Jurisprudence Lecture Notes

Lecture Number One

September 3, 2005
George D. Pappas, Esq.
ICLS Director

INTRODUCTION TO JURISPRUDENCE
1. ICLS Lectures will build on the University of London Subject Guide, 2004 Edition.
Students are advised to read Chapters 1 and 2 of the UOL Subject Guide
Required TextBooks: Essential Reading
M. Freemand (ed) Lloyds Introduction to Jurisprudence
H.L.Hart's The Concept of Law.
Topics to focus on: Introductory Lecture

Descriptive vs. Prescriptive Aspects of Law

Law v. Morality or Legality v. Morality

The is v. ought debate

Concepts v. Conceptions

1. How to think of Jurisprudence vs. Traditional Black Letter Law

Understanding Jurisprudence as a Philosophy of What law is vs. What law ought to be.

Understanding that Jurisprudence looks at the same subject matter through different
philosophical glasses

2. Writing about Jurisprudence

a). Once you identify the subject matter, that is law, you should then move to the next issue
of what you are trying to find or explain. Are you explaining what the law is? Are you
explaining what the law ought to be? Are you explaining how the legal system works or
should work? Are you observing the structure of law, or has Austin described, the Province
of Jurisprudence Determined. One you grasp the essential question or inquiry, your next step
is to organize your thoughts in terms of what the various theorists state or postulate.

b) It is important to understand why Bentham, Austin, Kelsen, Hart, and others differ from
each other. Are they asking the same question?
In writing about Jurisprudence, you will be expected to compare and contrast what the
different theorists say about the same subject matter you will need to show the examiners
that:
1. You have a firm understanding of the differences between the leading theorists
2. That you understand the differences between theorists in a way that allows you
to formulate your own conclusion about the same questions.

c)

Do not be sidelined by the linguistic nature of Jurisprudence. Be mindful that theorists

rather than trying to write clearly, tend to use jargon of their own that develops into an
opaque text of terms, Latin and strange usage of everyday words that take on totally new
meaning when used in the Jurisprudence context.

Be mindful of such terms. J.G. Riddall in his book Jurisprudence has an excellent introductory
chapter on this issue.

Riddell states It is not long before the student realizes that the aim of some writers is not
clarity but obfuscation. (pg. 4, 2nd Edition). H.L. Harts use of the words obligation vs. obliged
is an example of how everyday words take on new meanings in Jurisprudence.

3.

Jurisprudence vs. Traditional Law Study

Unlike traditional courses in Criminal Law, Tort, Trust Jurisprudence is not built on rules

and case law. In fact, Jurisprudence can be whatever it wishes to be. What appears to be a slippery
fish in terms of being able to grasp the essence of the subject matter, Jurisprudence is a body of
work based on countless viewpoints discussing similar questions. In fact, how you frame a
question will often dictate what kind of discussion will follow. For example, if you ask What is
Law, are you seeking a description of law? Are you asking if there is an essence to law? Are you
assuming that law properly so called (John Austin) is static observation and capable of definition.
Some in the Jurisprudence field refer to legal positivism as the value free definition of law
or the value free description of law. In other words, some view or define legal positivism as
observing the law without discussing morality. (Pay special attention to Thomas Hobbs, Jeremy
Bentham and John Austin in this light. Later on you will review H.L. Harts book The Concept of
Law, in light of these earlier theorist and their legal positivism.).
Perhaps others who are reading the above debate will venture to state that while you can
perhaps attempt to define what is law, that such questions fail to take into account the value
elements of law, namely, what law ought to be. Once you start to understand the dynamics of
how jurisprudence question are forms, and answered, you can start to appreciate how easy it is for
writers and their critics to endlessly branch off each other with further inquires and additional
questions about the law.

Rather than seek to understand Jurisprudence as an entity like Criminal Law or Contract
law, students should see Jurisprudence as a philosophy of law; a philosophy which seeks to provide
difference perspectives on what law is, ought to be and most importantly, how those issues of is
and ought play out in the real world not only today, but in the past. As you progress through this
course, I will ask each student to be mindful of the historical context within which each theorist is
writing from. As a brief prelude to this important point, be mindful of H.L. Harts criticism of John
Austin, in part, considering how Hart did not appreciate Harts time, but rather chose to build up
Austin only to tear him down as a foil for his own Concept of Law.

4.

Introduction to Natural Law Theory and other theorys of Law

Im going to devote the reminder of the Introductory lecture to the issue of showcasing how

several theorist discuss similar legal problems. The goal at this stage is not to necessarily define
what each theorist is saying, but to underscore my belief that as a new student to Jurisprudence, you
need to quickly observe the interplay between theorist. This course will ultimately ask you to
contrast the different viewpoints of the theorists; therefore, I will conclude this lecture by
demonstrating such contrasting.

Earlier in this lecture, we talked about the nature of Jurisprudence as compared to the more
traditional LL.B. subjects like Criminal Law, Tort and others. Here I wish to develop that
theoretical comparison with some hard examples, and using the Natural Law Theory is a good
starting point.
The following topics are discussed in your Introductory lecture as hard examples of how
different theorist will discuss the same issue in different ways:

1. What is law
2. What is natural law (see above).
3. What law ought to be
4. What is a legal system (e.g., Comparing Austins Command Theory and Harts Rules
of Recognition).
5. Can law be valid without law being moral
6. H.L. Harts minimum content of Law.
7. Lon Fuller Inner morality of Law.
8. What is legal validity?

As you listen to the first lecture, pay close attention to the question that each theorist is asking.
Listen to the discussion as a starting point to appreciate the different meanings attach by each
theorist in so far as how they wish the world to view the law

Copyright 2005 The International Center for Legal Studies