Jurisprudence is the philosophy of positive laws

The statement “Jurisprudence is the philosophy of positive laws” refers to one of the major branches of jurisprudence that focuses on analyzing and understanding positive law, which consists of the laws created and enforced by governments or legal authorities. This philosophical study of positive laws delves into how laws are made, interpreted, and applied within a legal system, without necessarily questioning their moral content or whether they are “just” or “unjust.”

1. What is Positive Law?

Positive law refers to the body of laws that are laid down by a legitimate authority, such as a government or legislature. These are the formal, written laws that people in a society are expected to follow.
Positive law contrasts with natural law, which is based on moral principles or inherent human rights that are believed to exist independently of human-made laws.
Positive law is man-made and is enforceable by the state through sanctions, penalties, or rewards.

Example: Statutes like traffic laws, tax regulations, and criminal laws are examples of positive laws created by legislatures or regulatory bodies.

2. Jurisprudence as the Study of Positive Laws

Jurisprudence, when referred to as the philosophy of positive laws, studies the nature, structure, and functioning of laws as they are established by human authority. This branch of jurisprudence is often associated with legal positivism, which is a theory in jurisprudence that emphasizes that laws are valid not because they are moral, but because they are enacted by legitimate authority and accepted by society.
The philosophy of positive laws doesn’t concern itself with whether a law is morally right or wrong. Instead, it focuses on:
- How laws are created: Who has the authority to make laws?
- How laws function: How are they enforced and interpreted?
- What makes laws valid: Is a law valid simply because it has been passed by the correct process?

3. Legal Positivism and Positive Laws

Legal positivism, a school of thought within jurisprudence, argues that laws are social constructs and should be understood based on their source (the authority that created them) rather than their moral value.
Key proponents like John Austin and H.L.A. Hart are associated with legal positivism. They believe that law is a system of commands issued by the sovereign and that the validity of a law depends on it being enacted by the proper authority through recognized procedures.

Example: According to legal positivism, a law mandating taxation is valid because it was created by a legitimate legislative body, even if some people consider it unfair. The validity of the law comes from the fact that it was properly enacted, not from its moral worth.

4. Jurisprudence Explains the Structure of Legal Systems

Jurisprudence, as the philosophy of positive law, examines how legal systems are structured. It looks at how laws are organized, how different parts of the legal system interact (such as courts, legislatures, and law enforcement), and how legal systems evolve.
It also explores how legal rules are applied to individuals and how legal institutions maintain order in society.

Example: The study of the constitutionality of laws, the hierarchy of courts, and the procedures for passing legislation all fall under the scope of jurisprudence as the philosophy of positive law.

5. Separation of Law and Morality

A key aspect of the philosophy of positive law is the separation between law and morality. Legal positivists argue that a law can be valid even if it is immoral or unjust. This is because the legitimacy of a law depends on its source, not its moral content.
This doesn’t mean that positivists endorse immoral laws; rather, they believe that the validity of a law should be judged independently of its morality. If a law is unjust, they argue that the solution is to change the law through the legal process, not to deny its validity.

Example: In the apartheid era in South Africa, the law enforced racial segregation, which was widely considered immoral. However, under legal positivism, these laws were still seen as valid because they were enacted through the proper legal process, even though they were morally wrong. The moral debate about these laws was separate from their legal validity.

6. Criticism and Limits of Positive Law Jurisprudence

While jurisprudence focused on positive law is essential for understanding the operation of legal systems, critics argue that it neglects the moral dimensions of law. Opponents of legal positivism argue that laws should be evaluated based on justice and morality, not just their source.
Critics like Ronald Dworkin have contended that moral principles are intrinsic to the law and cannot be separated. For them, jurisprudence should not only study how laws are made and applied but also whether those laws are just.

Conclusion: Jurisprudence as the Philosophy of Positive Law

To summarize, jurisprudence as the philosophy of positive laws focuses on understanding and analyzing laws that are created by human authorities. It explores how laws are made, how they function, and what gives them legitimacy. This form of jurisprudence, particularly under legal positivism, is less concerned with whether laws are just or moral and more focused on their legal validity and enforceability within a structured legal system.

PREVIOUS NOTES

Jurisprudence is the philosophy of positive laws

1. What is Positive Law?

2. Jurisprudence as the Study of Positive Laws

3. Legal Positivism and Positive Laws

4. Jurisprudence Explains the Structure of Legal Systems

5. Separation of Law and Morality

6. Criticism and Limits of Positive Law Jurisprudence

Conclusion: Jurisprudence as the Philosophy of Positive Law

You May Also Like: