and must) be juridically valid. KONNOTH permits a reflection:

 

“Some may also argue that the solutions I offer will not work. Indeed, I acknowledge that despite the examples I offer, further empirical and contextual analysis is required to test my hypotheses. Beyond empirics, as a conceptual matter, while I have focused on the question of preemption, the narrative here could be extended. For example, how do the trilateral relationships I describe play out when the situation is not conflict prone (as is the case when law is displaced or preempted) but cooperative, or somewhere in between? Thus, for example, could Congress require states to privatize as a condition of federal funding, that is, to siphon the federal dollars to contractors? Similarly, do states and private entities continue to interact in the shadow of federal preemption?510 How might the different federal-state-private balances play out in different contexts, using different approaches to power allocation? How do localities play a role in this mix (a question I deliberately elide for the purposes of this Article)?511 And even more fundamentally,512 how do all of these interactions help shape our conception of government, of the public and private, and of citizenship? These are all questions that must be answered for us to develop a fuller understanding of “our federalism.”513”.[35]

 

That is why the law defines the (total, entire) juridical must be. And that is why the public sector and the private sector (juridically) must exist in the way in which is (in which would be) juridically diligent tailored to each juridical case. That is why the law defines how to exist in a (juridically valid) harmonic way. That is why the (a) being subject to the law has to (properly, must) respect the law. Properly, that is why every (each, all) being subject to the law has to comply (properly, must exist in a harmonic way) with (the) law. Not with anti juridical norms. With the law. With the juridical foundation. With the juridical must be. The International Council for Advertising Self-Regulation (ICAS) explains:

 

“This paper is the comment of the International Council for Advertising Self-Regulation (ICAS) to the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) public consultation on International Engagement as Part of its Hearings on Competition and Consumer Protection in the 21st Century. It focuses on two questions of the consultation, namely:

 

  • Question 10: What role should “soft law” (e.g., best practices/guiding principles) play in promoting convergence or interoperability in policy approaches?
  • Question 11: How do differing views on the roles of government, self-regulation, and private enforcement affect policy development and enforcement cooperation?

 

We wish to comment because these two questions are at the core of our mission. We promote responsible advertising practices through self-regulatory programs around the globe. Our membership includes Self-Regulatory Organizations (SROs) from all continents, such as the Council of Better Business Bureau administered Advertising Self-Regulatory Council (ASRC) in the US market1. SROs are independent bodies funded by the advertising industry that work to ensure that ads and marketing communications are responsible, meaning for instance that they are truthful and meet applicable social and legal requirements.

 

A Self-Regulatory System usually contains at least three elements:

 

  • standards governing the content and placement of ads;
  • a system for adopting and reviewing the standards;
  • an independent and impartial body responsible for ensuring compliance of individual ads with the standards (e.g. by providing advice prior to the publication of an ad and/or by handling complaints once an ad has been released)”.[36]

 

At this moment (point) it is clear that (juridically) there could be (there could exist) international, global, universal, etc., law ways (of existence) because law is one. That is why there is no soft or hard law there is law or there is no law (there exists or there does not exist the law being). And (for example) the so-called lex mercatoria (way of existence) is a source of law and (it) is (a) part of (the) law (way of existence) when it is (when its being; when it is way, form, of existence is) juridically valid (that means, when there exists, when it exists, in a juridical valid way), etc. And that is why more than Rule of Law it is about juridical validity. Properly, it is about the law (including, it is about, the, juridical effectiveness).

 

And that is why (juridically) the determinant aspect is the existence of juridical diligence. Because it is the way for creating (making, getting, obtaining, having) the (a, some) juridical validity form of existence. In each juridical case in which all exists juridically diligently (that means, in a juridically diligent way, form, of existence). And this is why (the) juridically valid self-regulation is (a) part of (the) law. Of the Law being. Because it is a juridically diligent way of existence. Because (it, its being) is according to (the) law. Properly, because it is harmonic with what is defined in (the) law (being).

 

So, it is a way for (the) juridical effectiveness (way of existence; it is a way for the existence of, the, juridical effectiveness, being). Because it is a way for the (existence of the) enjoyment of the juridical rights and the fulfillment of the juridical duties. Regarding its being (that means, with respect to the, respective, self-regulation form, way, of existence). Tailored to each juridical case (linked to it; to that being; to its being; to the being of the respective self-regulation form of existence existing in the respective juridical case involved; properly, to the way in which exists the juridical diligence face to the respective juridically valid self-regulation, way of existence, that means, being, existing in the respective juridical case form of existence).

