Public policy applies to matters of welfare, safety, and public health and represents the collective consciousness of the people as a whole, which encompasses the entire nation. Public policy specifically refers to an accepted, well-developed viewpoint that links a population's obligations to other communities. It creates something that changes in response to the citizens' shifting moral goals, social mores, and economic needs. (Waddams, 2011). More significantly, public policy is a fundamental legal concept. It has an impact on how legislation is interpreted, applied, and enacted in this way. It also goes by the name "ordre public" and is concerned with the set of values that underpin the effectiveness of the judicial systems in every nation. It addresses values that changes in different societies in a given period (Cairney, 2011). The law controls the health behaviour either to support the current social prospects or to promote positive change. Public policy is a principle, which promotes critical values of legislation, including growth, flexibility, openness, equality, certainty, neutrality and impartiality. In this regard, it helps to resolve existing disputes (Dunn, 2015).
Sacredness of Life
The public policy provides the most important principle of the sacredness of life which is also referred to as culture of life. The policy reinforces most religious, moral and social systems (Dunn, 2015). Various countries offer different procedures on this public policy. For instance, in the UK legislation, the duress is not permitted as a justification to murder since no threat is required to overwhelm an individual’s moral aversion to ending the life of another individual (Waddams, 2011). In this regard, the duress cannot be applied in legal proceedings in justification of murder charges against an individual. In this respect, the law regards the sacredness of the life of all human beings as well as protection because of its paramount significance (Cairney, 2011). Therefore, there is no logical, legal or moral justification in allowing the attempted assassin the justification that is withheld from a murderer.
There are many debates on the significance of omission, commission, euthanasia and denial of treatment by hospital management and doctors, which leads to death of patients. In this case, controversy arises on the duty to protect life, and overshadows the right of the independent patient to select death (Knoepfel, Larrue, Varone & Hill, 2011). More antagonistic are those circumstances in which the patient is incapable of making the decision personally, especially in persistent vegetative circumstances, such as unborn child (Post & Preston, 2012).
Public policy provides a wide range of fundamental principles that help to make decisions related to interstate and intrastate matters as well as international issues in different countries. For instance, health policy integrates the Principe of human rights in the formulation of their healthcare policies (Waddams, 2011). According to W.H.O., the right to health is an important part of public policy, as it demands of an environment important for good health. Such public policy must ensure that the authorities offer a social insurance. Moreover, the government expenditure on healthcare normally reflects the public policy on the country, which also reflects the commitment of the regime to its peoples’ health (Cairney, 2011). More importantly, public policy offers a wide range of essential principles, which includes ignorance of the legislation, is not a justification, sacredness of life, evasion doctrine and children (Post & Preston, 2012).
Principle of Evasion
Public policy also offers the principle or doctrine of Evasion. In legal fraternity, this doctrine stops individuals, both artificial and natural from avoiding the utilization of liabilities and obligations already devoted to them (Post & Preston, 2012). This demonstrates a pragmatic utilization of the policy that, because of the social contract, all people owing commitment to a state must be permitted to assume that all people will acquire equal and fair treatment before the law. In this regard, it suggests that the legal system will evade preferential treatment and favouritism to all people by virtue of their status or rank within the community (Dunn, 2015). More significantly, this is an exemption to the public policy in the Contract Law, which normally permits parties’ independence to sign any agreement they wish and that might otherwise be considered to allow parties to eliminate the normal operation of the legislation as between themselves (Waddams, 2011).
Therefore, in legal systems, the doctrine of evasion is a paramount public policy. Whereas an individual may legally plan dealings to evade the incidence of liabilities or obligation enforced by the legislation, no individual is permitted to avoid the operation of an otherwise compulsory provision once liabilities and duties have been property incurred or imposed (Cairney, 2011). It is also a mutual principle in law conflicts. It demonstrates the demand for government to avert the people from improperly and intentionally changing their behaviours to stop compulsory provisions in the legislations from applying to them (Post & Preston, 2012). The main aim is to displace the ordinary process of the legal system. In some cases, this intention will be prompted while in other occasions the courts are given power to make decisions on whether adequate intention can be credited. After the intention is developed, the evasion plan will be void, hence; the regular legal provisions will be applicable to the parties (Dunn, 2015).
