Talk:Jurisprudence - Knowledge (XXG)

781:

In short, much of the article addresses topics and authors in the field of philosophy of law. I suggest the following view be taken as an arbitrary framework from which a topical structure can be derived from knowledge of the field. Philosophy of law address the social requirement for law (nominal and actual), identifies probands for the ascertainment legal systems, and (if your philosophy includes a moral component) it identifies the measures whereby legal values are weighed (and thereby the ends of law). Legal theory is an essentially structuralistic approach to understanding concepts in the nature of law; the nature of law becomes the object rather than a subject of the discourse. Therefore the fact that "law" is terms of art which nonetheless encompasses distinct but well-founded domains of discourse has to be emphasized. From this perspective (less than categorical, I admit) law can be understood to refer in several terms to the social custom, the practice of law, the underlying social value system, and finally the (presumably) common understanding of law as an imperative justified in terms of particular goals. Finally, jurisprudence should be explained in terms of practice; from the standpoint of judges, but affected by the interests of justice system participants (which judges necessarily appreciate in practice). An intro to jurisprudence is the concept of juridical thought; that is interpretation of the instruments of law as a nominal framework from which a common undertstanding ("common sens") is realisec in ideal terms. Jurisprudence can be understood in the same sens as it is used in common law, inclusive of doctrine. It underpins, critically examines, and acts upon juridical thought. Hope this helps.

1529:

an answer to those questions and doesn't therefore make sense as an organizing principle on the same level as "analytic" and "normative". Natural law theory addresses analytic and normative questions just like any other theory of jurisprudence. It's of the same status as positivism realism and cls which are all discussed, somewhat confusingly, under the "analytic jurisprudence" heading. Of the existing categories tho, the Normative section needs the most work as it presently appears to be primarily about political philosophy and not jurisprudence. It looks to me like the article has been shoehorned badly into this structure which is at this point confused and confusing. I've made another stab at laying out a schema for organizing the article in the introduction which at least recognizes that natural law is not separate from other theories of jurisprudence in the questions that it addresses.

1047:

common laws of England'. 'Law is reason free from passion'; the debate on the matter is that there is a rational basis of law, i.e. law is informed by reason and cannot be law if it conflicts with reason. However the problemwith such a statement is that to reduce law to only reason would ope the way to disobedience on the part of man (and these can be many, who claims to be more reasonable than is the law itself. Thus the hard case is put: If law is reason and reason alone generates law, then law gains greatly in dignity but loses its own nature; for it is of the nature of law to commandthat it comport with obedience; but a command whose authoritativeness begins and ends with the reasonableness of the command will not, by its nature, procure obedience, for it is of the nature of reason to be always open to question.

660:

Encyclopedia of Philosophy. I'm not sure. Almost none of the definitions are correct; the whole emphasis is quirky; the most significant and influential writers are either not mentioned or misunderstood (Aquinas, Bentham, Austin, Kelsen, Hart, Fuller, Raz, Dworkin, would be a start.) Maybe ppl who know the subject would be willing to take on chunks? Then perhaps we could think of trying to put it into reasonable English. I made a start on the first para. Would someone knowledgeable about the modern natural law tradition in Simon, Finnis, Fuller and Soper please correct the mistakes in the existing material.

1138:

theoretical study of substantive legal doctrine or of sociology of law ends - and how much some of these other things count as being part of "jurisprudence". For what it's worth, though, when I did a jurisprudence subject at Law School we were told that "jurisprudence" is just a fancy word for philosophy of law ... and that's how I still think of it. Yes, I consider Dworkin, Hart, Finnis, Raz, blah, blah to be philosophers of law and jurisprudential scholars, and the terms to be interchangeable when applied to them. :)

50: 398: 2264:— which indicates some distinction (ending with "Legal theory is a much broader and encompassing term, encompassing the philosophy of law and jurisprudence …."). Maybe we can build a footnote with cites to sources that distinguish or not between the terms — FN: Some authorities consider 'legal theory' roughly equivalent to 'jurisprudence' , whereas others distinguish . I find that more clarifying and interesting than the 'or' which most take as signifying synonymation. Thoughts? 377: 714:

entry) "The science which treats of human laws (written or unwritten) in general" (second OED entry - which is listed as equivalent to "philosophy of law" and "A system or body of law; a legal system." (the second meaning of the term in the OED). I submit that jurisprudence qua philosophy of law is a subset of jurisprudence in general, and that there are many jurisprudential subjects that philosophers won't touch upon (such as the rationale of particular laws).

