ISSN:
0008-1973
Source:
Cambridge Journals Digital Archives
Topics:
Law
Notes:
IThe title of this essay refers to the titles of three recent works by Professors of Jurisprudence. It is proposed to use these works to illustrate the problem of Jurisprudence in discovering its own appropriate concepts and making sense of its literature.Jurisprudence, it may be assumed, is what Professors of Jurisprudence write. They write it presumably for the edification of students in the Faculties to which they are attached, to help them to see the coherence and the relevance of the more specialised studies in which they are engaged. These Faculties are Faculties of Law. But what is law? The diverse strange and even paradoxical ways in which this question has been answered by serious thinkers, says Professor Hart in his opening paragraph, constitute “a situation not paralleled in any other subject systematically studied as a separate academic discipline.” If we say, then, that Professors of Jurisprudence write about law, our statement may fail to convey any exact or agreed information. Even if it may correctly be assumed that Professors of Jurisprudence use the word ‘law’ to refer to their basic subject-matter, it cannot be assumed that the precise identity of this subject-matter is universally or even generally agreed. Consider some of the identifications of law quoted by Professor Hart—‘ What officials do about disputes is... the law itself’; ‘The prophecies of what the courts will do... are what I mean by the law’; Statutes are ‘sources of Law... not parts of the Law itself’; ‘Constitutional law is positive morality merely’; ‘One shall not steal; if somebody steals he shall be punished... If at all existent, the first norm is contained in the second norm which is the only genuine norm... Law is the primary norm which stipulates the sanction.’
Type of Medium:
Electronic Resource
URL:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0008197300014070
Permalink
