Jurispurdence

COURSE INTRODUCTION
• The module is presented in two parts
• Part I covers crucial points in the history and present state of legal
theory,
 from natural law theory to positivism and the emergence of legal
realism.
• Part II deals with other fundamental legal principles or ideas,
such as enforcement of morality, theory of justice, liberty, and
freedom
 connects the crucial areas of legal validity with disputes over relation
 between morality and law, the controversial topics of personal privacy
and limits of liberty.
•PART ONE
 UNIT ONE
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS

• Brain storming Cases

 cases1:
 a driver and 5 workers and one nearby
• The ,,,,,is not working
 case2:
What if the driver will run to bridge to appss
Case3:
A car accident has happened to 6 individual persons
The 5 highly damaged at kidney, heart etc. but the one is well
 cse3: what if the one is healthy guy come to checkup?
Contd.
• Can you believe that homo marriage (same sex) is wrong?
• What about prostitution?
• Sales of body organ, or donation?
• Military by patriotism or payment?
• Can you bomb your own village if you are a militant pilot ?
 UNIT ONE
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
 Introduction
• Jurisprudence has been serving as a general philosophic approach
• to understand the nature of law and its basic significance in society.
• a base to understand the higher level of the philosophy which is the subject
matter of this module.
 1.1. What is Jurisprudence
 Branches of philosophy
 Epistemology :theory of knowledge
 Metaphysics: theory of reality
 Logic : reasoning
 Ethics( moral philosophy) : study of moral value
 Aesthetics: art, beauty
 Philosophy of education: self explanatory
 Philosophy of law (jurisprudence)
 Etc.
 Jurisprudence
• The word comes from the Latin term juris prudentia, which means "the study,
knowledge, or science of law.
• Jurisprudence has many aspects, with four types being the most common.
 first it seeks to analyze, explain, classify, and criticize entire bodies of law
 second type of jurisprudence compares and contrasts law with other fields of
knowledge such as literature, economics, religion, and the social sciences.
The third type of jurisprudence raises fundamental questions about the law
itself.
The fourth and fastest-growing body of jurisprudence focuses on even more
abstract questions, including, what is law? What is its relation to justice and
morality?
1.2. Why we study Jurisprudence
 to develops the ability to analyze and to think critically and creatively about the
law.
The way lawyers and judges reflect on what they do and what their role is within
society. as an intellectual pursuit.
 jurisprudence is interesting and enjoyable on its own, whatever its other uses
and benefits.
1.3. Schools of Jurisprudence
the most important schools:
Natural Law School: immutable and eternal principles
Legal Positivism: no higher law than that created by governments, legitimate or
self imposing,
Historical School: an evolutionary process and concentrates on the origin
Sociological School: view law within a broad social context rather than as an
isolated phenomenon
Legal Realism conceives law as judge made and by doing so it puts the court at
the center.
 UNIT TWO
CLASSICAL NATURAL LAW THEORY
2.1 The Notion of Natural Law
• The adherent of natural law believes that :
Beyond and superior to the law made by man are certain higher principles, the
principles of natural law
‘natural law’ is not to be understood as meaning the same as the law of nature
Man is part of nature. Within nature, man has his own nature.
 His nature inclines him towards certain ends like:
o to procreate children
o to protect his family
o to ensure his survival etc.
Contd.
 by man of his natural ends assist the achievement of the purpose of nature
by men of the ends that nature has made it man’s nature to seek to achieve.
 violence is contrary to natural law
What does natural law consist of? What are its precepts?
 man’s natural ends are the same for all mankind, and remain the same for all
time
it is natural that the principles of natural law are constant.
natural law comprises:
a body of permanent, eternal truths, truths embodying precepts of universal
applicability,
part of immutable order of things, unaffected by changing human beliefs or
attitudes.
 2.2 Ancient Greece: Natural Law as Source of Justice
and Virtue
2.2.1. General
• To day’s world bestride through the philosophy of the ancient world.
• they contributed a lot to the classical Hellenistic legal theory. Theses are:
2.2.2 Socrates
his idea of law as recorded in Apology and Crito, two different writings written by
his pupil Plato.
Apology is all about Socrates’ defense in court,
Crito is a discourse made between Socrates and his friend Crito in prison
Socrates appeared before court to defend himself.
He was prosecuted because he was said to be corrupting the youth and second he
did not believe in the gods of the state.
Cont.
• if the command was illegal or the laws unjust, then no man shall obey the order
or the laws.
• The first principle is that citizens must obey and uphold the positive laws.
• The second principle is that we shall obey the law if it is only a just law.
• While in prison, his friend, Crito, visited him and told him that plans were in place
to prepare for his escape and journey to another country.
• respecting the decision of the courts (not to escape from prison) on three
grounds.
First, on moral grounds, in that it is bad and disgraceful to harm or to do injustice
to another
secondly, citizens are not justified to back-harm their country whatever harm the
country caused to them.
Thirdly, there was a tacit agreement between Socrates (and other citizens for
 2.2.3. Plato
• what for us are abstractions, example redness, square-ness, roundness, courage,
beauty, equality, justice etc.
• the world as we know them reflect the qualities themselves. This is Plato’s
doctrine of ‘forms’.
• Qualities such as justice and truth exist in their own form, too independently.
• not perfect in design or quality.
• it exists only in the transcendental world, a world beyond time and space.)
• Since for Plato the forms of ‘goodness’, ‘virtue’, ‘honesty’ were
 eternal and immutable,
they constituted moral principles of universal and timeless validity
unaffected by changing human attitudes or beliefs, moral principles by reference
to which all human actions and views must be judged.
 2.2.4. Aristotle
Aristotle was materialist
• in a state of perpetual change There was always progress.
• The process is constant.
• the universe is dynamic, always engaged in the process of becoming, of moving
towards an end immanent within itself from the start.
declared that we have two types of laws.
Natural law: same for it is immutable and beyond human touch.
Man-made :not the same everywhere for the custom and behavior of people of
different nations and tribes is different.
“if the written law tells against our case, clearly we must appeal to universal law, and
insist on a greater equity and justice…… We must urge that the principle of equity are
permanent and changeless, and that the universal law does not change either, for it is
2.3 The Stoics: Natural Law as a Reason
• Stoicism founder Zeno (during the 3rd century BC) fourth century AD.
• part of the Roman Republic and Empire
Three important ideas of modern law and legal theory were derived mainly from
Stoic philosophy:
➢ The conception of a universal law for all mankind under which all men are
equal;
➢ The idea of a method of deriving universal principles of law from the
observation of the laws of different people;
➢ And the conception of a law binding upon all states, which has got today the
• name “international law”.
 2.3.2. Cicero