Ignorance of legislation is not a vindication
The public policy provides the principle of ignorance of the rules have no excuse. This is one of the vital policies in the action of the legal system. It would entirely weaken the enforcement of any legislation of the individual possibly at fault was incapable of raising an effective justification that he or she had not been responsive of the specific law. In so doing, all the major parliaments publish their legislation freely (Waddams, 2011). Since all persons are entitled to access the legislations as they influence their individual lives, all grown-ups are considered accountable enough to study the legislation prior to their actions. However, when they are unable to do so, they can rarely complain if their actions prove illegal irrespective how briefly they may be within the authority (Knoepfel, Larrue, Varone & Hill, 2011). The principle also offers exceptions for persons with reduced capacity. Similarly, this principle is not applicable to persons with mental illness and infants.
The principle suggests that an individual cannot justify his or her actions based on the idea that he/she was not aware that they were illegal. Therefore, individuals are required to understand the law, although they are not demanded to be legal experts since it is not realistic for individuals to memorize the legislations (Cairney, 2011). The principle proposes that persons cannot shield their operation by arguing that they were not aware of the law. More significantly, the principle of law is very crucial as it helps to eliminate cases of people who ignore the freedoms and rights of people claiming that they did not know. Nonetheless, individuals can break the law when they are engaging in good intentions (Knoepfel, Larrue, Varone & Hill, 2011). In such circumstances, the court can sometimes understand, although it rarely happens.
Children
There are specific policies to every major branch of legislation. For instance, one of these policies is found in the family law. The policy states that the government is the default guardian for all those children within its area of command. Therefore, in case there is the need to safeguard the child’s interests, the government will seize natural parents’ rights (Cairney, 2011). Consequently, it will affirm its own right as the legal guardian of all children. For instance, in the European Union, the child’s right to be listened to in any legal proceedings is an essential right pursuant to Article 24. Moreover, authorities must pay close attention to the opinions of a child on matters, which affect him or her in harmony with maturity and age (Waddams, 2011). It also demands that the best interest of the child should be the main consideration in all activities associated with children whether pursued by private institutions or pubic authorities.
The public policies approved by governments have to be implemented for different reasons. Some are factors of the idea of sovereignty and demonstrate the importance of territoriality. Therefore, public laws that either describe the constitution of a country or control its powers can only be utilized within the boundaries approved as part of the de jure process, which identifies the statehood, with the global community (Cairney, 2011). Public policies also include the traits of the social contract hence they regulate and define the association between citizens and the states. In this respect, the principles of law in these laws overlap and interact with each other (Dunn, 2015). A broad range of these rights are well defined at a multinational stage and it will be appropriate for states to reflect the level at which global principles of law are to be permitted to affect the processes of the law within their jurisdictions. In some instance, the courts in some states may be required to determine lawsuits, which sometimes seek to avoid the operations of international laws (Waddams, 2011). This is turning out to be progressively common as individuals currently move with realistic rights between countries and states.
In conflicting instances, the courts are reluctant to utilize laws, which are likely to be differing with the public policy in the country. In such cases, it is challenging since excluding the utilization of international laws would not serve the main objective of conflict of legislation by providing involuntary inclination to the domestic law (Knoepfel, Larrue, Varone & Hill, 2011). Therefore, in most cases, courts take a longer time to entreat the public policy in circumstances encompassing an international aspect as compared to a domestic legal matter (Dunn, 2015). Courts are careful to avoid any suggestion that they discriminate individuals in matters of religion, sex, race or nationality.
Conclusion
Public policy provides important principles of law, which supports the procedures of legal systems in every country. It pays close attention on economic, moral and social values in the society (Post & Preston, 2012). The legislation controls the behaviour either to underpin the current social prospects or to inspire constructive transformation. In this regard, the public policy contains important principles such as the doctrine of evasion, Sacredness of life, and ignorance of legislation is not a justification (Knoepfel, Larrue, Varone & Hill, 2011). Therefore, it is crucial to adhere to these principles in a state.
References
Cairney, P. (2011). Understanding public policy: Theories and issues. Palgrave Macmillan.
Dunn, W. N. (2015). Public policy analysis. Routledge.
Knoepfel, P., Larrue, C., Varone, F., & Hill, M. (2011). Public policy analysis. Policy Press.
Post, J., & Preston, L. (2012). Private management and public policy: The principle of public responsibility. Stanford University Press.
Waddams, S. (2011). Principle and policy in contract law: competing or complementary concepts?. Cambridge University Press.