 

This is why it is juridical (juridically) diligent to trust in the juridical validity existence (in each juridical case). Because there has to (properly, because there must) be (exist) a juridical attitude. And that attitude just exists when there is trust and, properly, when the (an) action is focused on the existence of the juridical validity. Not in (the) distrust and, in general, not focused on the existence of the juridical invalidity. And that is why each person existing in each juridical relationship has to exist in a juridically valid way (form). And that is why the (juridical) correct way is complying the law (is to comply with the law). Because (that) is the way for making juridical effectiveness. And according to each juridical case being (form of existence) it is possible to know how the law applies, how to comply with it and to attend it in a diligent way based on the forms (beings) existing in the case through making those forms (beings) existing (to exist) in a juridical valid that. That (this) is the way for creating the (a) juridical valid case.

 

So, the compliance of law is the solution. The problem is trying to get a solution once the non compliance of law exists. This is why (the) philosophy of law is important to clarify how humans could live a good quality of life in this era (in this time, at this time) and in any one else. Humanity past, present and future have in common the existence of human beings and if since now humanity is juridically diligent we can enjoy a good (a juridically good, right; properly, a juridically effective) life (existence) for all (for every one).

 

We are humans. Human beings. We are (we should be, we must be, we need do be) proud of it. As human beings we can live good (well), we can have a good life, we can enjoy (the) existence. If we are juridically diligent in each juridical case. Each human being does not have to be a lawyer to comply with the law. Because what each human being has to comply with (when she / he exists, that means, is involved, in, that means, is linked with, a juridical case) is with the respective juridical diligence way of existence that applies to her / his being (juridically) form (way) of existence.

 

The human (being) expression way is (the) art. The art of making (atoms, that means, analogue forms, and bits, that means, digital forms) in a harmonic way of existence. That is why the law is (an) art. And the complying of law (and to comply with the law) is (an) art. The art of creating the juridically valid way of existence. Tailored to each juridical case. That is why the (juridically valid) harmony means the (way, form, of) existence of the enjoyment of all the juridical rights and the fulfillment of all juridical duties existing in each juridical case. That is why the juridical validity is the art of creating juridical effectiveness.

 

So, it (the Law) is not (just) about the mean (including, means) or the result (including, results). It is about the juridically valid way of existence of the mean and the result. Properly, it is about the (total, clear, way, form, of existence of the) juridical validity (being). Because (as we already know) it is about (the) juridical effectiveness (existence, including, enjoyment). That means, it is about the juridical effectiveness (being) way of existence tailored to each juridical case (being). That is why the juridically diligent human being is the being (is the one) that complies with the law (because, she / he, is the being that creates the existence of the juridical effectiveness being, that means, that human, being, is the being that creates the effectiveness of the law, the law effectiveness, in each juridical case by creating its juridically valid harmonized way of existence).

 

So, to comply with (to apply) the law means to enjoy (means the existence of the enjoyment of all) the juridical rights and (to) fulfill (means the existence of the fulfillment of all) the juridical duties that each human being has in each juridical case. That means, it is to apply the law. It is to create a way for creating the existence that exists with the effect of complying with the law. It is to apply the way in which the law applies to each human being (that means, it is when each human being existing in each juridical case applies the way in which the law exists face to, that means, regarding, its respective human being) in each juridical case. That is why it is (it means) to enjoy the juridical rights and fulfill the juridical duties (tailored to each juridical case, form, way, of existence; that is why the law is complied when each human being does that, because the law is just complied, that means, because the complied with the law exists, when, all, its being, way of existence, is applied, totally, clearly).

 

 

III. Conclusions

 

This article permits to conclude that different does not mean (the same than) distinct. Different is referred to the absence of similarities between beings of the same class (properly, of the same species). Distinct is referred to the absence of similarities between beings of different classes (properly, of different species). So, there can be different legal (properly, juridical) forms of existence (systems, forms, beings) but there is just one law being (one law). The Law. So, all (every) juridically valid being is equal (properly, is equivalent) to others because they all are part of the law. And the law is one. Another thing is that it applies depending on each juridical case way of existence. So it is important to know (including, to attend, in each juridical case) the juridical foundation (of, the, law; the foundation of the law, the law foundation).

