worksheet-1-jurisprudence-introduction.pdf

Jurisprudence is the study of science of law. The knowledge of law as far as jurisprudence is concerned includes the origin of law, the essence of law, the fundamental of the law, the freedom of the law and the purposes of law

The term "Law' denotes different kinds of rules and Principles. Law is an instrument which regulates human conduct/behavior. Law means Justice, Morality, Reason, Order, and Righteous from the view point of the society. Law means Statutes, Acts, Rules, Regulations, Orders, and Ordinances from point of view of legislature. Law means Rules of court, Decrees, Judgment, Orders of courts, and Injunctions from the point of view of Judges. Therefore, Law is a broader term which includes Acts,

What is law? What is its purpose? Does it consist merely of rules? Can anything be law? What has law to do with justice? Or morality? Democracy? What makes a law valid? Do we have a duty to obey the law? Th ese, and many other, 'theoretical' questions suffuse the fabric of jurisprudence and legal theory. 1 Jurisprudence is consequently ubiquitous. Its concerns are an inescapable feature of the law and legal system. But it is more. As will soon be evident, it is both informed by, and has significant implications for, economic, political, and social theory. Drawing the boundaries of this vast terrain is therefore a challenging exercise. Studying jurisprudence means stepping back and reflecting on the ideas and assumptions that underlie and thereby define legal practices and institutions. Whereas in other law courses one studies areas of substantive law, jurisprudence studies law in a much more general way, and asks much more abstract and theoretical questions about law as such. Jurisprudence has been there from the times of Socrates 2. Jurisprudence considers general philosophical and theoretical questions about the nature, purpose and operation of law.

NLIU LAW REVIEW, 2020

This paper poses the question whether jurisprudence has a method that it can call its own. In search of answers, the paper analyses methodological elements in well known theories starting with Austin. It traces the evolution of legal theory from the methodology of Austin to the more advanced methods of Hart and Raz. Hart's view that jurisprudence can be descriptive is then contrasted with the normative approaches of Finnis and Dworkin. In the last section of Part I, the paper discusses Chattrapati Singh's theory of law drawing from his book Law from Anarchy to Utopia. In Part II, the paper discusses three aspects of methodology. The paper briefly deals with the major points of tension between various methodological claims in the theories discussed in Part I. The paper goes on to suggest that rather than construct grand theories of law attempting to explain all that is associated with law, we might be better off attempting to uncover the mysteries of law, little by little. Second, the paper questions the claim that a theory of law if successful must be true of all legal systems. The paper argues that the claims that a theory makes should ordinarily be thought of as valid only for the normative systems that it has considered. Last, the paper comments on the extent to which empirical inputs must be considered necessary in building a theory of law. It is suggested that imposing a condition that theories must be empirically justified does not necessarily mean theorising has to be preceded by some act of scientific data gathering.

37 American Bar Association Journal 23, 1951