Law is a very complex phenomenon which can be viewed and studied from different perspectives, based on how it occurs

to a person. Many definitions of law have been proposed in the long history of the theory of law. The fact that law has been variously defined does not mean that the ideas of the different definitions of law are unconnected or incompatible; it is just that each of them often for quite distinctive reasons try to emphasize different aspects of the same reality (LAW). In so far as the several definers of law differ in their global philosophical views about various aspects of life and have experienced or seen the nature and operation of law in different way, there is bound to be difference in their definition of the concept, law. One factor which account for the differences which can be found among the various definitions of law by different authors, is the fact that these writers often have diverse concept of what makes up a good definitions. For instance, some authors think that a good definition of a concept has to identify those characteristics that distinguish that particular concept from a group of similar concepts that are in the same class with that concept, and also the characteristics that it shares with them. Law is a social phenomenon, so this methodology; if used in defining law, will help differentiate it from other similar social phenomenon, e.g. other social rules. There are many factors which accounts for the difference between law and other related social phenomenon and the items involved differ from each other in more than one relevant attribute, and this has very important consequence for the type of definition which is adequate and satisfactory for law. Furthermore, some other authors see; pointing out the essence/function of an object as the best way of defining it, and in the case of law some see is as something that guides the actions of people in society. Consequently, any attempt to define law in a specific way will definitely fail. For instance, one trait that is common in law is coercion, and this therefore makes the study of law the study of something that implies coercion. How then does the study of law as coercion help one to understand better issues like; statutory interpretation, fundamental human right, the rule of law, or law reform etc. the attempt to define law through one necessary common trait ends up confining jurisprudence to the study of something which has actually very little to do with the reality of law. Since there is no specific definition of law different people have come up with different schools of thought about law. One of which is the natural school of law. This school believes that law is based on nature. Has several thesis which defines its concept of law, they are: The basic moral principle having objective and universal validity; objective right and objective wrong. The purpose of using the expression is to stress that it is not merely a question of what a person happens to like or dislike or what is the common attribute in his society. Existence of natural rights, laws like killing the innocent or lying in contest, not to kill except during war or in self defense. It is believed that every human being is endowed with various rights by God. These universal rights are called natural right, and today they are called fundamental human

rights. Just law oblige in conscience, this means that the conscience of every person knows what is right and what is wrong. It also says that one of the universal duties of human beings is to contribute to the general welfare of the community. Unjust law do not bind in the conscience. This school of law was pioneered by philosophers like Aristotle (384-322BC), Thomas Aquinas (1224-1274), John M Finis(1940), Socrates. Another school of law that arose is the positivist school of law, also called legal positivism. This school of law was developed by the nineteenth century thinkers likes Jeremy Bentham, John Austin and Hans Kelsen. One of the claims of this school is that, in any legal system, whether a given norm is legally valid, and hence whether it forms part of the law of that system, depends o its sources, not its merit. It also says that whether a society has a legal system depends on the presence of certain structures of governance, not on the extent to which it satisfies ideal justice, democracy, or the rule of law. This school tries to keep a rigid separation between law and morals by studying law in total isolation from ethics and political philosophy. This school sis strongly against the natural school of law, Ross says there can be no reason for the philosophy of natural law to deny the positivist thesis. John Austin made basic tenets of positivism, which are: Theory of sovereignty, which states that every law simply and strictly, is set, directly or circuitously, by a sovereign person or body to a member or members of an independent political society, where in the person or body is sovereign. Law proceeds from a sovereign. Law as a command of the sovereign backed by a sanction, he (John Austin) explains it by saying If you express or intimate a wish that I shall to or for bear from some act, and if you will visit me with an evil incase I comply not with your wish, the expression or intimation of your wish is a command. When the person in charge gives law it must b obeyed. They sees law as a command backed by force. This school is not interested in the question what is the ideal law or what is the absolute standard of law? they believe that the human mind, cannot go beyond mans empirical experience to discover an absolute norm or an ideal law which lies beyond mans empirical experience. Experience gives us no other law than the positive law. Among the schools of law is the Realist school. This school insists on de-mythologizing or de-mystifying law. The schools concept is a clarion call for a realistic approach to law. They see law for what it really in terms of its practical function. This school tries to debunk the idea of law as an abstract entity in the platonic world of ideas. They believe that law is what the judge says in court, and not the notional ideas written down in books. This school of thought is particularly influencial in America and Sweden. Hence we have American legal realism and the Scandinavian legal realism. the representative of the American legal system is Oliver Wendel Holmes. Justice Holmes thinks that the est way to view kaw is from the standing point of an immoral man who cares only for the consequence which such knowledge enables him to redict. This led Hol,mes to see law only in terms of sanction. Law is for him a systematic prediction, it enables us to predict the kid of punishment that wil be inflicted on a person who does certain things law in his theory does not impose any obligation on man. Scandinavian legal realism

Also, karl marx came up with his own theory/school of law, which is called the Marxist School of Law.