The principle of the excluding middle or “Principium tertium exclusum” is a principle of traditional logic that Leibniz canonically formulated: either A is B, or A is not B. It reads as follows: either P is true, or its denial is ¬P. [9] It is also known as “tertium non datur” (“A third (thing) is not”). Conventionally, it is considered one of the most important basic principles or laws of thought (along with the principles of identity, no contradiction and sufficient reason). A law is a universal principle that describes the fundamental nature of something, the universal properties and relationships between things, or a description that purports to explain these principles and relationships. Despite what many authors of standard textbooks on international law have noted in the introduction to their own theories, there is a surprising lack of literature, given the importance and difficulty of the topic – and compared to the literature devoted to treaty and customary law. In addition, much of the literature usually deals exhaustively with general principles and covers all aspects of the subject, be it its history, definition, illustrations, etc. Given these two specific characteristics, much of this literature can therefore be considered referential. Another interesting feature is that this general literature is quite limited in time, with obvious waves of works published at specific times, such as in the years following the entry into force of the Statutes of the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ) and the International Court of Justice (ICJ). or in the 1960s. More recent work has also been written on the subject, but without diminishing the intellectual aura that these earlier works still possess. Given the number of works, they are divided into three categories: the first category deals with historical and longer works on the subject; the second category is encyclopedic entries; and the third category, shorter and more recent (and/or less classical) works.
In conclusion, I would like to say that most of the literature, especially the famous historical part, is written in English or French. A principle represents values that guide and determine the behaviour of people in a particular society. “To act on principle” means to act in accordance with one`s moral ideals. [4] Principles are absorbed in childhood through a process of socialization. There is a presumption of the individual`s liberty, which is restricted. The exemplary principles are, first, do no harm, the golden rule and the doctrine of wickedness. Examples of principles are entropy in a number of areas, least action in physics, complete and fundamental descriptive law: doctrines or hypotheses that form normative rules of conduct, separation of church and state in the art of governing, central dogma of molecular biology, equity in ethics, etc. Archimedes` principle, which relates buoyancy to the weight of displaced water, is an early example of scientific law. Another of the first developed by Malthus is the principle of population, which is now called the Malthusian principle. [5] Freud also wrote about principles, especially the principle of reality, which is necessary to control the principle of identity and pleasure. Biologists use the principle of priority and the principle of binomial nomenclature for accuracy in species naming. There are many principles observed in physics, especially cosmology, which observe the principle of mediocrity, the anthropic principle, the principle of relativity and the cosmological principle.
Other well-known principles are the uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics and the locker principle and superposition principle in mathematics. A principle is a suggestion or value that is a guide to behavior or evaluation. In law, it is a rule that must be followed or generally must be followed. It can be followed in a desirable way, or it can be an inevitable consequence of something, such as the laws observed in nature or the way a system is constructed. The principles of such a system are understood by its users as the essential characteristics of the system or reflect the purpose of the system and whose effective operation or use would be impossible if any of the principles were ignored. [2] A system can be explicitly based on a statement of principles and implemented as outlined in IBM 360/370 Operating Principles. General principles of law are basic rules whose content is very general and abstract and can sometimes be reduced to a maxim or a simple concept. Unlike other types of rules, such as laws or promulgated agreements, general principles of law have not been “postulated” according to formal sources of law. However, general principles of law are considered part of positive law, even if they are only used as a tool. They are necessary rules for the proper functioning of the system and, as such, result from the legal considerations of those who are empowered to take court decisions in the context of the application of the law, in particular the judiciary. They are also tools for system integration, as they fill actual or potential legal gaps.
In international law, the general principles of law have been the subject of much doctrinal debate, based on the different meanings attributed to the term and the theoretical problems they raise. The use of the term “fundamental principles of international law”, which is at the apex of the legal system and derives from treaties or customary law (for example, the principle of the sovereign equality of States or the principle of the prohibition of the threat or use of force), which does not give rise to great confusion in this area. In view of the wording of article 38, paragraph 1 (c), of the Statute of the International Court of Justice (“general principles of law recognized by civilized nations”), the question of the origin of general principles of law as applied at the international level is also controversial. The general perception is that these principles have their origins in national legal systems. Once it is convinced that some of these general instruments are principles common to national systems, they can also be applied in international law. These are logical conclusions that can be found in any legal system: the principle of reparation for damage caused, the principles of interpretation of rules or those used to resolve conflicts of rules – many of them are known by Latin maxims – are good examples. The judiciary has also developed a number of general principles of law, such as audiatur et altera pars, actori incumbit onus probandi or the fact that the merit judge is also a judge of the ancillary courts. However, they are also logical conclusions that concern specific areas of international law and leave room for the emergence of general principles specifically applicable in the field of international law, such as the principle of humanity in international humanitarian law. In view of the definitional problems raised by the term, the first references to the work and jurisprudence on the subject will be made to test the field.
Similarly, the various stories that have been told about the origin of the term are covered before diving into definitions and other more essential questions.