The law is not a social construct.
Social construct:
development of jointly constructed understandings of the world that form the basis for shared assumptions about reality. The theory centers on the notions that human beings rationalize their experience by creating models of the social world and share and reify these models through language.
Social construct are not simply the things constructed by society.
The law is not a model or rationalization. It is written statements on what people who monopolize violence will do to you for doing X.
So what is justice?
So what is a society?
It is a standard methodology in philosophy to apply a claim; i.e. what a social construct is; on itself and what is used for and what it explains.
In this context apply social construct to words like justice, society, fair, harm, violence, property and so on and then ask if they are in some sense social constructs?
The law, it would appear, is a social construct in so far as it is a development of jointly constructed understandings of the world that form the basis for shared assumptions about reality. Namely jointly constructed understandings of the world when it comes to words like justice, society, fair, harm, violence, property and so on.
Further you are reifying the word "law" if you claim it is not a model or rationalization. Take a chair, that is a thing. You can see, touch it and so on. Further you can apply natural science on it through observation and use of instruments calibrated in a scientific sense. Now do the same to the law and you can't. The law is not a thing, it is a model and in some sense a rationalization of how we ought to behave. The law is a behaviour done by some people, but not all and if you ask if the law is fair, you end here:
Fair is a word, that comes from the fact, that human beings rationalize their experience by creating models of the social world and share and reify these models through language. The word "fair" is shared and reified through language as model of how to evaluate behaviour.