 

That is why each being can not be defined by one of its sides (parts, angles) but by its whole (total) way of existence. And that is why the knowledge of that being means (exists, when there is) juridical diligence clarity about its whole (total) way of existence. And because (the) law is an abstract being its whole (total) way of existence is existing by (according to, tailored to) the way of its existence through its entire form (time and space) of existence in each juridical case (that is why its foundation, base, foundations, basis, is, are, clear but is entire, whole, total, way of, existence exists according to the form of existence of each way of existence of each juridical case, that means, of each being of each juridical case). That is why there is the law but its entire existence exists tailored to each (juridical theorical an practical) juridical case (being) way (form) of existence.

 

This is why every juridical case is atypical (sui generis). Properly, that is why each juridical case is unique. But the foundation of juridical validity is typical. Because it is defined in (on), the, law. And applies tailored to each juridical case way of existence. That is why if each human being existing in each juridical case is juridically diligent (that means, that is why if each human being existing linked to each, physical and moral, person existing in each juridical case exists in a diligent way) there is juridical validity because there is the existence of the juridically diligent flexibility (that means the flexible, the adaptative, the effective, way according to the stabile way of existence of law) that creates (gets, makes) that each juridical case being exists in a coincident (that means, harmonic) way with its juridical must be (because its being is adapted to, the, law).

 

That is why there are different ways of knowing the law. The determinant aspect is to apply its (total, entire) way of existence. Because it (that) is the (only) way for the enjoyment of the (effect of the existence of the) existence of the law (being) in each juridical case (being). This is why the juridically valid harmony exists when a juridical case exists in a form in which there exists the enjoyment of all the rights and the fulfillment of all the juridical duties that apply (that exist face) to (on, in) it. This is why that harmony is (means) juridical effectiveness. And that is why there is (there exists, the, a) compliance of (with) the Law when there is (when there exists) juridical effectiveness (that means, when there is, when there exist, a juridically valid harmony, that means, when there is, when there exists, the, a, juridically valid juridical case, way, form, of existence).

 

And that is why evolution consists in creating effective (that is to say, efficient and efficacy) ways (forms, of existence) for the enjoyment of juridical rights and (the) fulfillment of juridical duties. That is why it is not juridically diligent to be radical with respect to one part of the law way of existence. Law is a whole. It is a (total, complete, clear) being. It is not juridically diligent to divide the law (being). Another thing is to have cultural ways of existence of the law (that are part of the law, whole, complete, total, being, because are harmonic with the law way, foundation, condition, of existence). This is why the law has to (properly, must) be (understood, known and) applied (totally) in each juridical case. That (this) is the (clear) way (form) of existence of (the) law (being). Tailored to each juridical case (way of existence), as we already know.

 

This is why (the) juridical diligence is the way (is the human, being, way, form, of existence) to comply (with; that complies, with) the law. And that is why the juridically valid quality of life (that means the quality of life defined in, on, by, throught, the Law) depends (its existence depends, including, its way, form, of existence depends) on the (way, form, of) existence of (the) juridical diligence. Tailored to each (juridical) case (way, form, of existence). That is why each human being has to (properly, must) be juridically diligent in each juridical case in which exists according to the way of existence of her / his (respective) juridical diligence (condition; way, form, of existence) face to the respective juridical case (way, form, of existence) involved.

 

That (this) is the (only, unique, effective) way (form) of (including, for) enjoying the (juridical) freedom (liberty). That means, the freedom (liberty) that exists thanks to the existence of the enjoyment of (the) juridical rights and the fulfillment of (the) juridical duties in (regarding, with respect to) each human being (in each juridical relationship). That is why the Law existence and its fulfillment is determinant (humanly, and regarding the rest of, the, beings, that means, the subjects and objects, related with each human being way of existence, that is to say, related with, the, human, being, existence, properly, with the, humanity, existence).

 

Please comply (with; attend) the law to feel (experience, enjoy) the effect of its existence. The effect of the juridically valid coexistence way of existence. The (juridically valid) harmony. The clarity about the good way of life (for all, regarding, the, human being existence).

 

 

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

 

 

ARTICLES

 

ADAMS, G. B., (1924), “THE ORIGIN OF THE COMMON LAW”, Yale Law Journal, volume 34, number 2, New Haven, United States of America: The Yale Law Journal Company, Inc.

 

 

BROWN, L. M., (1983), “Preventive Medicine and Preventive Law: An Essay That Belongs to My Heart”, Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, volume 11, issue 5, Boston, United States of America: American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics (ASLME) and SAGE Publishing.

