Comparison of the Traditional English Laws & European Community (EC) Laws on Jurisdictional Values

Introduction: This paper endeavours to compare the traditional English law and the European Community (EC) law on jurisdictional values, in that, it seeks to understand and elucidate why the former set of jurisdictional rules value flexibility and justice while the latter values certainty and predictability vis-à-vis the other. It shall analyse their historical or political background, their objectives and bases for assuming jurisdiction. It shall highlight the areas of differences between these jurisdictional regimes with the assistance of authorities like significant Court cases and books that have besides explaining or simplifying the law have also helped its evolution.

Definition: The word ‘Jurisdiction’ can have several meanings, but if understood in context with the Court of law it generally means the ability or authority of a particular Court to determine the issues before it on which a decision is sought. The rules on Jurisdiction play a pivotal role in determining the Court’s ability to address the issues in a given matter.

Jurisdictional issues become complex on the involvement of more than one Court having jurisdiction. This is certainly an area of concern not only for the international trade or business (who may be put in an invidious position where they are unaware of the extent of their liability) but also the sovereign states that seek to trade with each other without having to spoil their amicable relationship.

The English Law: The English legal system (having the common law at its core) has had and still continues to have a formidable place in expounding the law on several issues, mostly due to the availability of intellectuals and experts that have helped it in doing so.

Traditional English law (the common law) is basically the case laws that have over period of time become an authority with regard to the matter determined therein. Prior to entering the European Union (EU) by signing the document of accession in 1978, in the U.K, along with the judge made laws, even legislations played a significant role though it may have been more or less remedial in nature. However, it seems logical to allow the judge made law to test the legislation whenever it is so required by the change in circumstances which can be given effect to with relative ease as in comparison with the legislation process.

Before the advent of the Brussels/Lugano system and the Modified Regulation the traditional rules were applied in all cases, and it is their historical roots that make it appropriate to refer to them as the traditional English law/rules.

The jurisdiction of English courts is determined by different regimes:
1. The Brussels I Regulation (hereinafter the ‘Regulation’) (an amended version of the Brussels Convention but notwithstanding the amendments it applies a similar system of rules on jurisdiction);
2. The Modified Regulation which allocates jurisdiction within U.K under certain circumstances; and
3. The traditional English rules.

There are other sets of rules on jurisdiction like the EC/Denmark Agreement on jurisdiction and the those contained in the Lugano Convention; but their ambit is restricted in application to the cases where the defendant is domiciled in Denmark in case of the former and in an EFTA member state in case of the latter. There is also the Brussels Convention which applies to Denmark alone.

The EC law: In contrast to the traditional English law, the European Community seems to place more importance on the legislative work than the judge made laws. Apparently, for the EC, it is more important that the basic edifice of their legal system should be based in a codified structure which it defends on the grounds of ease of understanding amongst other reasons. Whereas, English laws seem to put more emphasis on having a common law or judge made law background. On this anvil, one begins to understand the differences that exist between the respective legal systems and their values, that is, a basic difference in the manner of approaching the issues even in cases where their objectives may be same.

The EC law on jurisdiction is more inclined towards the importance of predictability and certainty in the rules than towards matters like justice and flexibility as can be understood upon reading the 11th recital of the Regulation that states: ‘The rules of jurisdiction must be highly predictable and founded on the principle that jurisdiction must generally be based on defendants domicile and jurisdiction must always be available on this ground save in few defined situations…’

Whereas, the only mention of flexibility in the Regulation is contained in the 26th recital wherein it provides that the rules in the regulation may be flexible only to the extent of allowing specific procedural rules of member states.

According to the EC law on jurisdiction, it seems that this particular requirement of predictability is necessary for parties to a dispute to know exactly within which jurisdiction(s) they can sue and be sued. The EC law gives priority to the primary objective of harmonizing the laws on jurisdiction within the territory of its member states and therefore makes it mandatory to uphold the strict accuracy to its principle while giving secondary status to the objective of justice for the parties. The EC law as well as the traditional English law may very well have their own justifications and reasons for following a particular system; but it is submitted that this seems to be not only a matter of difference in manner of approach or attitude but also a matter of prioritization of the objectives by both the EC law and traditional English law on jurisdiction. The list of cases mentioned hereinafter for the benefit of elucidating the topic under discussion are, as shall be evident, decided under the Brussels Convention which can be used for interpreting the rules under the Regulation.

