In the views of Holland– “Jurisprudence means the ‘formal science of positive laws’. It is an analytical science rather than a material science”.
INTRODUCTION
Holland supports the expository School of Positivism. As a result of his study, Bentham made real law, Austin opened another time of law and agreed on the region of law. As per Austin the law analysis is carefully alleged about substantive law or statute. The law is not about the integrity or disagreeability of the statute. The subject was further divided by Austin into “common” and “personal” rank. As he pointed out, general law includes such subjects or finishes of law as being common to all systems, whereas “specific law” is distinctly restricted to investigating some particular arrangement of law or any part thereof.[1]
Holland defines positive law as “an overarching principle of human action, recognizing only external actions, sanctioned by a certain government, which authority is human, and among human specialists, is what is fundamental to a political society.” An investigation into the aforementioned description shows that law is a general concept of human activity. Laws, whose maker and author are supernatural, are not within the meaning of the word rule as it is here known. We are within the domain of a remarkably diverse science. The use of the word ‘law’ here does not convey the physical world’s consistencies, but is related to the individual universe. Law when human activity is in question is a general standard. A normal applicable-acquiescence to a particular individual instruction is not a law within Holland ‘s meaning. The word law as Holland characterizes is again identified by ethical quality. We have seen that the rule is an overall human behaviour guideline. These wide guidelines are again outside of human activity. Law as such is not concerned with concerns, thought processes and inward emotions, even if they are shown in outside activities. Law, in this sense, maintains an overarching concept of such behaviours that are expressed externally outside human activity. In this way, the law is very specific about ethical quality, and looks at what might be perceived as a man and feels alongside what he is doing. At that point a determined force imposes these specific standards of outer human activity. According to these lines, the law is recognized not only by all principles which, similar to the standards of ethical quality and the alleged laws of integrity and design, are enforced by a vague authority, but also by all guidelines followed by a determinate role which is either supreme or, again, politically sub-donate from one point of view. This specific authority is individual, a sovereign political power. Rules laid down by such an authority are far from all the others properly called rules.
In order to illustrate how laws are genuinely imposed along these lines in the extreme feeling of the term, they are presented as ‘positive laws.'[2]Hobbes often distinguishes positive law from external law in this sense by seeing that positive laws are those that have not been permanent from time to time, but laws were created by the wish of those who had sovereign control over others.
Holland’s way of dealing with the law is with reference to the diagnostic school’s Austinian practice and similar reactions levied against Austin ‘s hypothesis of law refers to Holland ‘s idea of the law with some force. In any case, to see Jaw as the sovereign’s orders are completely off-base. It takes no account of standard law. The law has been obeyed from early times as an amazing order or a tradition of the nation. This disregards the moral part of the law on the corresponding spot and makes no reference, as far as possible, and purpose behind the rule. The point of law is low stable equity closures, which perspective has been barred from the interpretation of law in Holland.
In the third spot, dutifulness to laws can’t be attributed to apprehension in general. The law is basically just, and in a huge measure it is obeyed, since it is right and fair. Moreover, finally, Holland reserves the right to formulate laws exclusively to sovereign political power; forbids complete participation from using the word ‘law’ to non-full sovereign States. This is deceptive. He censored Austin’s splitting of the subject into ‘General’ and ‘specific.’ He acknowledged that science handles society relationships that are deemed to have legitimate results, but not with the principles that make such relationships. Despite the fact that it may be conceivable to speak about part of that science that concentrates how these human relationships are handled in the laws of various individual nations, to call it “common rule.” In the context that Austin used it is not right. The later scholars suppressed Holland’s proper study of the positive law itself. He was unable to properly divide the subject limit.[3]
JURISPRUDENCE CONCEPT
The word jurisprudence comes from the Latin term Juris prudential, meaning “study, understanding or the law.” Law or theory of law is the concept of law, i.e. the study of law. It discusses the ideas and concepts underpinning a legal framework. Science is jurisprudence. The word can even apply to a legal department, as in ‘hospital case law.’There are numerous types of jurisprudence classes. Some people treat the topic like science or mathematics. But some seek a particular view. The Latin word jurisprudential is the source of the English term: juris is the genitive type of jus which means “justice” and prudential means “information.” The term is first attested in English in 1628 at a period when “knowledge of or knowledge of a subject” had become redundant in term prudence. The term may have come from the historically attested French jurisprudence.The most general method of jurisprudence attempts to examine, clarify, identify and critique whole legal institutions from TORT to Civil Law. Judicial encyclopedias, law reports and textbooks on law schools also include certain jurisprudence scholarships. The second form of case law compares and contrasts law with other knowledge areas such as literature, economy, faith and social science.
The third form of case law poses philosophical concerns about the law itself. These issues attempt to expose a specific legal concept ‘s historical, moral and cultural roots. It represents the emergence of civilian and criminal responsibility in undeveloped societies where accountability for harm is based on abstract conceptions of vengeance and industrialised societies where responsibility is centered on empirical principles of reasonableness.
In addition to various forms of jurisprudence, separate jurisprudence schools occur. For example, there is the classical controversy between positivist and natural law schools of philosophy regarding suitable sources of law. Positivists contend that the connection between law and morality should not occur. The only forms of law are laws explicitly adopted by a state agency or a court of law. Naturalists or judges insist that government laws are not the sole sources of legislation. They contend that political theory, faith, human raison et conscience be incorporated into the statute.
