When the explorers in “The Case of the Speleuncean Explorers” pleaded from their cave prison for advice on whether they should murder any of their group, “none of those attached to the rescue camp were prepared to take on the role of advisor in this matter. As a society in general, we would expect a qualified court to answer such a question in a morally ambiguous situation, as well as in any other dispute before it, regardless of whether it is "difficult, doubtful or dangerous ". This view will be explored with particular emphasis on Fuller's article "The Case of the Speluncean Explorers" and R. v Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority Ex p. Blood (hereinafter referred to as “Blood”). In “The Case of the Speleuncean Explorers” (“Explorateurs Spéléuncéens”) Fuller depicts five starving explorers trapped in a cave. With their meager food supply not allowing them to last until they can be rescued, they decide that the only method of survival would be to kill and eat one of their group members. It is discovered during their rescue that they did this, and the four remaining explorers are tried for murder. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on 'Why violent video games should not be banned'? Get the original essay The five justices of the Newgarth Supreme Court struggle to distinguish between the legal and moral aspects of the case, each judge adopting a different line of reasoning. In Blood, the case revolves around the question of whether a widow should be allowed to be artificially inseminated with sperm. The dispute arose because the sperm, although obtained from her husband, had not been obtained with her consent. These two cases share a similar common thread: they are “difficult,” “questionable,” and potentially “dangerous” to decide. In Speluncean Explorers, the judges struggle to resolve the dispute, and it becomes so difficult for one judge, Judge Tatting, that he withdraws from the case and refuses to decide it one way or another. In Blood, no judge refuses to decide the dispute, but the court struggles to exempt Ms. Blood's situation from the facts and the law. In this essay, my goal is to show why any matter, whether “difficult,” “dubious,” or “dangerous,” requires a court decision. I will explore them in turn, because “difficult, questionable or dangerous” factors are subjective. Additionally, I will provide other reasons why the court must still decide the dispute before it. HARD First of all, regarding a “difficult” case. Who would be able to decide whether a dispute brought before the court is sufficiently “harsh”? If a judge is perhaps ill-equipped to decide the dispute before him, he will surely be equally ill-equipped to decide that a case is “difficult”. What if it were a position that courts can refuse to decide the dispute on the grounds that it is “difficult”; in theory, the court could dismiss every case. This would make the judicial system obsolete, because it is indeed the “difficult” disputes that require the judicial system the most. Although a greater degree of effort and thought may be required, it is not the case that “difficult” disputes are impossible to resolve. Suber writes that: “Difficult cases have answers, just as easy cases do, even though they impose on judges greater duties of diligence and scrupulousness…These are not excuses for finding a tie and giving up, as does [J] Tatting. Indeed, in the extensive debates on "hard cases" led by scholars such as Hart and Dworkin, therehas much speculation and discussion about what can be done with "difficult" cases - such as Dworkin's suggestion of applying "principles and policies" mechanisms. However, in none of these scientific writings is there any mention of the possibility of courts not deciding a dispute. Thus, the courts cannot refuse a “difficult” dispute, as long as the judicial structure and law respond to the need for dispute resolution, with the courts being the formal mechanism for such resolution. DOUBT It is certainly viable to argue that the most important objective of a court is to cut short the “dubious” nature of disputes. For judges, it is their very occupation, their supposedly erudite judgment and reasoning on "dubious" issues is why they are selected for this position. It therefore follows that when the nature of a dispute is so “doubtful”, this is the occasion when judges are most called upon. Thus, judges cannot be allowed to reverse their judgment in a “dubious” dispute. It is the aim of judges to answer - to the best of their ability - doubtful questions. Not asking a few more, then giving up and refusing to reach a conclusion - as J Tatting did in Fuller's fictional Speluncean case. Similarly, in Blood, Baroness Warnock, who chaired the inquiry, admitted: "We have not, even hypothetically, considered the present case." Therefore, Blood testifies to the fact that there are many situations brought before the court that are so "questionable" that they have not even been considered hypothetically. It is therefore surely the judges who often invent hypothetical situations in their judgments and their incidental declarations, who should be able to dissect the "doubtful" nature of the dispute submitted to