Comparison of EC Law v English Law:
1. Bases of Jurisdiction: The most significant difference that exists between the traditional English laws and the EC law on jurisdiction is the element of discretion that the respective body of law gives to the judges in determining the jurisdictional issues. Under the Regulation the assumption of jurisdiction is largely mandatory with the court not being free to decline jurisdiction; whereas under the English traditional rules the assumption of jurisdiction is discretionary.

The Regulation applies only to matters that are civil and commercial in nature and not to those that have been explicitly excluded from its application (for e.g. Cases pertaining to arbitration, succession, wills and bankruptcy have been excluded from the application of the Regulation). Whereas, the traditional English rules apply not only to cases that fall outside the scope of Art.1 of the Regulation but also to those that fall within its scope where the defendant is not domiciled in any member state and the jurisdiction is not allocated by any of the rules which apply, regardless of domicile.

A. In the traditional English rules the court has jurisdiction in three situations:
i. If the defendant is present in England (though the court may stay the proceedings on the ground that another court is a more appropriate forum). Jurisdiction under this situation is dependent on the presence of the defendant in the country whereby the claim form may be served to him.
ii. If the defendant submits to the court’s jurisdiction: wherein the defendant submits by not contesting jurisdiction or by arguing the case on its merits.
iii. If the claim falls within Practice Direction: (CPR PD 6B) (which is dependent on the court giving permission to serve process out of its jurisdiction) where the court considering England to be the most appropriate forum (despite of absence of reasons under i. or ii. on the basis of some connection between England and the defendant. There seems on a perusal of this provision, a functional similarity with Arts.5 & 6 of the Regulation.

B. Jurisdiction under the EC Law: Except for certain instances where the applicability of the EC law on jurisdiction does not depend on the defendants domicile (Art.22 Exclusive Jurisdiction and Art.23 Prorogation of Jurisdiction) the EC law on jurisdiction rests on the domicile of the defendant, and makes it mandatory for the court of a member state to determine the jurisdictional issues and other issues where the defendant is domiciled in its jurisdiction.

The Brussels Regulation does provide for instances where the defendant can be sued in another member state though he is not domiciled in that particular state; but these cases have been very explicitly outlined in the regulation leaving little or no scope for the exercise of discretion by the judge. However, Art.4 of the Regulation provides that a member state can (subject to the provisions in Articles 22 and 23 of the Regulation) exercise its traditional laws on jurisdiction in cases where the defendant is not domiciled in any of the member states. This provision while giving scope for the applicability of the traditional rules has at the same time also given rise to the idea that there is now only one source of jurisdictional rules, namely the Brussels Regulation.

C. Mandatory rules under EC law v Forum Conveniens:
Forum conveniens: upon bringing an action in England, the claimant has to prove that it is the forum conveniens, that is, the matter can be tired therein in the interest of justice; and the relevant factors in considering this are the same as under forum non conveniens. Forum conveniens is determined in two stages, namely:
i. Where in the 1st stage the claimant should show that England is an appropriate forum (considering, among other things, the nature of dispute, issues involved and in cases where relevant, the availability of witnesses.
ii. At the 2nd stage the claimant must establish that even if there is another forum, justice will not be done there, showing thereby that England is the more appropriate forum.

However, England may not be the appropriate forum where the claimant will only be deprived of some legitimate personal or juridical advantage like a higher compensation award.

Mandatory rules under EC law: Unlike the Traditional English rules, under the Regulation, if the court has jurisdiction under any of the provisions thereof (e.g. Arts.2 or 5) it cannot refuse jurisdiction on the grounds that some other court is best suited to determine the matter, showing the mandatory nature of the rules.

In case of lis pendens (Art.27) or proceedings in 2 or more states (Art.28) the Regulation gives precedence to the court first seized (Art.29 & 30) regardless of the actual jurisdiction being in the court 2nd seized.

These rules are mandatory in so far as they fall within the scope of Art.1 of the Regulation; no deviation thereof is permitted on the grounds of justice or convenience or any like reason. Paraphrasing the reasoning of the ECJ, the reason for such mandatory compliance is the promotion of legal certainty and predictability and the free flow of judgments amongst the member states on the basis of the codified rules in the Regulation which are not dependent on any judge’s discretion.

