Jurisprudence Lecture Notes Lecture Number One

September 3, 2005 George D. Pappas, Es . !"LS Director

!N#$OD%"#!ON #O J%$!SP$%DEN"E
1. ICLS Lectures will build on the University of London Subject Guide, 2004 dition. Students !re !dvised to re!d Ch!"ters 1 !nd 2 of the U#L Subject Guide $e%uired &e't(oo)s* ssenti!l $e!din+ ,. -ree.!nd /ed0 Lloyd1s Introduction to 2uris"rudence 3.L.3!rt4s 5&he Conce"t of L!w.6 &o"ics to focus on* Introductory Lecture Descripti&e &s. Prescripti&e 'spects o( La) La) &. *ora+it, or Lega+it, &. *ora+it, #-e .is &. oug-t/ debate "oncepts &. "onceptions

0. 1o) to t-in2 o( Jurisprudence &s. #raditiona+ 3+ac2 Letter La)

Underst!ndin+ 2uris"rudence !s ! 7hiloso"hy of 8h!t l!w is vs. 8h!t l!w ou+ht to be. Underst!ndin+ th!t 2uris"rudence loo)s !t the s!.e subject .!tter throu+h different "hiloso"hic!l +l!sses

2. 4riting about Jurisprudence

!0. #nce you identify the 5subject6 .!tter, th!t is 5l!w6, you should then .ove to the ne't issue of wh!t you !re tryin+ to find or e'"l!in. 9re you e'"l!inin+ wh!t the l!w 5is6: 9re you e'"l!inin+ wh!t the l!w 5ou+ht to be6: 9re you e'"l!inin+ how the 5le+!l syste.6 wor)s or should wor): 9re you observin+ the 5structure of l!w6, or h!s 9ustin described, 5the 7rovince of 2uris"rudence ;eter.ined.6 #ne you +r!s" the essenti!l %uestion or in%uiry, your ne't ste" is to or+!ni<e your thou+hts in ter.s of wh!t the v!rious theorists st!te or "ostul!te.

b0 It is i."ort!nt to underst!nd why (enth!., 9ustin, =elsen, 3!rt, !nd others differ fro. e!ch other. 9re they !s)in+ the s!.e %uestion: In writin+ !bout 2uris"rudence, you will be e'"ected to co."!re !nd contr!st wh!t the different theorists s!y !bout the same subject .!tter > you will need to show the e'!.iners th!t* 1. ?ou h!ve ! fir. underst!ndin+ of the differences between the le!din+ theorists 2. &h!t you underst!nd the differences between theorists in ! w!y th!t !llows you to for.ul!te your own conclusion !bout the s!.e %uestions.

c0

;o not be sidelined by the lin+uistic n!ture of 2uris"rudence. (e .indful th!t theorists r!ther th!n tryin+ to write cle!rly, tend to use j!r+on of their own th!t develo"s into !n o"!%ue te't of ter.s, L!tin !nd str!n+e us!+e of everyd!y words th!t t!)e on tot!lly new .e!nin+ when used in the 2uris"rudence conte't.

(e .indful of such ter.s. 2.G. $idd!ll in his boo) 2uris"rudence h!s !n e'cellent introductory ch!"ter on this issue.

$iddell st!tes 5It is not lon+ before the student re!li<es th!t the !i. of so.e writers is not cl!rity but obfusc!tion.6 /"+. 4, 2nd dition0. 3.L. 3!rt1s use of the words 5obli+!tion6 vs. 5obli+ed6 is !n e'!."le of how everyd!y words t!)e on new .e!nin+s in 2uris"rudence.

@.

Jurisprudence &s. #raditiona+ La) Stud,

Unli)e tr!dition!l courses in Cri.in!l L!w, &ort, &rust > 2uris"rudence is not built on rules