them (perhaps by inventing more hypothetical situations) to finally arrive at a judgment. However, judges must always decide the dispute before them based on the actual facts of the case, and not purely hypothetical situations. Hypothetical situations can put a completely different perspective on the facts of a case, which could make the situation even more questionable than before. One such example occurred with Justice Tatting when he invented so many hypothetical scenarios that he could decide the dispute before him. A DANGEROUS society cannot operate in a way that leaves dangerous conflicts unaddressed. Furthermore, it would make judicial systems obsolete. Society would return to the primitive legal system described by Hart, in which people would begin to resolve disputes on their own. Leaving the dispute unresolved in a dangerous matter creates immense concern that the general public will be able to resolve the dispute in their own way. This would be highly unpredictable and lead to chaos and “latent vendettas”. Indeed, it can certainly be argued that it would be more dangerous to leave a “dangerous” dispute undecided. Although neither Sanguine nor Speleuncean explorers present a significant "dangerous" element, examples of such cases are numerous. This was the case in the case of R. v. Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate Ex p. Pinochet Ugarte (No. 3) even involves international law where there is real danger and serious consequences for many parties. If people were able to resolve the dispute on their own in this matter, it could lead to riots, protests, and general chaos. Ultimately, the court has a crucial function in adjudicating disputes before it, regardless of whether the dispute is “dangerous.” When afirefighter determines that a fire is too "hard", the surface too "questionable" or the general situation too "dangerous", he is authorized to refuse the work. Why don't courts enjoy the same degree of flexibility? At first glance there appears to be little flexibility available to the courts, but in practice flexibility is achieved through the possibility of previous decisions being overturned or challenged. It is always possible to re-examine and determine in retrospect that the matter was decided in error, or for Parliament to intervene. A key principle remains: to obtain this flexibility, the courts must first decide the dispute before them. There is also the possibility for judges to advise on matters that need to be addressed by the legislature or executive, while in the meantime ruling on the dispute based on the rules they can apply. Such an example can be seen in the judgment of Justice Truepenny in Speluncean Explorers. While he defends the rule of law and does not interfere with the separation of powers, he also advocates for executive clemency. Balancing the rule of law is also necessary in “difficult, doubtful and dangerous” conflicts. In Speluncean Explorers, the courts attempt to preserve equality and fairness toward Spelunceans who have already suffered hardship, and many judges express sympathy toward these unfortunates. However, judges must also balance their sympathy with the rule of law which provides that murder must be punished. Judge Keen most strongly defends the rule of law, putting aside his "personal predilections" and ruling in favor of convicting the Spelunceans. In Blood, the court attempts to uphold the rule of law that consent is required. However, they also attempt to preserve equality and fairness while sympathizing with Ms. Blood's plight. Ultimately, the court rules in favor of Ms. Blood. It can be said that the Court refuses to perform its task in a certain way, because it is not fulfilling its constitutional role of upholding the rule of law. This is a serious consequence if we consider our constitutional structure. Although common law is subordinate to statute, the courts remain a direct source of law in our legal system, to the extent that judges are even “deputy legislators.” We need authoritative determinants and certainty in our laws, especially on “difficult, doubtful and dangerous” issues. The courts cannot therefore be allowed to refuse to decide the dispute, because otherwise there would remain unaddressed gaps in our law, which individuals could fill as they wish. This highlights an often overlooked aspect: the self-serving reasons why litigants submit cases for decision. Judges have a responsibility to enforce a policy of fairness to establish ground rules of justice for all - this often sets the tone for why the case is "difficult" in the first place, as it requires balancing selfish interests contradictory. The courts must decide the dispute before them to fulfill their constitutional role. An important reason for this is that the courts face a task of judicial review, where government activities are scrutinized. If a court refused to rule on matters of public interest, it would be a serious blow to our constitutional structure that is in place to keep the government in check. Blood is an example of judicial review. Furthermore, mechanisms have been put in place to protect judges, for example, from the public and political opinion in the exercise of their role,.