“Law is the highest reason, implanted in nature, which commands what ought to
be done and forbids the opposite. True law is right reason in agreement with
nature. To curtail this law is unholy, to amend it illicit, to repeal it impossible..the
Stoic’s ideal is to live consistently with nature. Throughout our lives we ought
invariably to aim at morally right course of action.”
The universality and immutability of natural law or “true” law (True law is right
reason in agreement with nature;) it is of universal application, unchanging and
everlasting;
 there is an ideal of human goodness: nature itself has stored and wrapped this
up inside our minds.
For Cicero, law is the highest product of the human mind which is in tune with
the elemental force of nature. The validity of human law depends upon its
harmony with these forces
ideas of reason and law with nature that contrived to suggest
 2.3.3. Seneca

• Man is a sprit and his ultimate goal is the perfection of his reason in that sprit.
Because man is a rational animal, his ideal state is realized when he has fulfilled
the purpose for which he was born.
• he live in accordance with his own nature.
• What has the philosopher brought to light?
• In the first place, truth and nature; and secondly, a rule of life, in which he has
brought life into line with things universal.
Stoics saw mankind as one brotherhood.
Tolerance, forgiveness, compassion, fortitude, uprightness, sincerity, honesty –
these were the qualities that the Stoics believed that natural law required of men.
• compared to the Greeks, the Stoics contributed much to the practical
development of the Roman law. expert jurisconsults (learned lawyers) and
praetors (judges)
2.4. Christianity: Natural Law as Morality
• 2.4.1 Introduction
Stoicism taught that men should love one another, since this was in accord
with nature and thus was man’s duty.
Christianity taught – ‘Love one another’, and it added ‘and if you do, there is a
reward – life everlasting.
• The teaching of Christ provided a code of conduct, but not a comprehensive
theology.
 2.4.2 St. Augustine of Hippo