 

 

COVER, R. M., (1983), “THE SUPREME COURT 1982 TERM. FOREWORD: NOMOS AND NARRATIVE”, Harvard Law Review, volume 97, number 1, Cambridge, United States of America: Harvard Law School students.

 

 

GLAESER, E. L.; SHLEIFER, A., (2002), “LEGAL ORIGINS”, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, volume 117, issue 4, Cambridge, United States of America: Harvard University’s Department of Economics.

 

 

KONNOTH, C., (2021), “PRIVATIZATION’S PREEMPTIVE EFFECTS”, Harvard Law Review, volume 134, number 6, Cambridge, United States of America: Harvard Law School students – Harvard Law Review Association.

 

 

LEITER, B; SEVEL, M., (2015), “Philosophy of Law”, Legal Studies Research Paper Series, number 15/18, Sidney, Australia: Sidney Law School.

 

 

LEWUAY, P., (2021), “Clearly Distinguishable Advertising – Watch Out Influencers…Just Tagging the Label Is Not Sufficient!”, Blog, New York, United States of America: GALA. GLOBAL ADVERTISING LAWYERS ALLIANCE.

 

 

MARK, J. J., (2020), “Philosophy. Definition”, WORLD HISTORY ENCYCLOPEDIA, Surrey, United Kingdom: Ancient History Encyclopedia Limited. Available at: https://www.worldhistory.org/philosophy.

 

 

MARMOR, A; SARCH, A., (2019), “The Nature of Law”, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Stanford, United States of America: The Metaphysics Research Lab, Center for the Study of Language and Information (CSLI), Stanford University. Available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/lawphil-nature/.

 

 

MONTGOMERY, A. L.; SMITH, M. D., (2009), “Prospects for Personalization on the Internet”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, volume 23, Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier B.V.

 

 

POGGI, F., (2020), “Against the conversational model of legal interpretation. On the difference between legislative intent and speaker’s intention”, revus. Journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law, issue 40, Kranj, Republic of Slovenia: Klub Revus – Centre for Studies on Democracy and European Constitutionality. Available at: https://journals.openedition.org/revus/5694.

 

 

REESE, E. A., (2021), “The Other American Law”, Stanford Law Review, volume 73, Stanford, United States of America: Stanford Law School students.

 

 

ROWE, M; COLLINS, M., (2017), “The Constitution of Canada”, Ottawa Law Review, volume 49, number 1, Ottawa, Canada: Students of the Faculty of Law, Common Law Section, University of Ottawa, under the supervision of a Faculty Advisor.

 

 

SANDERS, G. J., “Rule of Law on the Silk Road: History, Culture, Perspectives”, “Edited version of the keynote address given by the author, on October 19, 2018, at a conference titled “Rule of Law on the Silk Road,” hosted in Adelaide by the Asia-Pacific Law Forum 2018 and organized by the University of South Australia”, Cambridge, United States of America: The Harvard International Law Journal.

 

 

SIMONTON, J. W., (1902), “On the Origin and Nature of Law”, Yale Law Journal, volume 11, number 4, New Haven, United States of America: The Yale Law Journal Company, Inc.

 

 

SWARTZ, N., “Laws of Nature”, The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, United States of America: The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Available at: https://iep.utm.edu/lawofnat/.

 

 

VENEZIANO, A., (2020), “The Eras of Extraterritoriality in the United States”, ARTICLES & ESSAYS, UNIVERSITY OF BOLOGNA LAW REVIEW, volume 5, issue 2, Bologna, Italy: Department of Legal Studies, University of Bologna.

 

 

WIDIYANINGTYAS, T.; HIDAYAH, I; ADJI, T. B., (2021), “User profile correlation-based similarity (UPCSim) algorithm in movie recommendation system”, Journal of Big Data, volume 8, article number 52, New York, United States of America: SpringerOpen. Available at: https://journalofbigdata.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40537-021-00425-x.

 

 

WILLIS, L. E., (2020), “DECEPTION BY DESIGN”, Harvard Journal of Law & Technology (JOLT),  volumen 34, number 1 Fall 2020, Cambridge, United States of America: Harvard Law School.

 

 

WOOD, A.; NISSIM, K., (2018), “Is privacy privacy?”, Berkman Klein Center Research Publication No. 2018-5, Cambridge, United States of America: Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University.

