SCANDINAVIAN REALISM

The Scandinavian realists was introduced in the 1940s resemble many

other modern schools in their positivist outlook and in their desire to
eliminate all metaphysics. They are basically the group of philosophers
and law professors of the various countries like Sweden, Denmark and
Norway. For them law can be explained purely in terms of observable
facts and the study of such facts, which is the science of law, is,
therefore, a true science like any other concerned with facts and events
in the realm of causality. Thus all such notions as the binding force or
validity of law, the existence of legal rights and duties, the notion of
property and so forth are dismissed as mere fantasies of the mind no
actual existence other than in an imaginary metaphysical world of their
own.
In Scandinavian countries the early national formulations of law, meant
that Roman law had little impact on their civilization. In their
substantive law and legal science they remained outside from the main
legal families of the world. Their law is less codified than the rest of the
Europe and, as a result, more judges oriented.
The people belonging to such a group have certain differences amongst
themselves. The approach of the Scandinavian realists towards law is
more abstract and philosophical, unlike that of American Realism. It
strongly criticizes the metaphysical ideas of law. Scandinavian realists
have played an important role in rejecting the ideas of the school of
natural law of law.

1
Scandinavian realists have played an important role in rejecting the ideas
of the school of natural law. Some of the noted Scandinavian Realists
are as follows:
Axel Hagerstorm
He is regarded as the spiritual father of the Scandinavian Realists. He
was a philosopher who strongly criticized the metaphysical foundations
of law. Much of his work is a critique of the errors in juristic thought
and writing. His analysis is conceptual, historical and psychological and
not empirical, like that of American realists. He reviews the attempts
made by various jurists to find empirical foundations of rights and
rejects all of them. He stressed upon the psychological significance of
right.
His anti metaphysical view rejects the existence of a meta-physical
reality or supernatural world beyond the existence of the physical reality
or natural world. However, he is committed to a metaphysical or
ontological view that maintains the completely logical character of
reality and this implies that reality is intelligible but not in terms of a
spiritual reality of ideals and values but in terms of the physical reality
of things and their necessary relations that exist apart from the human
mind.
The philosophical task is to use a conceptual analysis in order to
determine whether words correspond to facts and thus express concepts
or rather are words devoid of meaning.
According to him, “One fights better if one believes that one has right on
one’s side.” He extensively studied the Greek and Roman law in his
quest for the historical basis of rights. He believed that just like classical
law, modern law is also ritualistic in is also ritualistic in nature.
According to him, the relation between law and ritual is just like that
2
between liquor and its container (bottle). One cannot drink the container,
but, it is necessary in order to be able to drink the liquor. Hagerstorm
rejected the ideas of good and bad. He denied the existence of such
objective values.
The movement looks to Axel Hagerstrom as its spiritual father, but the
protagonists best known in Britain are Olivecrona, Lundstedt and Ross.
Their writings aroused considerable interest perhaps because they seem
to be in line with the empirical traditions in English philosophy and
jurisprudence, and also to have some affinities to the sociological
approach which grew in influence in England during the last generation.
For better understanding of the concept of scandanavian realism a brief
study of the writings of the key thinkers, who have contributed and
played as the protagonists in this branch, is required.
Olivercrona (1897-1980)
Law, according to Prof. Olivercrona, does not require any specific
definition. He sought to investigate the law and not the nature of law
since such an examination of the nature of law would require an
assumption to be made with regards to what it is. He insisted on
examining facts rather than making assumptions. According to him, the
law has a “binding force” so long as it is valid. The moment it loses its
validity, it loses its binding force.
COMPARISON OF SCANDINAVIAN AND AMERICAN REALISM
1. The Scandinavian realists share with the sociological jurists like
Pound a weakness for a priori assertions, while at the same time
insisting on the use for basing the law on the needs of social life.
They link this attitude with varying degrees of hostility to
conceptual thinking, which they stigmatize as metaphysical or
ideological. The American Realists, on the other hand are not
3
 much interested in general theorizing about law and although they
may share with the Scandinavian the feeling that rules do not
decide cases they do not altogether reject the normative aspect of
legal rules.
2. American Realists are mainly interested in the practical working of
judicial process whereas Scandinavians are more concerned with
the theoretical operation of the legal system as a whole.
3. Although the Scandinavians are the most extreme of empiricists, it
is the Americans who primarily stress the need for factual studies
in working out proper solutions for legal problems.
4. The Scandinavians movement, for all its positivists, remains
essentially in the Europe Philosophical tradition, whereas the
American bears many of the characteristics of English
empiricisms.