• in his greatest work, De Civitate Dei (the City of God),

• St. Augustine wrote ‘if a law be unjust, it is no law at all’
• the idea that if a man-made law conflicts with natural law, it is invalid. In the
eye of Christian theologists, natural law is anterior in time and superior in
hierarchy to the man-made law
• Nothing which is just is to be found in positive law which has not been derived
from eternal law.
• in the eye of St. Augustine, to the extent that man-made law ran counter to
natural law, it was null and void, and unjust governments were equated with
criminal gangs.
 2.4.3 St. Thomas Aquinas
• St. Thomas Aquinas, principally in the Summa Theologica,
• Aquinas proposed that the essential quality setting human beings apart from
the rest of the animal world was that of reason.
• Aquinas distinguishes four kinds of laws:
A. Eternal Law: is comprised of those laws that govern the nature of an eternal
universe;
B. Divine Law: is concerned with those standards that must be satisfied by a
human being to achieve eternal salvation. One cannot discover divine law by
natural reason alone;
C. Natural Law: is comprised of those precepts of the eternal law that govern
the behavior of beings possessing reason and free will. EG. Natural Law is not
to commit suicide.
D. Human Law: is a dictate of reason from the ruler for the community he rules.
2.5 Nature of Man and Justification for Law
The medieval power of the church dissolved with the coming of Renaissance
and
political writers such Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau.
 These theorists all sought to base a view of the purpose and authority of law
upon a social contract, a covenant
underlines the surrender of the powers of the individual to a state
organization, the ‘Sovereign’.
 2.5.1 Thomas Hobbes

State of Nature, in which there was no law and government.

The outstanding character of the state of nature is War,
where every man is enemy to every man. Men compete with each other
they have a rough equality of power
to attain their ends, the inevitable result is war and conflict.
for honor and felicity and this makes matters worse.
The result is that man’s life in the sate of nature is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish
and short.”
each man possesses the natural right to do whatever he thinks fit to preserve
his life
men are roughly equal physically (an ability to kill each other),
intellectually (mainly experience),
Thus, he declared that man’s only hope to escape from the natural
conditions is to make social contract and enter in to a commonwealth
(civil society).
To do this they must transfer all their natural rights, except few, to one
absolute sovereign (king, Parliament).
an unlimited governmental authority is the only alternative
He(sovereign) cannot, therefore, be accused of injustice.
Since the sovereign is the ultimate law maker, he is above all laws and
thus he cannot be said illegal and unjust
philosophy of Hobbes both natural law and positivist ideas.
 2.5.2 John Locke
claims the human decency.
The state of nature is, for Locke, a state of perfect freedom and equality
“no one ought to harm in his life, health, liberty, and possession”.
the preservation of private property is the main reason for entering into political
society.
Private property is derived from the mixing of a person’s labour with land or
anything that was originally communally owned.
In the state of nature men have a further right, which is to judge and punish
transgressors of the natural law.
As there is no formal authority to enforce the natural law and protect him, each
man must protect his own life, liberty, and property.
Locke admits that the establishment of government is the remedy for the
inconveniences of the state of nature,
he points out that the arbitrary government of an absolute monarchy is more
intolerable than the natural state.
political entity must first be established by a social contract.
a political community by agreeing to transfer
a contract is the only kind which will eventually produce lawful government.
Members will be elected from among the people.
This government which is established on trust should not betray this trust.
It shall guarantee the protection of the natural rights to life, liberty, and
possessions of citizens otherwise
people will have the right to revolt.
2.6 Kelsen’s Criticism on Natural Law Theory

