Problem 1: Which is best to control the actions of humans interacting in a society? A government that has all its law created by the supreme authority, whether it is a single individual that is the law giver, or a group of person united because of religion, power, or other source, or a group of individuals united by a common idea, where this individuals are elected by their fellow citizens, or one that allows for Courts to fill the void when there is no specific law that address a public or private dispute.
Problem 2: Soldiers in war are called upon to do certain acts as part of the command process. At times we consider some of those acts as being against humanity. Should soldiers be permitted to argue that they are not responsible because they were following orders and had no say in the process. Also, consider whether we as a society should accept such a defense? How far down in the chain of command should we impose the crimes against "humanity?" Which is more important: what rank a person holds or the specific acts that the person may have done? What about the loyalty that a person show or owes his family, friend or country, does that matter, and is it as important, as the more general loyalty to your fellow human being?
Problem 3: If we believe that the role of a judge is to not make laws but to apply the law as created by those as set out above in question 2, what can we do when the creator abuses or fails to make law that benefit society? Should Judges have the power to "fill the void" and make laws; refuse to apply laws. Should judges be concerned with what is "good" or "beneficial to society" and how do you define what is "good", or "beneficial."