2. Forum non conveniens and lis pendens:

A. Forum non conveniens: Jurisdiction under the traditional rules also depends on whether the court shall decline jurisdiction or stay the proceedings. An English court shall in determining jurisdiction under its traditional rules try to ascertain which is the more appropriate forum and may even stay its proceedings in cases where it thinks that another forum is best suited for the case and in doing so it employs what may be called the basic test i.e. whether it is in the interest of the parties and would meet the interest of justice.

However, it was the Spiliada Case which promulgated another test i.e. ‘the two stage test’ for deciding the more appropriate forum for determining the case before the court. Where the court considers, in the 1st stage which is prima facie the most appropriate forum (burden being on the defendant) on the basis of connecting factors like: (territorial connection) place where the parties reside, the law applicable, the availability of witnesses (if any), balance of convenience (applied in Spiliada itself) and where proceedings between the same parties arising out of the same dispute are pending before a foreign court, show how long the trial has been in existence which would be a strong argument in favour of forum non conveniens where such case is on the verge of resolution one (unlike Art. 27 of the Brussels Regulation, the traditional rules do not endorse a simple ‘first come, first serve’ approach) and whereas in the 2nd stage (burden shifting on the claimant) upon considering the relevant connecting factors it thinks that the dispute is more closely connected with a foreign court.

B. Lis alibi pendens: The doctrine of Lis Pendens under Art.27 of the Brussels Regulation makes it mandatory for the court which is second seized (in proceedings having same cause of action and same parties and the dispute is before the courts of two or more member states) to stay its proceedings in favour of the court first seized until such time till the latter has not established its jurisdiction notwithstanding that the court second seized may actually have prima facie grounds for the exercise of its jurisdiction (For example: Arts. 22 and 23).

In contrast to the traditional English law, the Brussels Regulation gives absolutely no discretion to the judge to stay its own proceedings and grant jurisdiction in favour of another court on grounds of availability of a more appropriate forum. For instance, in the Owusu case wherein the European Court of Justice held that Brussels Convention precludes a Court of a contracting state from declining jurisdiction conferred on it by Art.2 on the ground that a court of a non-contracting state would be more appropriate forum for the trial of the action even if the jurisdiction of no other state is in issue or the proceedings have no connecting factors to any other contracting state. This regardless of the fact that the person putting up a plea of forum non conveniens is able to prove that he may not be able to secure justice in a foreign court or that he is in fact devoid of any access to effective justice.

The doctrine of Lis Pendens may seem like a simplified manner of approaching simultaneous proceedings in different courts vis-à-vis the doctrine of forum non conveniens which is dependent on the judges discretion; and also seems logical in cases where there could be a possibility of having two conflicting decisions as may happen under the traditional rules. At the same time it also seems arbitrary in that it makes mandatory for the court first seized to decide upon its jurisdiction before the court second seized, regardless of any pressing evidence adduced that places jurisdiction elsewhere.

The doctrine of lis pendens seeks to support the object of the drafters of the Brussels Regulation which is to promote confidence in the internal market, to reduce disparities between national laws on the jurisdictional front; and to strengthen the belief of persons domiciled in the member states under the present jurisdictional set-up, so as to safeguard their legal and large monetary interests and this in turn leads to the creation of legal certainty which view or observation is supported by several bearers of intellect in the concerned field of study.

Art. 27 of the Regulation requires the court second seized to stay its proceedings until the court first seized has established its jurisdiction. This provision seems to give ample room for parties to commercial matters in particular to take advantage of the loopholes available in the legal framework established under the Brussels Regulation which is best explained by explanation of the term ‘Italian Torpedo’.

Art. 27 while intending certainty has ended up providing an avenue for a rat race of sorts to the court house for the parties having a dispute in civil and commercial matters as well as those that wish to obstruct the course of justice. A party seeking to prolong the outcome of the dispute can approach the court of a member state which otherwise on the merits of the case may not have the requisite jurisdiction to hear it (e.g. Italy); and where the hearing and official determination of only the jurisdictional issues may possibly take long enough to frustrate the objectives of the party seeking an early resolution or remedy for the mischief of the other party.

