Explanation: The Latin translation for the legal maxim "An unjust law is no law at all" is indeed *lex iniusta non est lex*. This phrase is central to discussions in natural law philosophy.

Explanation: The maxim "An unjust law is no law at all" fundamentally challenges the binding authority of laws that are deemed morally deficient, asserting that such laws lack true legal force.

Explanation: The Latin phrase *lex iniusta non est lex* signifies the principle that a law which is unjust cannot be considered a true law. It is a cornerstone concept in natural law philosophy, asserting that morality is intrinsically linked to the validity of law.

Explanation: The principle "An unjust law is no law at all" posits that justice is not merely a desirable quality but a fundamental requirement for a rule to be considered a true law.

Explanation: The idea that unjust laws might lack validity has evolved significantly throughout history, appearing in various forms from ancient religious texts to medieval philosophy and modern political discourse.

Explanation: The maxim "An unjust law is no law at all" has achieved recognition as a standard legal maxim globally, indicating its widespread influence and acceptance in legal and philosophical discourse.

Explanation: The Latin translation for the legal maxim "An unjust law is no law at all" is *lex iniusta non est lex*. This phrase is central to discussions in natural law philosophy.

Explanation: The maxim "An unjust law is no law at all" has achieved recognition as a standard legal maxim globally, indicating its widespread influence and acceptance in legal and philosophical discourse.

Explanation: Augustine of Hippo's statement, *nam mihi lex esse non videtur, quae justa non fuerit*, implies that justice is not merely an attribute but a fundamental prerequisite for a rule to be considered a true law. It posits a necessary connection between legality and morality.

Explanation: Augustine of Hippo posited that justice is the indispensable quality of a true law. He famously asserted that a rule lacking justice cannot be considered a law in the authentic sense.

Explanation: The primary purpose of the maxim "An unjust law is no law at all" is to underscore the tenets of natural law theory, which posits that the legitimacy of legal authority is intrinsically tied to its alignment with fundamental principles of goodness and righteousness.

Explanation: The concept that unjust laws may lack validity has evolved historically, tracing its lineage from ancient biblical texts (e.g., Isaiah) through medieval philosophical discourse (Augustine, Aquinas) to modern political thought and activism (Thoreau, King Jr.), demonstrating a persistent philosophical challenge to absolute legal authority when it conflicts with justice.

Explanation: The principle "An unjust law is no law at all" establishes a fundamental connection between justice and law, asserting that justice is not merely an attribute but a fundamental prerequisite for a rule to be considered a true law.

Explanation: The maxim "An unjust law is no law at all" primarily supports Natural Law theory, which posits that law's validity is intrinsically linked to its moral content and alignment with justice. Legal positivism, in contrast, typically separates law from morality.

Explanation: Natural law theory posits that human-made laws are valid only if they *align with* inherent moral principles, not contradict them. Laws that fundamentally violate natural moral law are often considered invalid or non-binding within this framework.

Explanation: According to the maxim "An unjust law is no law at all," legitimacy stems not solely from the enacting authority but critically from the law's justice and moral content. An unjust law, even if enacted by a legitimate authority, is considered to lack true legal standing.

Explanation: Natural law theory posits that human-made laws are valid only if they *align with* inherent moral principles, not contradict them. Laws that fundamentally violate natural moral law are often considered invalid or non-binding within this framework.

Explanation: According to the maxim "An unjust law is no law at all," legitimacy stems not solely from the enacting authority but critically from the law's justice and moral content. An unjust law, even if enacted by a legitimate authority, is considered to lack true legal standing.

Explanation: The maxim implies that if a law is profoundly unjust, the authority that enacted it becomes secondary or irrelevant to its legal validity. The moral deficiency of the law itself undermines its claim to authority.

Explanation: The maxim "An unjust law is no law at all" is fundamentally aligned with Natural Law theory, which posits that laws derive their legitimacy from inherent moral principles or a higher natural order. It asserts that legal authority is contingent upon the law's adherence to justice and goodness.

Explanation: Natural law theory posits that there are inherent moral principles or rights that govern human conduct, and that human-made laws are only valid if they align with these natural principles. The maxim suggests that laws contradicting these fundamental moral truths lack true legal authority.

Explanation: The maxim directly challenges the legitimacy of laws that are unjust. It implies that true legitimacy stems not just from the authority that enacts a law, but also from the law's moral content and its alignment with justice and the common good.

Explanation: This statement is false. While Lon Fuller is a prominent natural law theorist associated with this principle, H.L.A. Hart is generally considered a legal positivist. John Finnis is another natural law theorist strongly associated with this principle.

Explanation: Contrary to this statement, philosophical and religious writers throughout history have extensively engaged with the concept of objecting to unjust laws, often grounding their arguments in principles of higher morality or natural justice.

Explanation: The biblical passage in Isaiah 10, which condemns those who enact oppressive decrees, is cited as an early historical example reflecting the principle of objecting to unjust laws.

Explanation: Augustine of Hippo's position was that an *unjust* law is not a true law (*lex iniusta non est lex*), not that a *just* law is not a law. His view emphasizes justice as a necessary condition for legal validity.

