Religion

► Full reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, “Si l'heureux stratagème probatoire du Roi Salomon n'avait pas fonctionné (If King Solomon's probationary strategy hadn't worked)”, in Collective Book dedicated to Professor Pierre Crocq, Liber Amicorum, Lextenso – LGDJ, 2026, pp. 713-723. - 📝Read the article (in French) - 🚧Read the bilingual working document on which this article is based - ► Introduction to the article: As renowned and significant in biblical scholarship as it is in legal culture and imagination, Solomon’s Judgement is a procedural measure, an evidential stratagem (I). But even a King cannot be certain of the success of an investigative measure that his authority allows him to impose; nothing guarantees the success of the evidential stratagem he has devised, that is to say, the discovery of the truth. The investigative measure he devised presupposes a maternal love that leads the woman – who might prefer to continue disputing – to choose instead not to keep the child and to leave him in a state of death, a mere inert prey to the claim of appropriation made by the plaintiff. It is the woman’s virtue that enables the Judge’s wisdom. The evidence stratagem might not have worked (II). This is scarcely considered, as King Solomon is always portrayed as wise and the mother as preferring the child to herself. But if we step outside the Book of Kings, where virtue reigns – that of the mother as well as that of the judge – to confront the passion of the woman who smothered her newborn in the night and now seeks the force of justice to seize the second, one might reflect, whilst wandering through the lobby of a courthouse, that it is all too often the case that adults put themselves before children. What if the second mother had put herself before the child? What would have happened if the judge’s order, already being carried out, had not been halted by the virtue of the defendant? (III). What would the King then have done to exercise his office as Judge justly, since the truth would not have been accessible to him? (IV). If one changes an element of the narrative, because justice is human, because passions drive the parties, because children are often the silent victims on both sides, is justice still possible? - Follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on Instagram subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law Subscribe to the Video Newsletter MAFR Surplomb Subscribe to the MaFR Law & Art Newsletter

Complete reference : Archives de Philosophie du Droit (APD), La laïcité, tome 48, Dalloz, 2005, 519 p.    Read the forth of cover. Read the table of contents. Read the summaries of the articles in English.    See the presentation of other volumes of Archives de Philosophie du Droit.

► Full reference : J. Carbonnier, "Toute loi est-elle un mal ? (Is every law a bad thing?), in Essais sur les lois (Essays on Legisation), 2nd ed., Répertoire du notariat Defrénois, 1992, pp. 317-334. - ► Summary :  Jean Carbonnier takes as his starting point the coincidence in time between the announcement of Christ’s birth and the proclamation of the census by Caesar Augustus’s edict, and goes on to ask whether, in legal matters as in religious ones, the advent of the new law might be good news. It is accepted that many new laws were bad, but is the new law bad ‘in itself’? The author does not wish to let the distinction between favourable and unfavourable laws (a sociological criterion of interest) or the distinction between old and new laws (a psychological criterion of the clash between novelty and habit) interfere, so as to address the subject as neutrally as possible: is the law an evil in itself? This pits the law against case law, custom or equity, which might be superior, but then again the author takes a broader view and prefers to contrast law with non-law and pose the question even more radically: is law in itself an evil?   To begin with, Carbonnier demonstrates the necessity, the advantages and the beneficial effects of the law, which was particularly revered by the French Revolution and, above all, by the people because of the ‘benevolence of the law’. France remains steeped in this favourable legalistic prejudice. This stems from the sense of security it affords the people, because it is clear, precise and uncompromising, permanent, and because it serves as a means of communication between people. In the second part of the article, Carbonnier refers to Lacan, who, in relation to the law, invoked the figure of the father and predicted a future society without a father. Carbonnier wonders whether a lawless society is not about to emerge, or whether psychoanalysis, seeing castration in the law, still identifies it as an evil.  In any case, he sees in this an opposition to freedom and liberalism, the rejection of the law being associated with the rejection of the state. Quoting Maurice Barrès and his 1892 work, L'ennemi des lois, he shows that for Barrès, all law is an evil, because the world must organise itself spontaneously.  For liberalism, which is less romantic, every law is an evil because it hinders the spontaneous emergence of the general interest of the social group. Thus, to take Hayek as an example, the individual knows his own interest better than the law, and the sum of these interests gives rise to the general interest. Moreover, not only is the law pernicious, but, according to liberalism, it corrupts human nature, atrophies the will and diminishes responsibility, in a perverse pedagogy. In the third part of the article, Dean Carbonnier goes on to argue that the law acts more as a safeguard and is therefore a good thing, provided the legislator remains modest. He believes that the law is necessary because man is a sinner (in a nation of righteous people, the law would be unnecessary), citing Luther and Saint Augustine. The law is therefore indispensable insofar as it wields the sword. Indeed, the law must strike because the world is inhabited by evil. The Dean states: “It is in this sense that the law appears as an evil: not because it causes harm or does harm, but because it is linked to the existence of evil. It is the revealer of sin…”. He concludes: "Knowing that the law was given to curb evil, lawyers will use it without hesitation. Knowing that it is a source of evil, they will use it with restraint." It is in this self-imposed limitation that lawlessness emerges.   -