In the Transporti Castelletti case where a Danish shipping company had to contest a jurisdictional issue before the Italian court for eight years when the receiver of the cargo under its Bill of Lading brought proceedings in Italy this notwithstanding the fact that the Bill of Lading which it delivered to an Argentinean shipper for voyage from Argentina to Italy had explicitly mentioned a ‘choice of court clause’ favouring England. This outcome does beg the question if there are any provisions that guarantee a fair and speedy delivery of justice. This requirement seems to have been overlooked even by the European Court of Justice, specially, with regard to the lack of efficiency which the Italian courts have shown in dispensing speedy remedies.

This issue was once again put to test in the Erich Gasser GmbH v MISAT Srl which was pertaining to patent rights and also involved a ‘choice of court agreement’ (Art.17 of the Brussels Convention) whereby the parties are free to choose which court shall have exclusive jurisdiction or if the parties require they may even make it a non-exclusive jurisdiction clause by stating the courts that shall have jurisdiction.

Gasser an Austrian firm and MISRAT an Italian Company had submitted to the exclusive jurisdiction of an Austrian court by virtue of statement granting jurisdiction to the Austrian court contained in all invoices transacted under by the parties. But knowing that there was a possibility that Gasser may file a suit under the choice of court agreement, Misat with the intent to prolong the proceedings and the outcome of the case sought to invoke the jurisdiction of the Italian court and filed a suit there thereby making it the court first seized of the matter.

The case was pending before the Italian court for a period of eight years simply to have its jurisdiction established though it could be seen from the invoices transacted between the parties to the dispute that there was an explicit clause which was as per the provisions of Art.23 namely, i. the agreement was in writing; ii. in form with accords with practices which the parties have established between themselves; or iii. in international trade or commerce in a form which accords with a usage of which the parties are ought to have been aware and which is in widely known in such trade or commerce or regularly observed by the parties to the contract of the type involved in the particular trade or commerce.

3. Preclusion of jurisdiction under the English Law and EC law: Under the traditional English law, when the court finds itself to be the more appropriate forum it may grant an anti-suit injunction i.e. an injunction restraining a party from instituting or pursuing proceedings in another court, which is generally sought by defendants in foreign proceedings praying that the matter be decided in England where the grounds for injunction can include: unconscionable behavior, ends of justice and contractual reasons i.e. arbitration agreement.

In contrast to the English law under the Brussels Regulation the court 1st seized will determine its jurisdiction first and the courts 2nd seized shall (despite having jurisdiction over the matter on all relevant grounds) stay its own proceedings and not be permitted to issue any anti-suit injunction and will have to await the determination of jurisdiction by the court first seized. This despite the fact that the proceedings in the court first seized might be brought in bad fait and to frustrate the proceedings of the court second seized. (Based on the view of the ECJ that the states must trust each other, which seems like allowing the interest of justice in favour of an individual, as in Turner v Grovit to be overlain by the interest of the state)

Scope of jurisdiction in recognition and enforcement of judgments: A court cannot recognize or enforce a judgment without the requisite jurisdiction. The set of rules applicable would depend primarily on the country where the judgment was given. Recognition under the traditional law operates without impediments as regards judgments from many countries including many of the Middle Eastern countries, the non-common wealth countries including therein the US, Asia and Africa. Enforcement under the common law is dependent on bringing ordinary proceedings, whereas, the statutory regimes require specific procedures i.e. Registration.

In contrast to the English law, under the EC law on recognition and enforcement contained in Chapter III of the Regulation, jurisdiction is available only in civil and commercial matters; where the judgment is given by the court of a member state, the EC law will only give recognition and enforce those judgments that are given under the Regulation. Where unlike the common law there is no special procedure for recognition and enforcement; yet the number of defenses, are limited.

Critical Analysis: One critical aspect in favour of forum non conveniens is the noble and paramount objective namely, the interest of justice, which would have rightly served the need of cases like Gasser and Turner v Grovit had the objective of the EC law been so. In that, the requirement of maintaining comity amongst nations is given preference over doing justice to the parties, a codified structure and interpretation thereof seems to overrule the requirement of practicality and logic.

Due to cases like Gasser, there is a possibility that the reasoning of the European Court of Justice may be able to change the meaning behind the maxim pacta sunt servanda giving rise to instances where the terms contained in the express contracts like, jurisdiction agreement may be ignored or subverted in pursuance of sinister objectives like causing delays; frustration of commercial enterprise and cause heavy losses.