Explanation: Augustine of Hippo addressed the concept that an unjust law is not a law within his broader theological discourse on the problem of evil. He linked the existence of unjust laws to human deviations from divine goodness and justice.

Explanation: Thomas Aquinas's seminal work, the *Summa Theologica*, provides a comprehensive examination of jurisprudence, including detailed discussions on the nature, purpose, and legitimacy of man-made laws.

Explanation: According to Thomas Aquinas, the primary criterion for a law's legitimacy is its purpose: it must be enacted for the common good. While the authority of the author is a necessary condition, it is not the primary criterion.

Explanation: One of Thomas Aquinas's key criteria for a legitimate law is that it must be enacted by a proper authority acting within the legitimate scope of their power, ensuring that the law originates from a rightful source.

Explanation: Thomas Aquinas believed that legitimate laws should apply equitably to all individuals, not just a select group. The principle of fairness and the common good necessitated broad application.

Explanation: Thomas Aquinas advised that while unjust laws may not be binding, disobedience should be undertaken with prudence, ensuring that the act of defiance does not itself result in greater harm or promote further evil.

Explanation: The Latin statement *nam mihi lex esse non videtur, quae justa non fuerit*, attributed to Augustine of Hippo, accurately translates to "for I think a law that is not just, is not actually a law," encapsulating his view on the essential nature of justice in law.

Explanation: Thomas Aquinas defined the "common good" as the collective welfare and flourishing of the entire community or society, not the benefit of a single individual or a select group.

Explanation: Augustine of Hippo considered justice to be an essential, not optional, characteristic of a true law. He famously stated that a law lacking justice could not be considered a law at all.

Explanation: Thomas Aquinas did not advocate for automatic disobedience to laws failing his criteria. He cautioned that disobedience should not itself cause greater harm or lead to evil acts, implying a need for prudence.

Explanation: While rooted in theological considerations, Thomas Aquinas's criteria for legitimate laws—purpose for the common good, enactment by proper authority, and equitable form—are generally understood to apply to secular, man-made laws as well.

Explanation: Augustine's view on unjust laws was intrinsically connected to his theological concerns about evil, as he saw injustice in laws as a manifestation of human departures from divine goodness.

Explanation: John Finnis and Lon Fuller are two prominent natural law theorists strongly associated with the principle that an unjust law is not a true law, emphasizing the intrinsic connection between law and morality.

Explanation: The biblical passage in Isaiah 10, which condemns those who enact oppressive decrees, is cited as an early historical example reflecting the principle of objecting to unjust laws.

Explanation: Augustine of Hippo articulated his view on the necessity of justice for law with the statement, '*nam mihi lex esse non videtur, quae justa non fuerit*', which translates to 'for I think a law that is not just, is not actually a law.'

Explanation: Augustine of Hippo addressed the concept that an unjust law is not a law within his broader theological discourse on the problem of evil. He linked the existence of unjust laws to human deviations from divine goodness and justice.

Explanation: Thomas Aquinas's seminal work, the *Summa Theologica*, provides a comprehensive examination of jurisprudence, including detailed discussions on the nature, purpose, and legitimacy of man-made laws.

Explanation: Thomas Aquinas identified the purpose of a law as its primary criterion for legitimacy. A just law must be enacted for the common good of the community, aiming to promote collective well-being.

Explanation: Thomas Aquinas stipulated that for a law to be obeyed, it must be enacted by an authority acting within the proper scope of their power, ensuring that the law originates from a legitimate governance and does not exceed its rightful jurisdiction.

Explanation: Thomas Aquinas specified that a legitimate law must be equitable in its form and application, meaning its burden should be distributed equally and it must apply fairly to all members of the community.

Explanation: Thomas Aquinas noted that disobedience to a law should not itself cause harm or lead individuals into committing evil acts, referencing the principle that avoiding oppression is always lawful.

Explanation: Thomas Aquinas defined the "common good" as the collective welfare and flourishing of the entire community or society. Legitimate laws, in his view, are those enacted with the primary aim of promoting this shared well-being.

Explanation: Thomas Aquinas reconciled the authority of law with its potential injustice by establishing criteria for legal legitimacy—namely, purpose (common good), author (proper authority), and form (equity). He also advised that disobedience should be carefully considered to avoid causing greater disorder or harm.

Explanation: Augustine's view on unjust laws was intrinsically connected to his theological concerns about evil, as he saw injustice in laws as a manifestation of human departures from divine goodness.

Explanation: While rooted in theological and philosophical reasoning, Aquinas's criteria for legitimate laws—purpose for common good, proper authority, and equitable form—are generally understood to apply to secular, man-made laws as well, providing a framework for evaluating their justice and binding force.

Explanation: Henry David Thoreau, in his essay *Civil Disobedience*, critically examined the moral obligation to obey laws, particularly questioning the automatic compliance with unjust statutes.

Explanation: This statement is false. In his *Letter from Birmingham Jail*, Martin Luther King Jr. referenced Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas, drawing upon their philosophical traditions regarding the nature of just and unjust laws, rather than Socrates and Plato.

