JURISPRUDENCE (AN ANALYSIS)
Jurisprudence is the evolution of theory, philosophy and basis of rules of law. It may be different in meaning and it may seem abstract to understand deeper but to make it clearer it was fully theorized by John Austin. He was a British army, and became a lawmaker in 1818 he also became a professor of law and he is the first chairman of law in University of London he says that jurisprudence is the study of positive law or legal positivism. He initiated that there are three viewpoints to which law has been theorized the law is command, commands are threat and a self-governing is one who usually obeyed and this has been called the theory of positivism.
To be able to belong to the society a person must need to obey such law but during this current times jurisprudence is replaced by the term, legal theory which is easier to understand today its term is not much in use by the philosophy of law and positivism is always exercise in most countries. According to Austin jurisprudence is not just a moral philosophy but a systematic study or actual law that is definitely different. He has also divided jurisprudence in general which law is for common people and particular through which jurisprudence is only restricted to actual system of law.
The general jurisprudence free this function without particular system whiles the particular jurisprudence according to John Austin is the same but it would be analyzed and explained how it has become a system of law. There are people who made a critical analysis about the theory of John Austin they are the people who would make another theory to evolve in their belief or maybe they would like to make a changes or improvement:
Gray believed in the theory of John Austin, Salmond and Brown reject the concept of general jurisprudence because it is too general and unidentified but they believe in the particular concept of jurisprudence since it is more analytical an factual in nature they even considered it to be science and not just a theory. They also denounce the general jurisprudence that it should be in accordance with the following factors including politics, history, culture, religion and geographical participation therefore only the particular jurisprudence may be qualified and general jurisprudence should be delimited.
Holland objected the theory of particular jurisprudence that it should not be for particular but if it is logic then it should be for everyone therefore the theory of general jurisprudence should be exercise and not the particular. It should be like a science for everyone and the basis should be general and not practical. He added that general is the formal part of the law, and it should be regulated legally. The general law in his mind is more objective and applicable if for example for marriage or for material possession of the law should be generalized and not limited to particular or to a person or group but in general.
This creates an objection with Gray, Diaz and Hughes that law in particular is more objective and more structured because society differ and therefore they deserved particular law. Buckland and Salmond also criticized Holland’s analogy for they say that geology may be the same in all countries but the law is not like the geology because it includes people more than automatic structure and people is different that is why particular jurisprudence is more applicable to be adopted, Although Salmond agree in Holland and Austin that the law is the science of basic principles. He insisted that the study of the law is not limited to the works of the justices but it is the legal system also in general but a fundamental of legal system and again it goes the same with particular preferences.
Science do not see the present nor the past but only the future, through this course of knowledge and state will build the existing jurisprudence in a more particular sense that is based on people lives rather than a society of legal but straight rule of law in general or maybe particular or in both ways. All have theorized but not much has been misinterpreted or declined but after all criticism still exist that the combination of John Austin theory of General and Particular rule of law of Jurisprudence can be safely identified and adopted as both true and correct in their studies. The theory and criticism even gave a strong anticipation and observation that John Austin theory of law is both significant in the practice of law.
Comments