There are certain provisions in the Regulation (for instance Art.22 (4)) that run contrary to the objective of the EC law as stated hereinbefore, while leaving many questions unanswered. It may also be argued that the definition of lis pendens in Art.27 is quite technical and mechanical, being hinged on the 1st seized rule implying a first come first serve basis of justice, whereas in the traditional English laws there is no requirement of a definition; can deal with most problems with the help of discretionary rules. But matters like anti-suit injunctions under the traditional rules run contrary to modern objectives like comity of nations

The Regulation excoriates the application of the domestic laws on jurisdiction by member states under circumstances where the Regulation is applicable. Though the intention is to help parties to civil and commercial matters discern their rights and liabilities lie; but in doing so the EC law has in fact taken away much of the English Court’s discretionary power, as is evident from the outcome of the Owusu case.

Conclusion: It is submitted that it is not only the difference of attitudes or manner of approach that differentiates the traditional English law and the EC law on jurisdiction; but also the nature of these rules which as regards the EC law on jurisdiction is mandatory unlike- the traditional English law which is discretionary.

There have been instances wherein, on the basis of the traditional rules on jurisdiction, the English Courts have assumed jurisdiction in cases where it was clearly not the most appropriate court as per its two stage test promulgated in the Spiliada case; yet for the purpose of doing justice to the parties therein it has even given legal aid to the South African citizens on the English tax payers account, which in itself goes to show the extent to which the English court can be flexible.

The objective of the traditional rules is clear i.e. achieving justice for the parties to a dispute regardless of any set parameters; but this very factor makes a party to a commercial dispute uncertain of the jurisdictions it may or may not get sued in, which contingency the Regulation endeavours to clarify for the purpose of achieving its objective of building confidence in the European commercial market.

In light of the foregoing observations, it is submitted, that the traditional English laws do in fact prefer or value flexibility and justice over certainty and predictability, whilst the EC law on jurisdiction prefers or values certainty and predictability over flexibility and justice to the parties which is predominantly due to the inclination it has towards their respective objectives which mandates the said preference or prioritization.

노블 출장안마 100% 후불제

The Laws of Life

The Mystery of Life’s Purpose

At some point in each individual’s life on Earth they undoubtedly and eventually come around to question their purpose for existing. The basis of this profound question usually begins with thoughts centered around- the reason why am I here, and my purpose in what appears as an experiential journey through this mystery we call life.

Many of us have experienced these seemingly bizarre moments of life in which we find ourselves reaching for answers to help solidify our existence permitting us to feel as though we are not building our lives on sifting sand. Although these moments in life allow for a conscious awakening that demands our attention, they are often masked or shrouded throughout our lives as momentous events.

It does not always happen this way because many apparently mundane moments within our lives carry the seed of questions yet unanswered- and if we look closely, profound answers are lovingly contained in those special moments of time. Having exposed in a previous article, Timewave Zero the premise that our universe and all within it is being sourced continuously from the same fountain of life through cycles, it surely makes plausible sense to conclude certain natural laws of life govern our existence and could very well offer solace in a turbulent sea of life’s questions. It is through the proper understanding and personal application of these “Laws of Life” that enable us to live life fully in the moment appreciating the journey of life right where we find ourselves at any given moment, in the Now. However, it must be added, we still live in a delicate world that requires of us to plan for a future while co-existing in the moment.

Could these well defined universal Laws of Life help us better understand life’s mysteries while at the same time provide a solid foundation upon which we can receive direction and answers? In short, the answer is yes! By applying a level of understanding and reliance upon these laws of unwavering reliability we may soon find ourselves aligned with powerful forces which conspire to lift our lives higher up the ladder of joy.

If we could accept that all possibilities exist in the present moment and remain focused in the Now of life, consciously allowing the Laws of Life to freely operate through us, we would soon recognize that we are in a co-created world which we have personal responsibility for bringing into existence. It is through these simple Laws that we are building a new Earth as we become receptive to our ultimate purpose for life itself. We are powerful co-creators and life is our school and playground too.