A. Natural law confuses value and reality

o We may describe certain behaviors that are in conformity with a pre-existing
standard as a good, right, or correct and behavior that are not in conformity with the
norm as wrong, or incorrect. But these are value judgments.
o The question as to which of two conflicting values is to be preferred can only be
decided emotionally, according to the feeling or wishes of the whoever makes the
decision.
o So, what is law is what is decided to be law by the law-maker, not some other thing,
ought.
B. Good/Bad contradiction
• Natural lawyers justify positive law (man-made or human law) on the ground that
these are needed because of man’s badness. At the same time their doctrine
requires an assumption that man is good, because it is from human nature that the
principle of natural law are to be deducted. Thus natural lawyers entangle
C . Insincerity
fail to carry their doctrine to its logical conclusion.
According to their doctrine, if positive law conflicts with natural law, it is void. But do
they, Kelsen asks, abide by the consequences of this test?
Where a law of the state conflicts with natural law do natural lawyers in fact say that a
citizen should disobey it? If the answer is in the negative (he examines a lot of natural
lawyers most of whom prefer silence), then as Austin once said that natural law is
‘nothing but a phrase’.
D. Absolute values and Relative values
All knowledge is relative to the person seeking it. Sophists pointed out that customs and
standards of behavior earlier accepted as absolute and universal, and of divine institution,
were, in fact local and relative.
Habits abhorrent to one society and time may be accepted as normal elsewhere.
The notion of ‘truth’ and ‘knowledge’ are thus illusions. What seems to each man, is as far
as he is concerned. Reality exists only in relation to our own feelings and convictions.
Kelsen summarizes, ‘there is one nature but we have different systems of law; different
 UNIT THREE
THE REVIVAL OF NATURAL LAW
Why natural law back again?
During the nineteenth century natural Law was dominated and overshadowed
by the positivist school of thought.
However, the massive human delinquencies by the Nazis during the Second
World War and
the emergence of totalitarian States and dictators stimulate in the 20th c the
rethinking of natural law theory.
Jurists raised questions whether positive law is adequate enough to protect
mankind.
 3.1. Procedural Natural Law: Lon L. Fuller
3.1.1 The Story
by Gustav Radbruch (German Professor of law) to the legality of laws passed
during the Nazi era in Germany.
Radbruch had originally been positivist
However, the atrocities of the Nazi regime compelled him to think again.
the conclusion that no law could be regarded as valid if it contravened with
certain basic principles of morality.
After the war it was this thinking that was followed in the trials of those
responsible for war crimes, or who had acted as informers for the former regime.
[Link] 1949 a woman as convicted based on this principle.’, did not have a legality
that could support the woman’s defense, and she was found guilty.
3.1.2 Morality of Aspiration and of Duty

 the morality of law had become confused two levels of morality as moralities
of ‘aspiration’ and of ‘duty’.
The morality of aspiration…is
 the morality of the Good Life, of excellence, of the fullest realization of
human powers…starts at the top of human achievement,
It is in a sense a maximum goal
the morality of duty
starts at the bottom
a minimum standard which must be attained before the enterprise can be
recognized to have the identity which it claims at all.
3.1.3 Fuller’s Law Making Criteria
King Rex’s Law
 3.1.4 The Inner Morality of Law
• Corresponding to the eight defects illustrated by Rex’s mistakes Fuller lists eight
qualities of excellence.
 In a legal system the laws must be:
1. Generality (not made ad hoc or for temporary purpose only)
2. Published
3. Prospective, not retroactive
4. Intelligible (clear or understandable)
5. Consistent
6. Capable of being complied with
7. Endure without undue changes
8. Applied in the administration of the society
 3.1.5 Criticisms on Fuller
Hart’s well-known criticism
a legal system would command obedience with moral justification
principles in themselves with the attendant explanation at a general level of what
is to be achieved (elimination of non-Aryan races) and consistency is insufficient
to establish the moral nature of such practices.
 3.2 Substantive Natural Law: John Finnis
3.2.1 Introduction
He tries to offer a "neo-Aquinian" natural law philosophy which does not
presuppose a divine being.
Instead of speaking, as would Plato, about the Form of the Good, or seeking the
Good, he will speak about human desires to pursue "basic goods" in life.
By focusing attention on goods rather than a single Good,
 Finnis skillfully articulates what he calls a theory of moral action for our day. Or,
in other words, he seeks a theory of how to live well.
 3.2.2 Finnis’ Defence of Naturalism
Finnis attempts to dispose of what he regards as two cardinal misconceptions
about the theory.
a. Finnis denies that natural law derives from the objectively determinable
patterns of behaviour, but instead asserts it is ascertainable from inward
knowledge of innate motivations.
b. Natural law does not entail the view that law is not law if it contradicts
morality.
3.2.3 The Basic Goods of Human Nature