1. DEVELOPMENT OF JURISPRUDENCE
Ancient Jurisprudence derived by leading scholars, including Aristotle, Socrates and Plate from Greek Jurisprudence. Modern case law started in the 18th century and centered on the first concepts of common law, civil law and country law. “Jurisprudence,” Black’s Law Dictionary Natural law is the principle that statutory authority has reasonable objective limits. For human purpose the roots of law are available, and it is through these rules of nature that produced legislation achieves its power.
a) LEGAL POSTIVISM – By comparison to natural law , legal positivism argues that there is no essential interaction between law and morality and that law is founded on certain simple social facts, but the positivists disagree on what such facts are.
b) LEGAL REALISM – Legal reality is the third principle of jurisprudence, which claims that what rule is decided by existing legal practice; it has the force that legislation has to do with what politicians, judges and executives have to do with it. Related methods have been established in sociology of law in several separate forms.
c) CRITICAL LEGAL STUDIES – Critical Legal Studies are a younger legal philosophy established since the 1970s, which mostly demonstrates that law is broadly inconsistent and can be better analysed as an expression of the political aims of the dominant social community.
The work of the modern law philosopher Ronald Dworkin is also notable. He supported a constructivist jurisprudence theory which can be defined as a middle way between natural law theories and positivist general jurisprudence theories.
2. FIELD OF JURISPRUDENCE
There is an enmity of opinion on the jurisprudence field. The jurists also varied the precise limit of the field of jurisprudence. Some jurists have described jurisprudence as a moral and a religious concept, and this interpretation has generated uncertainty. Austin separated law from morality and religion and limited the word to the set and applied set of laws regulating the power of the sovereign and the highest law within the domain. Austin thus confined his jurisprudence to learning the principles of positive law and ethics and religion beyond the jurisprudence of the province.Today the field of jurisprudence has been extended and subjects historically found outside of the domain of jurisprudence are included. The present opinion is that the jurisprudence area cannot be narrowed. “It contains both ideas of State and culture concerning human order and human behavior. Something which concerns the state and society is a matter of jurisprudence.
3. EFFECTIVENESS OF JURISPRUDENCE
It is also claimed that jurisprudence does not have theoretical efficacy. Salmond says: “There is an inherent importance in itself as other serious scholarship topics. Much as a mathematician explores the hypotheses of numbers not in order to see his discoveries put to practical use, but out of the curiosity, he has with him, so the author of jurisprudence is driven by his inherent interest. Speculating on the essence of rule as to the nature of light is just as usual. Jurisprudence studies will have an effect on the whole of legal, political and social theory. The law has real meaning. One of the duties of jurisprudence is to construct and simplify principles to improve the manageability and logic of legal nuances. Theory will therefore further develop reality. The law also has educational significance. Jurisprudence may allow lawyers to counteract the workplace viewpoint, which contributes for their own sake to an undue emphasis on legal laws and to a violation of the social role of law.
CONCLUSION
Jurists have thus given the word ‘jurisprudence’ various meanings. No particular meaning can be defined as generally appropriate, however. Perhaps the exact connotation of the word might not be possible since jurisprudence, as a system, addresses concepts which govern human actions according to the principles, needs and objectives of each community. Similar principles, needs and aims, etc. change from time to time, from community to organize and even from time to time within the same culture, and therefore jurisprudence often differs. It is well understood that “law,” as a complex term, varies under varying socio-economic and political circumstances as culture progresses. The exponential developments in recent times have provided rise to new challenges and problems to be solved by legislation through a realistic interpretation method. Modern jurisprudence must take the societal culture and evolving trends in culture into account, which significantly enlarges its depth as a science in law.
The definition of Holland’s jurisprudence as the systematic empirical knowledge of affirmative law seems more appropriate. The word ‘positive law’ applies to an analysis of the social ties governed by the laws of law imposed by the State and upheld by the courts. Law is a ‘formal science’ since it deals mainly with the aims, procedures and theories of the courts, not with the precise data.The definition of Austin is also reasonably right. At least by classifying it into two classes, ‘normal’ and ‘particular,’
Austin has expanded the spectrum of jurisprudence, finding out that jurisprudence covers the examination of the concepts universal to all States and the examination of these concepts in a specific determined nation.To sum, jurisprudence is an inquiry, an interpretation of knowledge, theory or study into the basic concepts of law. It is also about law and its connections with other social studies such as finance, psychology, philosophy , sociology, politics and ethics, etc. It discusses the historical past and seeks to construct a garden’s symmetry out of the confusion of multiple contradictory legal structures. It consists of any rule in every area of human existence that believes, says and does.
REFERENCES
1. Holland definition of law, https://www.srdlawnotes.com.
2. Essay on positive law, https://www.shareyouressay.com
3. Jurisprudence as the formal science of positive law, https://www.srdlawnotes.com ( last visited 5th august, 2020).
4. https://.legalserviceindia.com
5. Legalbites.in
6. https://plato.standford.edu.in
7. https://blog.ipleaders.in
8. https://.lawyersnjurists.com
9. https://scholar.google.com
About the author –
This article is authored by Sarvagna Kumar RR, 2nd Year Law student at Symbiosis law School, Hyderabad.
