Schools of Jurisprudence

Schools of Jurisprudence

Ritika JonwalUpdated on 02 Jul 2025, 05:38 PM IST

The Jurisprudence Law is referred to as the study behind the philosophy of law. Various thinkers and scholars have described it in simpler terms throughout history to better understand the law-making process. The present-day jurisprudence traces its roots back to the 18th century. The present-day jurisprudence mainly revolves around the basic and primary standard of natural law, civil law and the law of nations.

The classification of general jurisprudence is based on the sort of issue that a researcher wants to answer best. It is also classified on the basis of schools of thought or jurisprudential hypotheses. The modern-day rationality of law, which deals with general jurisprudence, provides for the law and the legitimate framework in view of the impending political and social setting in which the law operates today.

Schools of Jurisprudence

Jurisprudence can be described as the analysis and study of law. It attempts to answer the reasoning behind the need for law and the law itself. Therefore, it differs from thinker to thinker depending on a particular person's alternative perception of law. It can be divided into five different schools of law, which are discussed in this article below.

Philosophical School

The philosophical school, often known as the moral school, associates legislation with the precise ideas that it is supposed to achieve. It aims to determine the grounds behind the enactment of a given law. This school's most distinguished scholars include:

  • Grotius (1583-1645)

  • Immanuel Kant (1724-1804)

  • Hegel (1770-1831)

These theorists believe that law is the consequence of human thinking, and they attribute its origin to human identity. These thinkers reject the notion that law is the arbitrary order of a ruler or the government.

It declined, providing an approach to the fundamental privileges of man and state. These scholars proposed the natural law idea, which introduced the concept of a "social contract." Hobbes used the natural law concept to promote reactionary growth and legitimise business as usual in order to maintain peace and protect people from ongoing chaos.

Historical School

The Historical School of Jurisprudence sees the law as the product of the long-term historical progress of the public in general, beginning with social conventions representing ethical standards, monetary necessities, and its relationship to the general population. It thinks that the law is the outcome of the strength and influence of the past. Individual awareness is essential to the law. The voyage of law begins with the general population since there has never been an individual like a sovereign to make laws. The prominent theorists of this school of law consist of

  • Savigny,

  • Sir Henry

  • Edmund Burke.

Savigny is regarded as the primary figure behind the historical school of jurisprudence. He is credited for introducing the Volksgeist theory. This argument demonstrates that the law is based on ordinary individuals' general freedom. Savingy argues that law evolves alongside the creation of nations and continues with the partition of countries. Along these lines, the law maintains a national character in its recognition of persons.

This school places little emphasis on the relationship between law and the state. In spite of this, it assigns prominence to the social structures charged with the law-making power. Meanwhile, the investigative school presupposes the presence of a well-established legal framework.

Realist School

The Realist school has its roots in American jurisprudence. According to Legal Realism, any court decisions must be in line with upcoming financial concerns as well as strategic and quality inquiries. In the United States of America, there is a Realist School of Law. The Realist School promotes sociological jurisprudence, which asserts that the law is a result of social consequences and situations, and views them as judicial choices.

Two main thinkers of this school of law are:

Oliver Holmes

According to Oliver Holmes, the law is what the courts do, not just what they declare. Oliver emphasises action. According to Holmes, "The life of the law has not been the rationale; it has been involvement."

Karl Llewellyn

Karl supported traditional pragmatist thought. It was his judgement that the outlines that serve as the framework for substantive law are significantly less crucial in the true practice of the law than had previously been assumed.

Sociological School

The sociological school of law is the consequence of combining numerous juristic perspectives. The many kinds of this school regard law as a social wonder. According to the ideas of this school, law is a social ability, an outflow of culture concerned with its members' external relationships. The major scholars of this school include:

  • Montesquieu

  • Auguste Comte

  • Herbert Spencer

  • Duguit

  • Rosco Pound

The current school concentrates on the utilitarian aspect of law rather than its philosophical essence. This school of thought sees the law as a social structure that is in harmony with the orders and has a direct impact on society. The historical school responded to the final independence of the nineteenth century by emphasising the Volkegeist spirit of the general populace, proving that legislation and the social situation in which it is created are inextricably linked. Before the nineteenth century, the state was not concerned with people's well-being, welfare, or training. With the start of the nineteenth century, the state became more concerned with a wide range of concerns, including almost every aspect of life and welfare, as a result of the negative impact of a free economy and free business. This implied guidance through the law, requiring legal theory to straighten itself to judge social miracles.

Analytical School

The analytical school of jurisprudence is also known as the Austinian school, named for its founder, John Austin. It is also known as the imperative school since it considers legislation to be the sovereign's directive. Austin proposed the idea of this school, while Bentham established the groundwork for its formation. The Analytical School is said to have been written by Jeremy Bentham. In one of Bentham's publications, he disregarded natural law ideas in favour of a logical discussion of the utility rule. Bentham's concentration on censorial jurisprudence indicates how the natural law impact remained significant. As a result, he proposed utility as the governing principle.