The Power of the Four Laws of Life

I would concede there are many Laws of Life; however in this post we will turn our focus only upon four important master laws that birth all the others. Given that all life within the universe of creation is encapsulated within the boundaries established by certain laws, some known and some of these we are just starting to unravel and comprehend.There are four basic, universal laws of utmost value for human life and these are the one we shall address.

It is through our understanding and application of the wisdom contained within these four Laws of Life that will determine our experiences we will entertain throughout or lives. During our lives many of our questions arise through the awareness of the very contrasts that exist having been created by the choices we made. Some of these experiences are on an individual basis while others can be experienced by the entirety of those on Earth.

Our collective (or individual) reaction to events which create our life experience are needed thus enabling us by way of contrast between various experiences to question what it is we then want to experience. Combine life’s cyclic movement and how we experience it with understanding the four Laws of Life- The Law of Love, The Law of Gratitude, The Law of Cause & Effect and The Law of Attraction you find many of life’s poised questions and formerly out-of-reach answers become vividly obvious.

Before we get into each of the Laws, it would be good to know that these laws are immutable and one cannot “break” them in the process of life here as we operate within the parameters of Free-Will. You may by choice either consciously or unconsciously turn against any of these fundamental Laws of Life and your life experience would reveal that something was “amiss”, essentially out of balanced alignment. If your course in life was not adjusted through the questioning/answer process we all go through, your subsequent experiences would become more amplified while the essence of your life experience would remain the same.

We have all heard the question phrased this way: “Why does this always happen to me?” Read on to discover the nature of these four Laws of Life and how to recognize their individual signatures in your life. Upon gaining a more thorough understanding of how they permeate all facets of our lives, we become internally empowered to co-create our own lives, and indeed our world at the same time through the infinite power residing in these Laws of Life.

The Law of Love

It is often said and conceptualized that “God is Love”. In the scale of humanities expression of this concept, for now it, falls dismally short and understandably so. Our human reflection of this first Law of Life- The Law of Love can be a very difficult one to express in such a way to foster a genuine flow of this all encompassing power. Generally, human expression of Love is often limited and in the worst case, conditional. I’m not trying to convey human love in all its beauty and shortcomings but rather the first source of the Law of Love that empowers us by attempting to express love through a filtered, human perspective.

While we may feel like love is a by-product created by something that is precipitated by an external influence, in truth, we embody the Law of Love by allowing Unconditional Love to forever flow through us. This powerful Law is never removed from our access, only by not allowing does it appear lost. It is only through this understanding or at least recognizing this limitless source of Unconditional Love is the originating source of our human expression of Love.

“Unconditional Love is the Law of Love”

Like all the Laws, Unconditional Love is pure energy and is present throughout the entire universe from the greatest to the least of creation. The Law of Love is the building block which binds all of creation together and we in human form can either allow or disallow it to be active in our lives. When you allow the Law of Love to govern your actions you have become unattached to preconceived or forced outcomes having released your will and allowed acceptance of what already is. The Law of Love binds all of us together by unifying opposites into one; and when we apply this truth the false human condition of perceiving everything as separate from us falls away opening our hearts allowing the Law of Love to freely operate.

By practicing an open heart especially in situations needing resolution that seem utterly impossible to overcome, all of a sudden they are transformed by the Law of Love. The Law of Love teaches us we cannot experience utter joy while holding onto resistance through non-acceptance of our experiences. Letting go allows the Law of Love to flow and offers answers to those difficult questions of life. The Law of Love- Its part magic and part energy science.

“Unconditional Love is the only truth everything else is an illusion”

The Law of Gratitude

Much like the Law of Love, the Law of Gratitude exists as a by-product of having an open heart. This Law is the key to unlock greater well-being and abundance in your life. One great reason for allowing the Law of Gratitude to flow in your life is because it will promotes endorphin chemicals to be released within the body affecting every cell promoting feelings of optimism, relaxation and happiness. By your body releasing endorphins, simultaneously stress hormones called cortisol and norepinephrine decrease rapidly.

That alone could be reason enough to daily apply the Law of Gratitude; feel great and automatically become healthier! Further abundance comes from the assurance of knowing you are an important part of expressing gratitude, so have compassion on yourself and acknowledge your greatness. If you focus on the personal gifts you have been given along with other points of gratitude, you cannot help but notice that it’s impossible to contemplate negative emotions at the same time.

