Which approach would likely reject the notion of absolute legal principles?

The approach that rejects the notion of absolute legal principles is rooted in the belief that law is not universally fixed and is instead shaped by social, economic, and political contexts. Critical legal studies challenge traditional legal doctrines by asserting that law is inherently indeterminate and that its application can vary greatly depending on the circumstances surrounding it. This perspective emphasizes that legal outcomes are deeply influenced by the biases and perspectives of those who interpret and enforce the law, suggesting that what is considered "just" or "fair" is subjective rather than absolute.

In contrast, legal positivism emphasizes the separation of law and morality, viewing laws as rules created by humans and not necessarily tied to moral principles. Natural law theory posits that certain moral principles underpin legal systems, implying a form of absolutism. Sociological jurisprudence focuses on the relationship between law and society but does not inherently reject the idea of absolute principles; instead, it studies law as it functions in the social context. Thus, critical legal studies stand out for its specific assertion that there are no inherently absolute legal principles, aligning closely with the question's intent.