The idea of justice is the ultimate application of Law. From a philosophical viewpoint it participates in moral questions and the rights and wrongs of certain actions where extreme actions are punishable by law such as murder, theft and imprisonment

No. Tne philosophy of law is just plumbing in the fortress of political philosophy.

No. Tne philosophy of law is just plumbing in the fortress of political philosophy. — 180 Proof

I disagree.

Philosophy of law is the principal cause that regulates the relationship between the citizens of a state. Both privately (mortgages, agreements, wills, "pacta sunt servanda", etc ...) and publicly (the regulation of taxes, nationality, rights of immigrants and refugees,  constitution...)

The real issue in this context is how politicians use the law just for personal ambitions. It is a degradation of regulation and positive law. But this premise doesn't mean that law reinforces the fortress of politics because the real nature of law should be the opposite: limiting the government.

By 'philosophy of X' I understand conceptual analysis, discursive interpretation and/or methodology of X; my 'plumbing-fortress' metaphor (à la "prisons built out of bricks of law") for enfolding philosophy of law into political philosophy, which I interpret to be the broader domain of inquiry, makes the latter primary and the former derivative, just as legal theory (or law-making) is subordinate to – dependent upon – political science (or politics).

I see your point, 180 proof.

But here is where I disagree:

just as legal theory (or law-making) is subordinate to – dependent upon – political science (or politics). — 180 Proof

It is true that the law's approval depends on Congress and Senate. But this fact doesn't mean that "political science" is above the interpretation of law.
I see Philosophy of Law as sui generis. The unique organ responsible for the interpretation of laws is the Supreme Court, not the politicians. The judges interpret both natural and positive law, not politics. Maybe inside public laws is hardly to see, but in private laws or regulations is more clear. If you and I celebrate an agreement of the leasing (for example), the interpretation of duties, payments, obligations, etc... depends on the Philosophy of Law.

We can use a lot of examples which come from Roman law, such as "Quod Nullum est, nullum effectum producit"; "Salva rerum substantia"; "Cessio pro solvendo" etc... all of those, at least, I see them as clear examples of Philosophy of Law.

What is law outside of the political? Mythology, utopia. (ahistorical)

What is politics outside of the legal? Tyranny, piracy. (historical)

I'm not aware of a philosophy of law (e.g. property) that does not presuppose a political philosophy (e.g. republicanism). Are you? :chin:

I'm not aware of a philosophy of law (e.g. property) that does not presuppose a political philosophy (e.g. republicanism). Are you? — 180 Proof

Good point.

I have two examples where philosophy of law does not presuppose a political philosophy:

Nationality. Everyone, since we born, have a nationality. This right is respected and guaranteed worldwide because it is attached to human's existence. It doesn't depend on the fluctuations of political conflicts or changes. For example: I am Spanish and I will be until my death, unless I decide to switch it for other different. Even if a dictatorship decides to "remove" my nationality (I think this is impossible since I was born in Spanish territory...), I will be stateless, a special condition, similar to the nationality itself.

Lex rei sitae. Thus, every real estate is ruled by the law of the place where it is located. None government can change this.