To understand gratitude is to comprehend opposites since this is how the most powerful, beneficial effects are experienced. This Law is often expressed as an “attitude of the mind” and that is true to a degree. Actually, the Law of Gratitude is initiated from the heart then our mind follows adding imagery to the momentum reminding us of more to be grateful for if we will allow the process to unfold. We sometimes misunderstand the real meaning of gratitude and its expression simply because we again need an opposite or opposing viewpoint to posses the ability to identify that which we are grateful for. It is commonplace for most of the population to identify what is absent in their lives rather than go deliberately in the opposite direction into a treasure chest full objects worthy of appreciation, thankfulness and ultimately reflect gratitude for each.

For example, by recognizing the absence of something you appreciate, you bring a defining clarity that easily produces gratefulness for its existence- no matter what or where the object is, physical or non-physical. Even thoughts can remind us of the Law of Gratitude at work in addition to the more common sources- those outward, visible objects of appreciation or thankfulness. By a conscious and deliberate daily practice of the Law of Gratitude brings us into a renewed optimism and appreciation for all of life while banishing the power robbing opposites of fear, anger and other negative emotions. Every acknowledgment of gratitude for what you have is rewarded by awareness of more to be grateful for and anything you want in your life originates by the law of Gratitude. Your choice should be clear, allow the Law of Gratitude to flow more abundance of joy into your life.

The Law of Cause & Effect

This is one of the most misunderstood Laws of Life due to the belief that all events are predestined to transpire as a result of some previous action. It is true from the standpoint of action-reaction that expectations of future events should come to fruition if no alternative adjustments are made, simply because the root cause was set in motion. A belief that even if root causes are altered by a future event, they cannot alter one’s destiny can lead to fatalism whereby you resign that all is predestined and alteration is impossible. This is an error and is to be avoided in the mind as it has no basis in how this law operates.

The Law of Cause and Effect also known in the Buddhist doctrine as karma, ascribes that an individual’s present condition is a reflection previous life choices and these decisions could even encompass many past lifetimes of accumulation. In Hebrew doctrine this is expressed as a generational curse and in some way is related to parental DNA inheritance. It important to note regardless of doctrine, we have the power to override any possible predispositions through our current actions and emotional/mental state. Therein lays the beauty of the Law of Cause and Effect.

One of the best ways to allow this powerful trans-formative law to flow through your life is to apply the Golden Rule seeded into your heart. Doing so from the perspective that not only will you personally benefit greatly, but also the world around you will as well. Karma or, the Law of Cause and Effect can carry a bit of foreboding if ignored because if abused, time will take its toll surfacing into events and the scales of life will become balanced. Again, the accumulation of past deeds only instigates the flow of this energy and it is malleable. This forceful energy exists in both polarities and is experienced as what could be deemed as positive or negative actions-reactions.

“As you sow, so shall you reap”

This law’s application is easily practiced when we deliberately aspire to give away that which we seek for ourselves. Whatever form of energy we radiate regardless whether they consist of thought-forms or physical actions, the Universe responds accordingly. This is because- that which is like unto itself is drawn forth into existence. So, consider your thoughts and following actions. Much in the same way the Law of Gratitude operates, if you want more of anything like love, friendship, good health etc. give these away from an open heart and watch as the Universe responds in kind.

When this law is firmly rooted into your being through you heart you need not be concerned to police your thoughts as this process soon becomes automatic just like breathing. As most of us primarily exist in the 3rd dimensional Universe, we need not overly concern ourselves that the Law of Cause and Effect response time is immediate. Fortunately for now, there is a delayed response; however, you may begin to notice as you set this law into motion that your awareness can jump quickly and you begin to notice its effects are sometimes near instantaneously occurring in your life as well as others. When this is observed, know that you are receiving information from the 4th dimensional realm.

To experiment with this law at an observational level, pay close attention to events that are now transpiring on Earth. Pick any category- politics, economics, social changes, geophysical changes etc. all these are exponentially unfolding at an ever increasing repetitive pace. These action-reaction events can in many ways be associated with cyclic action playing out through the Law of Cause and Effect. For the purpose of life’s direction regarding the power and influence of the Law of Cause and Effect, one should come into agreement that we are through our willpower, are an active, interconnected participant and what we do in fact causes a ripple in the pond of life and the lives of others. As you build your own experiential evidence you become acutely aware of this law’s power because whatever you believe becomes your truth and that sets in motion elements of your life displayed and played out through the Law of Cause and Effect.