all rational agents set out to preserve or obtain things they perceive to be
good for themselves.
Even the most rational actors, however, can be mistaken. We need to exercise
practical reason
Finnis’ seven basic goods are generally the following:
a. Life, meaning not merly existence but also the capacity for development of
potential. Within the category of life and its preservation Finnis includes
procreation.
b. Knowledge, not only as a means to an end but as a good in its own right
which improves life quality.
c. Play, in essence the capacity for recreational experience and
enjoyment.
d. Aesthetic experience, this is broadly a capacity to experience and
relate to some perception of beauty.
e. Sociability or friendship, occurring at various levels but commonly
accepted as a ‘good’ aspect of social life.
f. Practical reasonableness, essentially the capacity to shape one’s
conduct and attitude according to some ‘intelligent and reasonable’
thought process.
g. Religion, the formal sense of faith and practice centered upon
some sense of the divine. The reference to some greater order than
that of their own individuality.
 2.3.4 Evaluation

It may be seen that Finnis’ list is not radically different from the list of other
philosophers.
 The difference Finnis asserts is that these goods are not the result of
speculative reason.
 They are not goods because of anything, they are just good.
However, Finnis, The value of life is nothing without the other goods in some
measure.
 UNIT FOUR
POSITIVISM

Introduction
Positivism, (analytical jurisprudence) advocates believe in basically two concepts:
first they consider law as a social fact rather than a set of rules derived from
natural law. Thus law is created by human beings…
second point is that they sharply separate law and morality, and that legal rules
do not derive their legitimacy from universal moral principles.
A related issue is the separation thesis of “is” and “ought” argument.
Positivism serves two values.
First, by requiring that all law be written or somehow communicated to society
Second, positivism reduces the power of the judge to the application of laws, it
does not allow judges to make laws.
The Command Theory: John Austin’s Positivism
Introduction
The word positivism is related to the English word ‘posit’ which
means
put something firmly, or imposing something on somebody.
believe that law is made by an authority and imposed on the people
for obedience,
Positivism is also known (Imperative, and Analytical Jurisprudence.)
John Austin who boldly proponent
He was influenced by Hobbes and Bentham. In here we shall see
David Hume, Jermy Bentham,
 4.1. Influence of David Hume
• Hume’s fundamental purpose in his philosophical writing was twofold:
to challenge the traditional framework of moral philosophy in such a way that
morality and law would be humanized by becoming more relative to human
interests;
and to undermine the overblown pretensions to knowledge of the rationalist
philosophers of the Enlightenment.
transformation of every discipline into a rigorous science would be undertake
in effect,
who challenged the close relationship of law and morality;
 that law has nothing to do with morality or religion.
Law should be investigated beyond any bias of morality.
 4.2. Jeremy Bentham
• Bentham had many specific complaints about common law theory and its
practice.
• He regarded much of what happened in the English courts as ‘dog- law’:
• that is, as the practice of waiting for one’s dog to do something wrong, and then
beating it.
• His low opinion of the doctrine and practice of judicial precedent
• that he found obstructing this project of clarification was the blurring of the
boundary between legal reality and value judgment.
• a Christian moral principle, the result is the kind of vagueness and indeterminacy
which is inherently resistant to radical reform on the basis of the utility of the
laws
4.3 John Austin on Positivism and Separation
thesis
“Law is a command of the sovereign enforced by sanction.” Austin
Austin was another English jurisprudent
boldly criticized natural law and gave direct and clear definition of law.
4.3.1 Positive Law and Positive Morality
Austin’s legal theory is its attempt to distinguish clearly law from other phenomena
(for example, moral rules, social customs) with which it could be confused.
There are two classes of laws properly so called: divine law (set by God
for human kind) and human laws (others called them man-made) which are set by
human beings for other human beings. The most significant category of human laws
comprises what Austin calls Positive law.(by superiors)
So the word ‘positive’ indicates a positing or setting of rules by human creators.
therefore, that for Austin:
i. The term ‘law’ is often improperly applied to rules or regularities that are in
no strict sense ‘legal’; but
ii. The concept of law can properly embrace more than most lawyers would
accept.
Like many social scientists writing long after him, Austin considers that some
rules created ‘privately’ outside the particular provisions or procedures of the
legal system of the state can usefully be recognized as law.
iii. only positive law is the appropriate concern of jurisprudence,
 4.3.2 Austin’s Concept of law
• Austin, “law is a command of the sovereign enforced by sanction
• From this definition we can identify three essential elements: sovereign,
command, and sanction.
A. Sovereignty
“the bulk of a given political society are in the habit of obedience to a determinate
common superior:” common superior :
i. Sovereign may be a king or a parliament: The common superior must be
‘determinate’
ii. Society must obey the sovereign: The society must be in ‘the habit of
obedience’
iii. Obedience only to Sovereign:
iv. Sovereign must be determinate:
iv. Sovereign must be determinate: the sovereign must be defined, best known by
all the society. How? Maybe someone who came to the throne through blood from
the former king, or someone elected by the people.
v. Sovereign obeys no one else:
vi. Supreme in power: the power of the sovereign is incapable of legal limitation.
can easily conclude that in Austin’s theory of law the sovereign is an absolute
supreme, one similar to the Hobbessian sovereign.
B. Command
Like Hobbes, Austin defines a law as a kind of command. Power is again made
central to law.
Austin states: ‘a command is distinguished from other significations of desire, not
by the style in which the desire is signified, but by the power and purpose of the
party commanding to inflict an evil or pain in case the desire be disregarded’
however, be efficient and aimed at the common good as determined by utility.
 C. Sanction
Austin’s view of law is also reflected clearly in the emphasis he attaches to
punitive sanctions in the structure of a law.
Bentham (and other writers) saw no reason why legal sanction could not include
rewards as well as penalties. Austin, after considering this, rejects it.
A sanction can also be a further legal obligation.
A chain of legal obligation is possible.
For example, most of the rules in the civil code are without sanction and
 hence, according to Austin, they are no laws.
 4.3.3 The Separation Thesis
• “The existence of law is one thing, its merit or demerit is another”... Austin
 law and morality
makes a clear separation between the question and what the law ought to be (it
is possible one can make reference to higher laws) and the determination of what
the law is. ‘Is’ and ‘Ought’ must be kept separate.
ought can be identified (to simplify) with criteria for distinguishing between good
and bad law.
A law might be bad, but it is still law and must be obeyed by the subjects so long
as it is made by the sovereign.
 4.3.4 Criticism on Austin

