3.

4 The scope of juristic work for LLM

graduates is wide and includes many career paths in the legal, corporate, and
government sectors. LLM graduates can also work in research, academia,
and international organizations.
Legal sector
 Judiciary: LLM graduates can become judges, magistrates, or senior lawyers
in law firms.
 Legal process outsourcing: LLM graduates can work for LPO firms that
provide legal support services to international clients.
 Consulting: LLM graduates can provide legal advice and solutions to clients.
Corporate sector
 Corporate law: LLM graduates can work in corporate law, intellectual
property law, or tax law to ensure legal compliance.
 Finance: LLM graduates can work in the finance industry.
Government sector
 Legal advisor: LLM graduates can work as legal advisors in government
agencies.
 Public prosecutor: LLM graduates can work as public prosecutors in the
government sector.
International organizations
 United Nations: LLM graduates can work for international organizations like
the United Nations, World Bank, or Amnesty International.
Academia and research
 Professor: LLM graduates can become professors or lecturers.
 Researcher: LLM graduates can contribute to legal education by conducting
research.

The Concept of Juristic Writings

Juristic writings, also known as “doctrine,” refer to the scholarly work
produced by legal academics, philosophers and commentators. These
writings include textbooks, treatises, journal articles, commentaries
and monographs that analyse, critique and interpret various aspects of
the law. Juristic writings offer a deep exploration of legal principles,
helping to clarify ambiguities, resolve inconsistencies and suggest new
directions for the development of the law.
Unlike primary sources of law—such as legislation, judicial decisions
and customary law—juristic writings do not have binding authority.
However, they are often consulted by judges, legislators and lawyers
to gain a deeper understanding of complex legal issues. Juristic
writings can also influence the development of legal doctrines and
principles, particularly when they offer persuasive arguments or
innovative interpretations of existing law.

Historical Development of Juristic Writings

The influence of juristic writings as a source of law can be traced back
to ancient times. In the Roman legal system, the works of jurists such
as Gaius, Ulpian and Paulus were highly regarded and played a crucial
role in the development of Roman law. These jurists provided
commentaries on the ius civile (civil law) and ius
honorarium (praetorian law), which were used by judges and
magistrates to resolve legal disputes. The Digest of Justinian, a
compilation of Roman legal texts, heavily relied on the writings of
these jurists, underscoring their importance in shaping the law.
In medieval Europe, the rediscovery of Roman law through the works
of scholars like Irnerius and the Glossators led to the revival of juristic
writings as a source of law. These scholars analysed and interpreted
Roman legal texts, adapting them to the needs of contemporary
society. Their commentaries and glosses became authoritative
references for judges and legal practitioners, contributing to the
development of the civil law tradition.
The influence of juristic writings continued to grow during the
Renaissance and Enlightenment periods, as legal scholars like Hugo
Grotius, Emer de Vattel and Samuel von Pufendorf laid the foundations
for modern international law and natural law theory. These scholars’
works were instrumental in shaping the legal frameworks that
governed relations between states and individuals and their ideas
continue to influence legal thought today.

