ABSTRACT

This article examines the relationship between natural law and Irish law held by constitutional drafters, academic commentators and judges in the early twentieth century. References to natural law values in interpreting Irish law were not acceptable before 1922 when the entire island of Ireland remained part of the United Kingdom. The emergence of the self-governing Irish Free State in 1922 did not immediately change this position and natural law was limited to a peripheral position during the drafting of the first Irish Constitution. This article examines how and why the use of natural law by the Irish courts became increasingly acceptable by the middle of the twentieth century. It will also examine the connection between the drafting of the 1922 Constitution of the Irish Free State and the 1934 judgment of the Supreme Court in State (Ryan) v Lennon. This provides a new perspective on the judgments delivered in this case and on the origins of the use of natural law in interpreting Irish constitutional law. The article will also examine the legacy of State (Ryan) v Lennon, the position of natural law in the 1937 Irish Constitution and the evolving position of natural law in the decades that followed.

摘要

本文探讨了二十世纪初宪法起草人，学术评论员和法官所持有的自然法与爱尔兰法律之间的关系。在1922年之前，整个爱尔兰岛仍是英国的一部分，因此在解释爱尔兰法律时提及自然法价值观是不可接受的。1922年自治的爱尔兰自由国的出现并没有立即改变这一立场，在起草第一部爱尔兰宪法期间，自然法仅限于外围立场。本文探讨了到20世纪中叶，爱尔兰法院如何以及为什么越来越多地接受自然法的使用。它还将研究1922年《爱尔兰自由国宪法》的起草与最高法院1934年的判决之间的联系。州（瑞安）诉列侬案。这为在此案中作出的判决以及在解释爱尔兰宪法时使用自然法的起源提供了新的视角。本文还将探讨国家（Ryan）诉列侬（Lennon ）案的遗产，自然法在1937年《爱尔兰宪法》中的地位以及随后几十年自然法在发展中的地位。