Explanation: Martin Luther King Jr. argued precisely the opposite: that Jim Crow laws were inherently unjust and therefore lacked moral and legal legitimacy, justifying resistance and civil disobedience against them.

Explanation: Henry David Thoreau suggested that obedience is not the only response to an unjust law. He questioned whether individuals should passively obey, attempt reform while obeying, or transgress the law, implying a need for active moral consideration.

Explanation: Henry David Thoreau suggested that obedience is not the only response to an unjust law. He questioned whether individuals should passively obey, attempt reform while obeying, or transgress the law, implying a need for active moral consideration.

Explanation: Civil disobedience, as advocated by Thoreau and King Jr., typically involves the open and public violation of unjust laws as a form of protest, rather than secret actions. It often entails accepting the legal consequences.

Explanation: The Radbruch formula, a significant contribution to legal philosophy concerning unjust laws, was indeed first formulated in the 20th century, specifically in the post-World War II era.

Explanation: Thoreau's questioning implied that passive obedience to unjust laws is not necessarily the morally correct response, urging individuals to consider active engagement and potential transgression.

Explanation: The Radbruch formula directly addresses the concept that extremely unjust laws may forfeit their legal character, proposing a threshold beyond which legality ceases to apply.

Explanation: Henry David Thoreau, in *Civil Disobedience*, explored the moral dilemma posed by unjust laws, presenting three potential responses: passive obedience, attempting reform while still obeying, or direct transgression of the law.

Explanation: Martin Luther King Jr., in his seminal *Letter from Birmingham Jail*, drew upon the philosophical traditions of Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas when articulating his arguments against unjust laws and advocating for civil disobedience.

Explanation: Martin Luther King Jr. applied natural law principles by asserting that Jim Crow laws, being fundamentally unjust and contrary to higher moral law, lacked true legal validity and therefore warranted resistance, including civil disobedience.

Explanation: The underlying principle of civil disobedience, as articulated by Thoreau and King Jr., involves the deliberate and often public violation of laws deemed unjust, undertaken as a form of moral protest aimed at achieving social or legal reform.

Explanation: The Radbruch formula, formulated in the post-WWII era, addresses the critical intersection of law, justice, and morality, proposing that extremely unjust laws may forfeit their legal character, thereby offering a philosophical framework for confronting oppressive legal systems.

Explanation: Thoreau's questioning implied a call for active moral engagement with unjust laws, suggesting that passive compliance is insufficient and that individuals should consider more direct actions, such as amendment or transgression, to uphold justice.

Explanation: In Indian philosophy, *Ṛta* (Rta) represents the fundamental principle of cosmic order, truth, and righteousness that underpins all existence, including natural laws, moral precepts, and societal structures.

Explanation: Indian philosophy posits *Ṛta* as a fundamental cosmic order and truth that is supreme, binding even divine beings. This underscores its role as an ultimate standard that transcends individual will or authority.

Explanation: Contrary to this assertion, Indian philosophy posits that divine beings are not the creators of *Ṛta*. Instead, they act as ministers or agents who manifest and uphold this cosmic order.

Explanation: The Indian concept of *Ṛta* represents a principle of cosmic order, truth, and righteousness that governs the universe. It serves as the fundamental basis for natural and moral laws, and is considered an ultimate standard that even deities are bound by.

Explanation: The concept of *Ṛta* in Indian philosophy posits that natural order is supreme and even divine will is subordinate to it, or at least must conform to it. *Ṛta* represents the ultimate cosmic truth and order.

Explanation: In Indian philosophy, the concept of *Ṛta* (Rta) denotes the principle that governs cosmic order, truth, and righteousness, serving as the foundation for both natural laws and moral precepts.

Explanation: Indian philosophy posits *Ṛta* as a fundamental cosmic order and truth that is supreme, binding even divine beings. This underscores its role as an ultimate standard that transcends individual will or authority.

Explanation: In Indian philosophy, divine beings are not the creators or governors of *Ṛta*. Instead, they act as its agents and ministers, embodying and enacting its principles through their actions and judgments.

Explanation: The Indian concept of *Ṛta* is analogous to a principle of cosmic order, truth, and righteousness that governs the universe. It serves as the fundamental basis for natural and moral laws, and is considered an ultimate standard that even deities are bound by.

Explanation: This statement is false. While the maxim is prominent in Western legal philosophy, the existence of similar concepts, such as the Indian philosophical concept of *Rta*, demonstrates that the idea of laws being subject to higher principles of order or justice is not exclusive to Western thought.

Explanation: This statement is false. The "No True Scotsman" is an informal logical fallacy, not a legal principle. It is sometimes discussed in relation to how arguments about law or categories might be fallaciously constructed.

Explanation: The "No True Scotsman" fallacy is mentioned in the context of related concepts but is not presented as a legal argument supporting civil disobedience. It is identified as a logical fallacy.

Explanation: While the text discusses various historical and philosophical figures and concepts related to unjust laws, such as Augustine, Aquinas, Thoreau, King Jr., and the Radbruch formula, the Code of Hammurabi is not among the sources or theorists mentioned.