!nd c!se l!w. In f!ct, 2uris"rudence c!n be wh!tever it wishes to be. 8h!t !""e!rs to be ! sli""ery fish in ter.s of bein+ !ble to +r!s" the 5essence6 of the subject .!tter, 2uris"rudence is ! body of wor) b!sed on countless view"oint1s discussin+ si.il!r %uestions. In f!ct, how you fr!.e ! %uestion will often dict!te wh!t )ind of discussion will follow. -or e'!."le, if you !s) 58h!t is L!w6, !re you see)in+ ! descri"tion of l!w: 9re you !s)in+ if there is !n essence to l!w: 9re you !ssu.in+ th!t l!w 5"ro"erly so c!lled6 /2ohn 9ustin0 is st!tic observ!tion !nd c!"!ble of definition. So.e in the 2uris"rudence field refer to 5le+!l "ositivis.6 !s the value free definition of l!w or the v!lue free descri"tion of l!w. In other words, so.e view or define 5le+!l "ositivis.6 !s observin+ 5the l!w6 without discussin+ .or!lity. /7!y s"eci!l !ttention to &ho.!s 3obbs, 2ere.y (enth!. !nd 2ohn 9ustin in this li+ht. L!ter on you will review 3.L. 3!rt1s boo) 5&he Conce"t of L!w,6 in li+ht of these e!rlier theorist !nd their 5le+!l "ositivis..60. 7erh!"s others who !re re!din+ the !bove deb!te will venture to st!te th!t while you c!n "erh!"s !tte."t to define 5wh!t is l!w6, th!t such %uestions f!il to t!)e into !ccount the v!lue ele.ents of l!w, n!.ely, wh!t l!w 5ou+ht to be.6 #nce you st!rt to underst!nd the dyn!.ics of how juris"rudence %uestion !re for.s, !nd !nswered, you c!n st!rt to !""reci!te how e!sy it is for writers !nd their critics to endlessly br!nch off e!ch other with further in%uires !nd !ddition!l %uestions !bout the 5l!w.6

$!ther th!n see) to underst!nd 2uris"rudence !s !n entity li)e Cri.in!l L!w or Contr!ct l!w, students should see 2uris"rudence !s ! "hiloso"hy of l!wA ! "hiloso"hy which see)s to "rovide difference "ers"ectives on wh!t l!w is, ou+ht to be !nd .ost i."ort!ntly, how those issues of 5is !nd ou+ht6 "l!y out in the re!l world not only tod!y, but in the "!st. 9s you "ro+ress throu+h this course, I will !s) e!ch student to be .indful of the historic!l conte't within which e!ch theorist is writin+ fro.. 9s ! brief "relude to this i."ort!nt "oint, be .indful of 3.L. 3!rt1s criticis. of 2ohn 9ustin, in "!rt, considerin+ how 3!rt did not !""reci!te 3!rt1s ti.e, but r!ther chose to build u" 9ustin only to te!r hi. down !s ! 5foil6 for his own 5Conce"t of L!w.6

5.

!ntroduction to Natura+ La) #-eor, and ot-er t-eor,6s o( La)

I1. +oin+ to devote the re.inder of the Introductory lecture to the issue of showc!sin+ how

sever!l theorist discuss si.il!r le+!l "roble.s. &he +o!l !t this st!+e is not to necess!rily define wh!t e!ch theorist is s!yin+, but to underscore .y belief th!t !s ! new student to 2uris"rudence, you need to %uic)ly observe the inter"l!y between theorist. &his course will ulti.!tely !s) you to contr!st the different view"oints of the theoristsA therefore, I will conclude this lecture by de.onstr!tin+ such contr!stin+.

!rlier in this lecture, we t!l)ed !bout the n!ture of 2uris"rudence !s co."!red to the .ore tr!dition!l LL.(. subjects li)e Cri.in!l L!w, &ort !nd others. 3ere I wish to develo" th!t theoretic!l co."!rison with so.e h!rd e'!."les, !nd usin+ the B!tur!l L!w &heory is ! +ood st!rtin+ "oint. &he followin+ to"ics !re discussed in your Introductory lecture !s h!rd e'!."les of how different theorist will discuss the s!.e issue in different w!ys*

1. 8h!t is l!w 2. 8h!t is n!tur!l l!w /see !bove0. @. 8h!t l!w ou+ht to be 4. 8h!t is ! le+!l syste. /e.+., Co."!rin+ 9ustin1s 5Co..!nd &heory6 !nd 53!rt1s $ules of $eco+nition0. C. C!n l!w be v!lid without l!w bein+ .or!l D. 3.L. 3!rt1s 5.ini.u. content of L!w.6 E. Lon -uller 5Inner .or!lity of L!w.6 F. 8h!t is le+!l v!lidity:

9s you listen to the first lecture, "!y close !ttention to the %uestion th!t e!ch theorist is !s)in+. Listen to the discussion !s ! st!rtin+ "oint to !""reci!te the different .e!nin+s !tt!ch by e!ch theorist in so f!r !s how they wish the world to view 5the l!w6

Co"yri+ht G 200C &he Intern!tion!l Center for Le+!l Studies