The prominent academics of this school of law include:

  • Austin

  • Kelson

  • Salmond

Analytical school of Jurisprudence can be briefly described in the following pointers:

  1. As a research on the rise of civil law.

  2. It examines the relation between the civil law and other types of law.

  3. An analysis of the logic behind a law.

  4. A record of sources of law from the law continues.

  5. Expounding upon the theory of obligation

  6. Tracing back the roots to legal rights and obligations.

Commonly Asked Questions

Q: What are the main schools of jurisprudence?
A:
The main schools of jurisprudence are Natural Law, Legal Positivism, Legal Realism, and Sociological Jurisprudence. Each school offers a different perspective on the nature, source, and purpose of law in society.
Q: How does Sociological Jurisprudence view the relationship between law and society?
A:
Sociological Jurisprudence sees law as a social phenomenon that both shapes and is shaped by society. It emphasizes the importance of studying law in its social context and considering its practical effects on society.
Q: What is the "separation thesis" in Legal Positivism?
A:
The separation thesis in Legal Positivism argues that there is no inherent or necessary connection between law and morality. It maintains that the validity of a law depends on its source and form, not its moral content.
Q: How does Natural Law theory explain the concept of "unjust laws"?
A:
Natural Law theory argues that laws contradicting universal moral principles or human reason are not truly laws. This perspective allows for the concept of "unjust laws" that may be legally valid but morally illegitimate.
Q: How does Sociological Jurisprudence differ from traditional legal analysis?
A:
Sociological Jurisprudence goes beyond traditional legal analysis by considering the social impact of laws, examining how laws function in society, and advocating for law reform based on social needs and realities.

Table: Different Schools for Jurisprudence and Scholars

School of Jurisprudence

Key Principle

Scholars

Philosophical School

This school of jurisprudence concerns itself with the connection of law to specific goals which law is intended to achieve.

Grotius, Immanuel Kant, Hegel

Historical School

This school of jurisprudence contends that the law is the result of a lengthy historical advancement of the general public, dating back to its inception from social custom and depicting ethical standards, monetary necessities, and relationships with the general people.

Savigny, Sir Henry Maine, and Edmund Burke

Realist School

This School of Jurisprudence believes that judicial decisions should be made while keeping in view the financial factors and inquiries of strategy and qualities.

Karl Llewellyn

Sociological School

This school of jurisprudence contends that the law is a social capability resulting from human culture's exterior contact with its members.

Montesquieu, Auguste Comte, Herbert Spencer, Duguit , and Rosco Pound

Analytical School

This school of jurisprudence views law as the direction of the sovereign.

Jeremy Bentham, John Austin, Kelson, and Salmond

Commonly Asked Questions

Q: How does Natural Law theory differ from Legal Positivism?
A:
Natural Law theory argues that law is derived from universal moral principles and human reason, while Legal Positivism contends that law is a human creation, separate from morality, and based on the rules enacted by legitimate authorities.
Q: What is the concept of "legal pluralism" and how does it relate to schools of jurisprudence?
A:
Legal pluralism recognizes the coexistence of multiple legal systems within a single society. It challenges the state-centric view of law emphasized by Legal Positivism and aligns more closely with Sociological Jurisprudence's focus on diverse social norms.
Q: What is the concept of "legal formalism" and how do different schools of jurisprudence view it?
A:
Legal formalism is the idea that legal decisions can be deduced from abstract rules without considering social or moral factors. Legal Positivism partially embraces this view, while Legal Realism and Sociological Jurisprudence strongly reject it.
Q: How does Legal Positivism explain the concept of legal validity?
A:
Legal Positivism explains legal validity through the idea of a "rule of recognition" - a fundamental rule that sets criteria for identifying valid laws within a legal system. Validity depends on whether a law meets these criteria, not on its moral content.
Q: What is the concept of "legal reasoning" and how do different schools approach it?
A:
Legal reasoning is the process of applying legal rules to specific cases. Natural Law emphasizes moral reasoning. Legal Positivism focuses on logical deduction from rules. Legal Realism considers practical outcomes. Sociological Jurisprudence incorporates social science insights.

Case Law

Animal and Environment Legal Defense Fund vs Union of India and others
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, while dealing with the present case, tried to correlate the standards of economic supportability and condition assurance. As a result, the court, in its infinite wisdom, concluded that if residents are prohibited from fishing, their jobs will undoubtedly suffer. In the alternative, allowing it will pose an impending harm to nature.

As a result, the Hon'ble Supreme Court asked the concerned woods professionals and formed a board to devise a plan to safeguard the earth's resources while also protecting local jobs. The board was entrusted with keeping an eye on the locals and recommending recommendations that would not be harmful to their interests. They were also entrusted with raising awareness among residents about environmental concerns. The inhabitants were prohibited from accessing other regions.