 

 

(2017), THE COMMON LAW AND CIVIL LAW TRADITIONS, Berkeley, United States of America: The Robbins Collection, Berkeley School of Law, University of California, Berkeley. Available at: https://www.law.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/CommonLawCivilLawTraditions.pdf/.

 

 

(2019), Advertising Self-Regulation: An effective tool to support Competition and Consumer Protection in the 21st Century, Brussels, Belgium: International Council for Advertising Self-Regulation. Available at: https://icas.global/wp-content/uploads/2019_05_31_ICAS_Response_to_US_FTC_Consultation.pdf.

 

 

BOOKS

 

PECORINO, P. A. (2000), An Introduction to  Philosophy, an Online Textbook, New York, United States of America: Philip A. Pecorino.

 

 

WEB SITES

 

https://www.google.com

 

 

https://www.iep.utm.edu

 

 

https://journals.openedition.org

 

 

www.law.berkeley.edu

 

 

https://plato.stanford.edu/index.html

 

 

https://journalofbigdata.springeropen.com

 

 

https://www.worldhistory.org

[1] Camilo Alfonso Escobar Mora. Ph.D. in law. Postdoc in law. L.L.M. in commercial law. Master in law and information technology. Master in telecommunication law. Lawyer. Founder of JURÍDIA, a Learning and Research Center for Preventive Consumer Law in (Commercial) Digital Advertising (www.juridia.co). Contact: gerencia@juridia.co.

[2] LEWUAY, P., (2021), “Clearly Distinguishable Advertising – Watch Out Influencers…Just Tagging the Label Is Not Sufficient!”, Blog, New York, United States of America: GALA. GLOBAL ADVERTISING LAWYERS ALLIANCE.

[3] MONTGOMERY, A. L.; SMITH, M. D., (2009), “Prospects for Personalization on the Internet” (p. 130), Journal of Interactive Marketing, volume 23, Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier B.V.

[4] SANDERS, G. J., “Rule of Law on the Silk Road: History, Culture, Perspectives”, “Edited version of the keynote address given by the author, on October 19, 2018, at a conference titled “Rule of Law on the Silk Road,” hosted in Adelaide by the Asia-Pacific Law Forum 2018 and organized by the University of South Australia”, Cambridge, United States of America: The Harvard International Law Journal.

[5] Ibidem.

[6] Ibidem.

[7] PECORINO, P. A. (2000), “Origin of Philosophy: Wonder”, Chapter 1: Introduction, section 4 Origin of Philosophy: Wonder, An Introduction to  Philosophy, an Online Textbook, New York, United States of America: Philip A. Pecorino.

[8] PECORINO, P. A. (2000), “Origin of Philosophy: Wonder”, Chapter 1: Introduction, section 5 Wonder: Chaos and Cosmos, An Introduction to  Philosophy, an Online Textbook, New York, United States of America: Philip A. Pecorino.

[9] PECORINO, P. A. (2000), “The Origins of Philosophy: The Greeks and Us!”, Chapter 1: Introduction, section 6 The Origins of Philosophy: The Greeks and Us!, An Introduction to  Philosophy, an Online Textbook, New York, United States of America: Philip A. Pecorino.

[10] Ibidem.

[11] ROWE, M; COLLINS, M., (2017), “The Constitution of Canada” (p. 93), Ottawa Law Review, volume 49, number 1, Ottawa, Canada: Students of the Faculty of Law, Common Law Section, University of Ottawa, under the supervision of a Faculty Advisor.

[12] LEITER, B; SEVEL, M., (2015), “Philosophy of Law” (p. 1), Legal Studies Research Paper Series, number 15/18, Sidney, Australia: Sidney Law School.

[13] Ibidem (p. 1).

[14] Ibidem (pp. 4-5).

[15] MARK, J. J., (2020), “Philosophy. Definition”, WORLD HISTORY ENCYCLOPEDIA, Surrey, United Kingdom: Ancient History Encyclopedia Limited. Available at: https://www.worldhistory.org/philosophy/ (last access: april 20th, 2021, 9:14 p.m. Ottawa’s, Canada, hour).

[16] SWARTZ, N., “Laws of Nature”, The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, United States of America: The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Available at: https://iep.utm.edu/lawofnat/ (last access: april 21st, 2021, 11:16 a.m. Ottawa’s, Canada, hour).