Juristic Writings in Different Legal Systems

The role of juristic writings as a source of law varies across different
legal systems. In civil law jurisdictions, such as those found in
Continental Europe, Latin America and parts of Asia and Africa, juristic
writings are often given significant weight in legal reasoning and
decision-making. Civil law systems, which are rooted in Roman law,
place a strong emphasis on codified statutes and legal doctrine. As a
result, the opinions of legal scholars are frequently cited by judges and
lawyers as authoritative interpretations of the law.
In common law jurisdictions, such as the United Kingdom, the United
States, Canada and Australia, the role of juristic writings is more
limited. Common law systems prioritise judicial decisions and case law
as the primary sources of law, with precedent (stare decisis) playing a
central role in legal reasoning. However, juristic writings still hold value
in common law systems, particularly when they offer compelling
arguments or fill gaps in the law. Legal scholars’ analyses and
interpretations can influence judicial decisions, especially in cases
where the law is unclear or evolving.
In Islamic legal systems, juristic writings (fiqh) are a fundamental
source of law. Islamic jurisprudence is derived from the Quran, the
Hadith (sayings and actions of the Prophet Muhammad) and the
consensus of scholars (ijma). Jurists’ interpretations of these primary
sources, known as fiqh, provide detailed guidance on legal and ethical
matters. Different schools of thought within Islam, such as the Hanafi,
Maliki, Shafi’i and Hanbali schools, have produced extensive bodies of
juristic writings that continue to shape Islamic law today.
The Role of Juristic Writings in Shaping Legal
Doctrine
Juristic writings play a critical role in shaping legal doctrine by
providing in-depth analyses and interpretations of legal principles.
Scholars often engage in debates over the meaning and application of
laws, offering different perspectives that can lead to the refinement or
evolution of legal doctrines.
Clarification of Legal Principles
One of the primary functions of juristic writing is to clarify legal
principles that may be ambiguous or poorly defined in statutory or
case law. Legal scholars analyse the language and context of legal
texts, exploring the underlying rationale and intent behind the law.
Through their writings, they provide interpretations that help judges
and practitioners apply the law more effectively.
For example, in the field of contract law, scholars have debated the
meaning of concepts such as “consideration” and “good faith.” Their
analyses have contributed to a more nuanced understanding of these
concepts, influencing how they are applied in court decisions. Similarly,
in constitutional law, juristic writings have played a key role in
interpreting fundamental rights and principles, shaping the
development of constitutional jurisprudence.
Development of New Legal Theories
Juristic writings also contribute to the development of new legal
theories that can influence the evolution of the law. Legal scholars
often engage in theoretical exploration, proposing new ways of
understanding or organising legal concepts. These theories can
challenge existing legal paradigms and suggest alternative approaches
to legal issues.
For instance, the development of critical legal studies (CLS) in the late
20th century was largely driven by the writings of legal scholars who
sought to critique and deconstruct traditional legal doctrines. CLS
scholars argued that the law is not a neutral or objective system but is
instead shaped by social, political and economic forces. Their work has
influenced the development of various subfields within legal theory,
including feminist legal theory, critical race theory and queer legal
theory.
Similarly, the emergence of law and economics as a prominent field of
legal scholarship was propelled by the writings of scholars like Richard
Posner and Guido Calabresi. These scholars applied economic
principles to the analysis of legal issues, arguing that the law should be
designed to promote efficiency and maximise social welfare. Their
ideas have had a profound impact on areas such as tort law, contract
law and antitrust law.
Juristic Writings and Judicial Decision-Making
While juristic writings do not have binding authority, they can
significantly influence judicial decision-making. Judges often refer to
the works of legal scholars to support their reasoning, particularly in
cases where the law is unclear or where there are competing
interpretations of legal principles.
Persuasive Authority
Juristic writings are often cited as persuasive authority in judicial
decisions. When faced with complex or novel legal issues, judges may
turn to the opinions of legal scholars for guidance. The persuasive
power of juristic writings depends on the reputation and expertise of
the scholar, as well as the quality of their analysis.
For example, in the landmark case of Brown v. Board of
Education (1954), the United States Supreme Court cited the work of
social scientists and legal scholars to support its decision to declare
racial segregation in public schools unconstitutional. The Court relied
on the scholarship of experts who had studied the effects of
segregation on African American children, using their findings to
bolster its legal reasoning.
In the United Kingdom, the writings of legal scholars such as William
Blackstone and A.V. Dicey have been cited in numerous judicial
decisions. Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England is
considered one of the most influential legal texts in the common law
tradition, providing a comprehensive overview of English law that has
been referenced by judges for centuries.
Filling Gaps in the Law
Juristic writings can also help fill gaps in the law, particularly in cases
where there is no clear precedent or statutory provision. Legal scholars
often explore areas of the law that are underdeveloped or have not
been addressed by the courts, offering insights that can guide judicial
decision-making.
For instance, in the field of international law, the writings of jurists such
as Hugo Grotius and Emer de Vattel have been instrumental in shaping
the principles of state sovereignty, the law of war and the rights of
individuals under international law. Their works continue to be
referenced by international courts and tribunals when interpreting and
applying international legal norms.
In civil law jurisdictions, where codified statutes are the primary source
of law, juristic writings play a crucial role in interpreting and
elaborating on the provisions of the code. For example, in France, the
writings of jurists such as Jean Domat and Robert-Joseph Pothier have
been influential in shaping the interpretation of the French Civil Code.
Their commentaries and treatises have provided judges with the
necessary tools to apply the code in a consistent and coherent
manner.
The Limitations of Juristic Work as a
Source of Law
Despite their importance, juristic writings have limitations as a
source of law. One of the primary criticisms is that they lack the
binding authority of statutes or judicial decisions. Because juristic
writings are not created through a democratic process or judicial
adjudication, they do not carry the same weight as other sources
of law.
Subjectivity and Bias

