Existentialism And the Impact on Law System: Relationship between Freedom and Innovation

One of the most controversial issues challenging all legal and political systems is the notion of existentialism and its impacts on the legal and social concepts of freedom. Human has been created free. No limitation is structured to restrict their capabilities and abilities. This tenet is given in law vastly. Therefore, it is not hard to comprehend the increasing trend approving obviously to what extent new generations are struggling to reconstruct the social basis revising legal systems and even forcing them in order to deregulate norms and rules approved or implied adversely.

There are some doctrines contravening the claimed principal law supporting unrestricted human’s freedom. They make a sustained effort to refuse this claim that the individual and social limitations expanding the current deep conflict between the necessities of sovereignties and the necessities of people’s freedom requested by religious groups, NGOs and some civil societies. Therefore, it is widespread that some states make strategies challenging political parties in order not to attempt every day to prepare a free access to the Internet. For example, North Korea and Chine are two states that they limit and sometimes forbid social players from using global social media. The exchange of information transferring without any absolute governmental observations is not allowed legally by some constitutional rules supporting such conducts. This notion is strengthening the idea of national security and supported by the principal of “Non-intervention” extracted from the international law. In addition, domestically, the first priority is always making a high defense shield protecting their sovereignties in front of the new attacks organized by the post-modern revolutions. The concept of national security is put on the top of the list prepared conventionally to stabilize the relationship between the societies and their states. Legal literature is full of points pointing out that states and their sovereignties must not be threatened by the freedom dictated during the recent two centuries. Antonio Cassese and many legal authors could not give a logical solution to make a balance between this conflict. This idea presenting that the restriction of freedom is mostly likely to lead to harnessing innovation and human creativity, is seemingly nonsense. Meanwhile, human experiences in the whole of the mankind history approve that the scientific and academic researchers have been more successful in the stable and secure society constructed under cover of a strong state.

On the other hand, proponents of the natural law do not agree with any restrictions for human. Thus, they believed that any vastly restricted freedom removes individual and social alacrity in both local and international atmospheres, although they cannot ignore that any ideas including an abstemious approach improves the innovative abilities leading to a jumping trend of science. They claimed it is obvious that human received the highest accolade in the human history occurred as a result of such an approach. Freud and Nicheh, for example, defended this esthetic point of view. They rejected any restricted freedom and they believe it is originated from some acrimonious conducts recorded in mediaeval age. Restricted freedom not also makes a sense as freedom, but presents a modern kind of dictatorial behavior.  They strongly aspire to make a real situation for all kinds of people to live freely, while people are not allowed to behave intractably and breach laws and social rules. Here, lawyers and legal academic are deeply conflicted about this notion. A controversial question is to what extent it is possible to protect people from the angst of the anarchism, if people have unrestricted freedom rights. They have justified those laws are functioning to harness people who commit anti-social conducts. Another point challenging academics is its impact on innovation and creativity. It is not a new-found idea that more freedom leads to more scientific revolutions. Human experiences approve easily this claim.  Individually, teenagers choose better lifestyle, if any dictation does not push them to live in a prepared line. In middle east like other regions around the world, researches point out that students who are allowed to choose their occupations or university branches recorded mostly successful results. In conclusion, those who are innovative to change human’s life, are scientists grown in families or societies based on a free human doctrine. As a result, people have a constitutional right to live freely but they are not eligible to enjoy a life without any restriction.

Conclusion

Human is free to choose their destination. Freedom not only is a divine gift, but also a necessity to live. No idea is vastly accepted to restrict absolutely this right, however there are a myriad of reasons to limit their freedom rights. Of course, it is allowed to apply when the necessity of human life is to justify such a restriction. It is worth mentioning that such a permission is exception and generally it is a must to respect human’s freedom and ensure to respect it internationally.