HLA Hart a critical criticism on Austin’s concept of law and his criticisms fall under
three main heads.
A. Laws as we know them are not like orders backed by threats
• There are three reasons why this so.
o 1. The content of law is not like a series of orders backed by a threat. Some laws,
Hart concedes, do resemble orders backed by threats, for example criminal laws.
But do not resemble orders backed by threats, like valid contracts, wills E.g. Every
man has the right to marry or not to marry. In the eye of Austin this is not law
2. The range of application of law is not the same as the range of application of an
order backed by a threat. In Austin’s scheme the law-maker (sovereign) is not
bound by the command he gives: the order is directed to others, not to himself.
In modern democracies, for example, the power of the law maker (parliament) is
limited by the constitution
3. The mode of origin of law is different from the mode of origin of an order backed
by a threat.
This means, Austin assumes the sovereign as the only source of law.
But in reality, laws can be created by other bodies outside the law maker.
For example, most customary laws that are usually enforced by courts (in
common law) can be good examples. Laws can also be created by an
administrative body.
B. Austin’s notion of the habit of obedience is deficient
To explain the ways in which he finds the notion of the habit of obedience to be
deficient Hart tells a story.
Suppose, he says, there is a country in which an absolute monarch has ruled for a
long time. The population has generally obeyed the orders of the king, Rex1 &2
What Hart in short means is that law should not be based on one particular body.
It rather must be a system that gives uninterrupted continuity.
C. Austin’s notion of sovereignty is deficient
In Austin’s theory of law, there is no legal limit on a sovereign’s power, since, if he
is sovereign, he does not obey any other legislator.
For example, the competence of a legislature may be limited by a written
constitution under which matters are excluded from the scope of its competence to
legislate upon.
it as invalid.
We can also add another point at this juncture that Austin’s theory on
sovereignty doesn’t conform to the well accepted principle of separation of
power.
 4.4 Pure Theory of Law: Hans Kelsen
Introduction
Kelsen is most famous for his studies on law and especially for his idea known as
the pure theory of the law.
It is said his theory of law is the most complex one.
He declares that law must be studied as a pure science independent of other
incidents, like morality and justice,
which makes him part of the positive school of jurisprudence. In this part we
will look at two main things.
First his criticism on natural law theory, and
 second, his ‘Pure theory of law’.