In this master’s thesis, I examine the concepts of anarchism and law. I start from the question of whether these two notions can coexist. The aim of the thesis was to test the hypothesis that law is necessary for every socio-ideological order and to determine whether anarchist thinkers agree with this claim. The research adopts an analytical approach, combining an examination of classical and modern anarchist theories with a comparison of their ideas to fundamental legal theories. Anarchism is a complex concept, but at its core it represents a social order based on individual freedom, the reduction of inequalities, and the elimination of all forms of exploitation. Law, on the other hand, is a set of generally binding rules and principles through which interpersonal relations are regulated and justice, peace, and order are maintained. Through the analysis of legal elements, I found that social anarchists often criticize the authoritarian and rigid nature of law, yet they do not reject law as such. They envision a more democratic, community-based form of law rooted in customs, traditions, and solidarity. Individual anarchists, who advocate complete personal freedom, generally oppose any form of legal regulation. In conclusion, I argue that law and the rule of law remain essential mechanisms for maintaining justice and peace, while anarchist critiques are valuable as they remind us that law must be more open, accessible, and adaptable to social change, and as they draw attention to persistent social injustices.
|
