Jurisprudence

Jurisprudence, science or philosophy of law. Jurisprudence can be divided into three branches: analytical, sociological and theoretical. The analytical branch expresses axioms, defines terms, and determines methods that enable it best to view the legal order as an intrinsically coherent, logical system. The sociological branch examines the real effects of law within society and the impact of social events on critical and procedural aspects of law. The theoretical branch evaluates the law and criticizes it in terms of the ideals or goals set for it.

Jurisprudence or legal theory is the theoretical study of law. Scholars of jurisprudence seek to explain the nature of law in its most general form in its most general form and provide a deeper  understanding of legal reasoning, legal systems, legal institutions, and the role of law in society. Modern jurisprudence began in the 18th century and was focused on the first principles of natural law, civil law, and the law of nations. General jurisprudence can be divided into categories of jurisprudence, or schools of thought, regarding how those questions are best answered. Contemporary philosophy of law, which deals with general jurisprudence, addresses problems internal to law and legal systems and problems of law as a social institution that relates to the larger political and social context in which it exists.

History
Ancient Indian jurisprudence finds mention in various theology texts, beginning with the Dharmasutra of Bhodhayana. 

In ancient China, Daoust, Confucian, and Legalist all had principles of jurisprudence. 

Jurisprudence originated with (perity) in ancient Rome - José Mos Myram (traditional law), an institution of oral laws and customs.

The Praetors established an executive body of laws, which showed whether single cases were able to be prosecuted for addicta, the yearly utterance of the crime of prosecution, or in exceptional situations, additions made by Edicta. An Iudex will then write a remedy according to the facts of the case.

The sentences of the Idex were thought to be simple interpretations of traditional customs, but in addition to considering what traditional customs apply in each case — a more equitable interpretation was soon developed for new social exertion. Follows the law favorably. While in traditional mode, law was then accommodated with developed institutions (legal concepts). The praetors were replaced in the third century BCE by a cheerful body of priors. Entry into this body was conditional on proof of competence or experience.

Under the Roman Empire, schools of law were created, and the practice of law became more academic. From the early Roman Empire to the third century, a relevant body of literature was produced by scholarly groups, including Proculians and Sabinians. The scientific nature of studies was unprecedented in ancient times.

From the 3rd century onwards, juris prudentia became a more bureaucratic activity with some notable writers. It was during the Eastern Roman Empire (5th century) that legal studies were once again deeply done, and it is from this cultural movement that Justinian Corpus Juris Civilis was born.

Natural law
In its general sense, natural law theory can be compared to both the state's nature law and the common law, which are understood to be based on conformity with the laws of physics. Natural law is often the opposite of positive law which claims law as the product of human activity and human ambition.

Another approach to natural-law jurisprudence generally asserts that human law must be in response to compelling reasons for action. There are two readings of the natural-law jurisprudential stance.

The strong natural law thesis holds that if a human law fails to respond to compelling reasons, it is not properly a "law". It is captured, imperfectly, in the famous maxim: lex iniusta non ist lex (an unjust law is no law).
The weak natural law thesis holds that if a human law fails to respond to compelling reasons, it may still be called a "law", but must be recognized as a defective law.
The notion of an objective moral order, external to human legal systems, undergoes natural law. What is right or wrong can vary according to the interests focused on it. John Finis, one of the most important of modern natural lawyers,  has argued that the maxim "an unjust law is no law" is a poor guide to classical Thomist status.


Strongly related to the principles of natural law are the classical principles of justice, which begin in the West with the Republic of Plato.

Aristotle is often called the father of natural law. Like his philosophical ancestors Socrates and Plato, Aristotle posited the existence of natural justice or natural authority (Dickian Physicon, κικαίον κόικόν, Latin Ice Nutella). His engagement with the natural method is largely due to how he was understood by Thomas Aquinas.  It was based on Aquinas' confrontation of natural law and natural right, the latter of which Aristotle presents in the Book of Nicomachian Ethics (Book IV of Eudemian Ethics). Aquinas's influence was to influence many early translations of these passages, although more recent translations influenced them more literally. 

Aristotle's theory of justice is tied into his idea of ​​the golden meaning. In fact, his treatment of what he calls "political justice" derives from the discussion of "the just" as a moral virtue derived from the meaning between contradictions, just as he Describes every other quality.  His longest discussion of his theory of justice occurs in Nicomachian ethics and begins by asking what a just act is. He argues that the term "justice" actually refers to two different but related ideas: general justice and special justice.  When a person's actions towards others are purely virtuous in all respects, Aristotle calls them "just" in the sense of "general justice"; In this way, this idea of ​​justice is more or less consistent with virtue. "Particular" or "partial justice", in contrast, is part of "general justice" or personal virtue that is related to treating others equally. 

From this inept discourse of justice, Aristotle proceeds to a worthy view of political justice, by which he means closer to the subject of modern jurisprudence. In political justice, Aristotle argues that it is partly derived from nature and partly the subject of convention.  This can be taken as a statement that is similar to the views of modern natural law theorists. But it must also be remembered that Aristotle is describing the view of morality, not the system of law, and therefore his commentary as to nature is about the basis of morality enacted as law, not law itself.


The best evidence of Aristotle's view was a natural law that comes from the Rastoric, where Aristotle noted that, different from the "special" laws that each people established for themselves, there is a "common" law that is nature. Is according to The context of this comment, however, only suggests that Aristotle thought it might be logically advantageous to appeal to such a law, especially when the "special" laws of one's own city Was contrary to the case of K, not actually being so. Such a law.  In addition, Aristotle considered some candidates for the universally valid, natural law to be wrong.  Aristotle's theoretical paternity of the natural law tradition is consequently disputed.