It is indeed possible to imagine a society in which there is no legislature, no courts, and no officials of any kind, and in fact, there are primitive societies in which there are no known sets of rules, except what comes under 'obligation', where this is referred to as 'custom', or as 'primary rules of obligation', and if a society were to live under such rules alone, then some conditions must be met with. These are that, first, the rules must ascertain that violence, theft and other such crimes must be curtailed, (Hart, 91) second, that there must be a difference between those who conform and those who don't. However, it is clear that only small societies would be able to live with such rules, and in general, certain amounts of supplementation would be needed. This is because such rules would not form a system, and this means that they need not be followed, much like the rules of etiquette, and there would be nobody to correct them if they were wrong. In addition, these rules would be basically static. (Hart, 92) Such rules would also be inefficient in the face of the extreme social pressure under which such rules must be maintained. (Hart, 92) The best remedy for this would be to change the primary rules of obligation with secondary rules of a different type. One would be the introduction of a rule of recognition to combat the uncertainty, and another would be to (Hart, 94) introduce the element of static into an area where instability is predominant, (Hart, 93) and thirdly, to remedy inefficiency by supplementing it with efficiency. (Hart, 96)

Evidence of the existence of a legal system must be drawn from two divisions of life, one being normal, and the other, where there is no general obedience to law. (Hart, 117,118) The most important question that arises at this point is whether or not there is a natural law within us. According to Aquinas, there isn't, perhaps because man is primarily governed by the Eternal Law, wherein everything must be orderly. However, since Nature is neither superfluous in her generosity, nor is she miserly, no law can be said to be natural to man. In addition, man generally sees a means to a certain end in everything, and this is not at all a function of nature. Also, it can be said that when a man is free, he dose not come under the law, and he has 'free will', whereby he cannot be subject to natural law. However, all man is indeed aware of good and evil, and since all living things take part in eternal law, they receive the inclinations for good and evil form them, and a rational person would be provident for himself, as well as for others. In the same way, he also has a share of Eternal Reason, and this perhaps may be the very imprint of the 'Divine Light' upon him. (Aquinas, 35)

Until recently, the approach to jurisprudence, in the USA and in England, was that of professionalism, and most lawyers were of the opinion that such questions were troublesome because they could not be applied to Norman legal techniques, but since lawyers are trained to extract whatever information they can, they were able to analyze facts so that they could glean details from them. (Dworkin, 2) In the USA, several researchers published accounts of the judicial process, stating that judges did not merely apply rules. 'Legal realism' soon established itself, and its various leaders thought that the orthodox theory had in fact gone wrong because it had started to take a doctrinal approach to

Some common words found in the essay are:
Law Legitimate, Divine Wisdom, USA England, Eternal Law, Light' Aquinas, Supreme Court, Moral Realists, natural law, legal system, According Aquinas, human law, Eternal Reason, modern legal, set rules, law hart, eternal law, modern legal system, social pressure, rules makes, sovereign obeyed,
Approximate Word count = 2317
Approximate Pages = 9 (250 words per page double spaced)