[17] MARMOR, A; SARCH, A., (2019), “The Nature of Law”, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Stanford, United States of America: The Metaphysics Research Lab, Center for the Study of Language and Information (CSLI), Stanford University. Available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/lawphil-nature/ (last access: april 21st, 2021, 12:14 a.m. Ottawa’s, Canada, hour).

[18] Ibidem.

[19] SIMONTON, J. W., (1902), “On the Origin and Nature of Law” (p. 204), Yale Law Journal, volume 11, number 4, New Haven, United States of America: The Yale Law Journal Company, Inc.

[20] GLAESER, E. L.; SHLEIFER, A., (2002), “LEGAL ORIGINS” (pp. 1193-1194), The Quarterly Journal of Economics, volume 117, issue 4, Cambridge, United States of America: Harvard University’s Department of Economics.

[21] COVER, R. M., (1983), “THE SUPREME COURT 1982 TERM. FOREWORD: NOMOS AND NARRATIVE” (pp. 4-5), Harvard Law Review, volume 97, number 1, Cambridge, United States of America: Harvard Law School students.

[22] (2017), THE COMMON LAW AND CIVIL LAW TRADITIONS (p. 1), Berkeley, United States of America: The Robbins Collection, Berkeley School of Law, University of California, Berkeley. Available at: https://www.law.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/CommonLawCivilLawTraditions.pdf/ (last access: april 21st, 2021, 11:12 p.m. Ottawa’s, Canada, hour).

[23] Ibidem (p. 2).

[24] Ibidem (pp. 3-4).

[25] ADAMS, G. B., (1924), “THE ORIGIN OF THE COMMON LAW” (pp. 118-119), Yale Law Journal, volume 34, number 2, New Haven, United States of America: The Yale Law Journal Company, Inc.

[26] Ibidem (pp. 118-119).

[27] BROWN, L. M., (1983), “Preventive Medicine and Preventive Law: An Essay That Belongs to My Heart” (p. 220), Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, volume 11, issue 5, Boston, United States of America: American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics (ASLME) and SAGE Publishing.

[28] POGGI, F., (2020), “Against the conversational model of legal interpretation. On the difference between legislative intent and speaker’s intention”, revus. Journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law, issue 40, Kranj, Republic of Slovenia: Klub Revus – Centre for Studies on Democracy and European Constitutionality. Available at: https://journals.openedition.org/revus/5694 (last access: april 22th, 2021, 4:24 p.m. Ottawa’s, Canada, hour).

[29] WIDIYANINGTYAS, T.; HIDAYAH, I; ADJI, T. B., (2021), “User profile correlation-based similarity (UPCSim) algorithm in movie recommendation system”, Journal of Big Data, volume 8, article number 52, New York, United States of America: SpringerOpen. Available at: https://journalofbigdata.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40537-021-00425-x (last access: april 22th, 2021, 11:04 p.m. Ottawa’s, Canada, hour).

[30] VENEZIANO, A., (2020), “The Eras of Extraterritoriality in the United States” (p. 267), ARTICLES & ESSAYS, UNIVERSITY OF BOLOGNA LAW REVIEW, volume 5, issue 2, Bologna, Italy: Department of Legal Studies, University of Bologna.

[31] REESE, E. A., (2021), “The Other American Law” (p. 555), Stanford Law Review, volume 73, Stanford, United States of America: Stanford Law School students.

[32] Iidem” (pp. 578-579).

[33] WOOD, A.; NISSIM, K., (2018), “Is privacy privacy?” (p. 1), Berkman Klein Center Research Publication No. 2018-5, Cambridge, United States of America: Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University.

[34] WILLIS, L. E., (2020), “DECEPTION BY DESIGN” (pp. 187-188), Harvard Journal of Law & Technology (JOLT),  volumen 34, number 1 Fall 2020, Cambridge, United States of America: Harvard Law School.

[35] KONNOTH, C., (2021), “PRIVATIZATION’S PREEMPTIVE EFFECTS” (p. 2024), Harvard Law Review, volume 134, number 6, Cambridge, United States of America: Harvard Law School students – Harvard Law Review Association.

[36] (2019), Advertising Self-Regulation: An effective tool to support Competition and Consumer Protection in the 21st Century (p. 1), Brussels, Belgium: International Council for Advertising Self-Regulation (ICAS). Available at: https://icas.global/wp-content/uploads/2019_05_31_ICAS_Response_to_US_FTC_Consultation.pdf (last access: april 23th, 2021, 7:50 p.m. Ottawa’s, Canada, hour)

× WhatsApp