Another limitation of juristic writings is that they can be subjective

and influenced by the personal biases of the author. Legal
scholars often have their own perspectives and ideologies, which
can shape their interpretations and analyses of the law. This
subjectivity can lead to conflicting opinions among scholars,
making it challenging for judges and practitioners to determine
which interpretation is most authoritative.

For example, in the field of constitutional law, scholars often

disagree on the proper method of constitutional interpretation.
Some advocate for originalism, which emphasises the intent of
the framers and the original meaning of the text, while others
support a more dynamic or purposive approach that considers the
evolving social and political context. These differing viewpoints
can lead to divergent interpretations of constitutional provisions,
complicating the task of judges who must decide which approach
to follow.
Limited Accessibility

Juristic writings are also sometimes criticised for being

inaccessible to non-specialists. Legal scholarship can be highly
technical and jargon-laden, making it difficult for judges, lawyers
and the general public to engage with the material. This lack of
accessibility can limit the impact of juristic writings on the
development of the law, as their insights may not be widely
disseminated or understood.

In addition, the academic nature of juristic writings means that

they are often published in specialised journals or books that may
not be readily available to practitioners. This can create a
disconnect between the theoretical work of legal scholars and the
practical needs of the legal profession, reducing the influence of
juristic writings on everyday legal practice.

The Ongoing Relevance of Juristic

Writings in Contemporary Legal Practice
Despite their limitations, juristic writings remain a valuable source
of law in contemporary legal practice. As legal systems become
increasingly complex and interconnected, the insights and
analyses provided by legal scholars are more important than
ever.
Adapting to New Legal Challenges

One of the key strengths of juristic writings is their ability to adapt

to new legal challenges and emerging issues. Legal scholars are
often at the forefront of exploring new areas of law, such as
technology, environmental law and human rights. Their work
helps to identify potential legal problems, propose solutions and
guide the development of legal frameworks to address these
challenges.

For example, the rapid advancement of technology has raised

numerous legal questions related to privacy, data protection and
artificial intelligence. Legal scholars have been instrumental in
analysing these issues, offering insights that have informed the
development of new laws and regulations. In the European Union,
the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) was shaped by
extensive legal scholarship on data protection and privacy,
reflecting the contributions of juristic writings to the legislative
process.
Influencing Policy and Law Reform

Juristic writings also play a significant role in influencing policy

and law reform. Legal scholars often engage with policymakers
and legislators, providing expert advice and recommendations on
legal issues. Their work can inform the drafting of new legislation,
the revision of existing laws and the development of public policy.

For instance, the movement for criminal justice reform in the

United States has been heavily influenced by the writings of legal
scholars who have critiqued the existing system and proposed
alternative approaches. Scholars such as Michelle Alexander,
author of The New Jim Crow, have highlighted the racial
disparities and systemic injustices within the criminal justice
system, contributing to the national conversation on reform and
influencing legislative efforts to address these issues.

In addition, juristic writings can contribute to the harmonisation of

laws across different jurisdictions. As globalisation continues to
blur the lines between national legal systems, the need for
consistent and coherent legal frameworks has become more
pressing. Legal scholars who study comparative law and
international law provide valuable insights that can help
harmonise legal standards and practices, facilitating cross-border
cooperation and reducing legal conflicts