Commonly Asked Questions

Q: What is the role of judicial discretion in Legal Realism?
A:
Legal Realism emphasizes the significant role of judicial discretion in legal decision-making. It argues that judges often make decisions based on their personal views, social considerations, and desired outcomes, rather than strictly applying legal rules.
Q: What is the central idea of Legal Realism?
A:
Legal Realism focuses on how the law actually operates in practice, rather than abstract theories. It emphasizes that judicial decisions are influenced by various factors, including personal beliefs, social context, and practical considerations, not just formal legal rules.
Q: What is the "prediction theory" associated with Legal Realism?
A:
The prediction theory, proposed by Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., suggests that the law is best understood as a prediction of what judges will do in specific cases, rather than as a set of abstract rules.
Q: How do different schools of jurisprudence approach the interpretation of laws?
A:
Natural Law advocates for interpreting laws in line with moral principles. Legal Positivism focuses on the literal meaning and legislative intent. Legal Realism considers practical outcomes and social context. Sociological Jurisprudence emphasizes interpreting laws to serve social needs.
Q: How does Legal Positivism address the issue of unjust laws?
A:
Legal Positivism maintains that the validity of a law is separate from its moral merit. While a positivist might acknowledge that a law is unjust, they would still consider it legally valid if enacted through proper procedures by a recognized authority.

Conclusion

Jurisprudence is an examination of the process of law formation. It investigates the development, application, and requirements of laws. Jurisprudence examines the theories and practices of understanding in relation to law. It carries an explanatory value. Despite numerous schools of law attempting to eliminate flaws in the lawmaking and enacting systems, there is still a need to link the claim of the goal and justification for the law. Furthermore, legislation should be viewed pragmatically rather than theoretically.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Q: How do different schools of jurisprudence contribute to our understanding of the nature and function of law in society?
A:
Each school offers unique insights: Natural Law emphasizes moral foundations, Legal Positivism clarifies law's formal structure, Legal Realism reveals law's practical operation, and Sociological Jurisprudence highlights law's social context and effects. Together, they provide a comprehensive view of law's complex nature and diverse functions in society.
Q: What is the concept of "responsive law" in Sociological Jurisprudence?
A:
Responsive law, a concept in Sociological Jurisprudence, refers to legal systems that are flexible and adaptable to changing social needs. It emphasizes law's role in addressing societal problems and balancing various interests rather than rigidly applying fixed rules.
Q: How does Legal Realism view the role of social sciences in legal studies?
A:
Legal Realism strongly advocates for incorporating social sciences into legal studies. It argues that understanding law requires examining its actual effects and the social factors influencing legal decisions, necessitating empirical research and interdisciplinary approaches.
Q: What is the "internal point of view" in H.L.A. Hart's Legal Positivism?
A:
Hart's "internal point of view" refers to the perspective of participants in a legal system who accept and use its rules as guides for conduct. This concept helps explain how law creates obligations and differs from mere habits or threats.
Q: How do different schools of jurisprudence approach the concept of legal interpretation?
A:
Natural Law emphasizes interpreting laws in line with moral principles. Legal Positivism focuses on textual meaning and legislative intent. Legal Realism considers practical outcomes and judicial attitudes. Sociological Jurisprudence emphasizes social context and effects.
Q: What is the "is-ought" problem in jurisprudence and how do different schools address it?
A:
The "is-ought" problem questions deriving normative statements from descriptive ones. Natural Law attempts to bridge this gap, while Legal Positivism maintains a strict separation. Legal Realism and Sociological Jurisprudence focus more on practical effects than theoretical distinctions.
Q: How does Sociological Jurisprudence approach the study of legal institutions?
A:
Sociological Jurisprudence studies legal institutions as social phenomena, examining their functions, impacts, and interactions with other social institutions. It emphasizes empirical research to understand how legal institutions operate in practice and affect society.
Q: What is the concept of "legal positivism's separation thesis" and how does it differ from natural law theory?
A:
Legal positivism's separation thesis argues that law and morality are distinct and separable. This contrasts with natural law theory, which asserts an inherent connection between law and morality, viewing unjust laws as not truly law.
Q: How do different schools of jurisprudence view the role of judges in the legal system?
A:
Natural Law sees judges as interpreters of moral principles. Legal Positivism views judges as appliers of established rules. Legal Realism emphasizes judges' personal factors in decision-making. Sociological Jurisprudence sees judges as social engineers balancing interests.
Q: What is the "open texture of law" concept in H.L.A. Hart's Legal Positivism?
A:
Hart's "open texture of law" refers to the inherent vagueness in legal language, allowing for judicial discretion in interpreting and applying laws to new situations. This concept acknowledges that not all legal questions have pre-determined answers.