The Law of Attraction

I suspect that nearly anyone who has a passing interest in self improvement or is driven in the hope to find the magic “potion” or “spell” to live a specific life, has encountered the basic idea of the Law of Attraction. It is no shock that a whole industry has arisen attempting to cash-in financially with the ever expanding popularity of this subject. If this is what it takes to help some of us come to the realization that we each are endowed with the power to transform and actually co-create or world, then this is a great beginning.

This Law of Attraction states that whatever you focus your attention on with a higher degree of emotional energy and do not have a conflicting opposite thought on the subject, that energy will amass to the point where the essence of the desire will establish itself in your life. It could also be summarize as- That which is like unto itself is drawn.

There is an ever expanding knowledge-base derived from quantum theory that affirms the validity in the fundamental aspects of this law. While this law is by far nothing new, because the Universe is the designer and it has been in operation since the dawning of creation. We are seeing on a global scale, the infinite power contained within this law and I suspect, it has and is being used to direct the thoughts of those who are unconscious of its ability to deliver whatever one focuses their thought on (given the correct application) into a world that is of their design and desire.

There is also very good evidence to suggest that a large portion of the “2012 shift” relates to our awakening into a scientifically based realization that we are fully able on a global scale, to transform this planet into one that the majority of the Earth’s inhabitants would call heaven. The amazing point in the Law of Attraction is that all physical manifestations are first birthed by emotions, then thought. This does make sense as emotions are really energy-in motion. In the purest way, when thought is intensely and passionately focused its essence coalesces into our reality.

“Ask and ye shall receive”

What many do not understand while attempting to apply this law, it that your conscious AND subconscious thoughts each play a significant role in the speed at which the desired outcome appears. The Law of Cause and Effect are not far removed from the Law of Attraction. Both are similar laws, just like the two conscious and subconscious minds are involved, both laws operate in harmony with each other. You can apply the creation power encapsulated in this law by the very act of become a deliberate thinker. Emotions that surround thoughts are the primary indicator of what you’re beginning to create and will eventually show up in your life. This emotional component is a wonderful tool that is indispensable in knowing the direction and eventual outcome of what you are inviting into your life.

There is responsibility associated with wielding this law in unnatural, manipulative ways. The universe does not judge nor filter end results of what is delivered. In time, you will always receive the essence of your thoughts. And just like the non-instantaneous manifestation of thought-forms in operation within the Law of Cause and Effect, the Law of Attraction provides a built-in, indisputable guidance system in the form of emotions. Be aware of how your thoughts make you feel when focusing on that which you want to create. When those thoughts feel good, you are in agreement with your desire and intentions; when feelings do not feel so good, re-direct your thought back into a better feeling thought. In doing so, emotional energy remains amplified in the direction of your desire.

Finally, the speed at which thoughts physically are transformed into existence in our reality is determined by the level of agreement without doubts or conflicting beliefs to the contrary, and the proportionate level of emotional energy present. All these elements must be a match with each other and flow effortlessly in your life to have full effect.

Yes, it can be a fine balance to effectively and knowingly use the Law of Attraction and it presently requires our physical interaction to follow through with a higher level of active intuition to move things forward in their proper direction. This is never done in a forceful manner. In fact, the true full power is all in the balancing of our thoughts, emotions, and burning desire without any internal conflict for that which we want to create. The Law of Attraction is always at work, so be a deliberate creator and manage and choose thoughts wisely- thoughts eventually become things.

Conclusion

In the end, we are all willful creators in the world we personally experience and create on both an individual and collective level. There is great life-affirming power contained in these four Laws of Life and when you apply them or rather let them guide you life, those unanswered questions are diminished.

It would be wise to remember that now upon Earth there are many co-creative partners all bringing into creation their diversity of beliefs and desires. Soon we will hit a tipping point where as partners we will agree on key provisions that promote life on earth equitably rather than destroy life while maintaining an ever expanding universe governed by free-will.

Tim’s writing expertise and intuition for understanding arcane, non-mainstream subject matter including esoteric topics begun at the age of 14. It is through his expansive career in finance which affords Tim a unique ability to apply a professional, down-to-earth approach when writing about the science of spirituality.