1458:, there emerged this separation between analytic and normative aspects of legal philosophy - that's the same as what happened in political economy/economics, where they talk about the separation of positive and normative analysis. By all means keep editing away at the stuff below; it looks like the changes to the Aristotle part are useful, though keep in mind this is necessarily a summary, and that for great detail you want to change the main articles. 349: 333: 317: 503: 482: 104: 83: 114: 513: 605: 587: 408: 1616: 2840:. As Jorahm correctly points out, there would be much work to do in sorting out the long history of the field, and the various debates that have defined it throughout the ages, but reliable sources universally agree that they are essentially two terms for the same thing. If there is any distinction in usage, its that jurisprudence is slightly more capacious, since it can also refer to 41: 2759:

like "meta-ethics in law" and "legal realism". A good example of this is that I would not want a judge who was mostly thought of law in terms of legal realism for a judge in my case since they might decide the justice needs to altered in my case to serve the needs of some group, but at the same time I think there's quite a bit of legal realism that goes on in reality.

2341:

positivism sections, I think it may be better to organize the theories by chronology rather than legal theorists. In natural law, for example, major thinkers in Anglophone philosophy are Aquinas and Finnis (Plato and Aristotle provide background). In legal positivism, the section can be structured with Bentham and Austin, then Hans Kelsen, then Hart, and Raz.

219: 184: 229: 2477:" does not say much. Why would he be added before someone like Randy Singer, Ayn Rand, or Rober Nozick, to name a few? It would be quite the task to determine which is of more importance in normative jurisprudence, and adding many people would make the article too long. Perhaps having links to a few important persons? 1718:

Jurisprudential awareness and Jurisprudential consciouness as separate sections (As of now I do not know whether these concepts can have enough material to have a separate article.) If there is no objection I would prefere to build these two sections on this talk page and include them in this article there after.

2848:, but that is the less common definition (as a quick Google search for "What is jurisprudence?" will show) and much less likely to be what our readers will be searching for when they type either term into our search bar. My opinion is that anyone with the time and energy should feel free to boldly merge. 915:, I'd like to improve this page, but to improve the page I need to start by improving the talk page as it is not even reasonable to understand what the articles issues are right now. I'd like to make a "Resolved" section on this talk page and move your comment there since your comment has been addressed. 1746:" says, History, charector, and thus architecture of law and diverse issues it addressess are not singular, there is multiplicity in Jurisprudential voices,judicial arguments are not monolithic or singular in nature, hence members of legal fraternity need to develop a sense of Jurisprudential awareness. 2221:

My starting point was that I didn’t see what value either “legal theory” or ‘theoretical’ adds. Common simple definitions seem to be “Jurisprudence is the science or philosophy of law.” Do you have sources that equate jurisprudence with legal theory? Re ‘theoretical’, that strikes me not as imprecise

1590:

I agree. I don't think Wittgenstein ever wrote about law - or, if he did, it would only have been in passing and uninformed. On the other hand, if we include philosophers who have 'only' influenced jurisprudence - as indeed Wittgenstein has - we will have to include nearly every philosopher who ever

1551:

Is this article meant to be a joke? I wasn't aware of any pages intended for comedy purposes being allowed. A search for Frédéric Bastiat, his book "The Law" - or any variation on that - in this artice found no results. Should we ammend the article on Physics to mention Newton but not Einstein in the

1434:

Also, the article is clearly organized along this line which is really a shame. The whole thing seems largely unreadable at this point. There's a fair deal of good information in the article but the organization doesn't make any sense. I may try to rearrange things later, but I'm hardly expert and it

1079:

The Dworkin book does fit into jurisprudence - I've been reading it of late for another purpose, and I'd say it is definitely "doing" philosophy of law as well as political philosophy (hey, it's most unclear where one ends and the other begins). The Tushnet book I am less familiar with, but from what

1024:

The current revisions aim to flesh out the article, which is still inadequate. There is a need for more discussion of legal positivism, especially the work of H.L.A. Hart and Joseph Raz. More discussion of natural law theory is needed, especially the work of John Finnis. There should be individual

2206:

law; but there isn't, or at least no such distinction is generally accepted. That's difficult enough and I think that the existing statement "the theoretical study of law" has a necessary imprecision. Your proposal switches to another plane—to meta-study of the theories—and that certainly doesn't

2126:

The following article on Jurisprudence provides a good overview of the legal theory. It offers clear and concise structuring and displays a plethora of subtopics (and links to other articles) within the article. It clearly focuses on the main ideas surrounding jurisprudence. It is notably written in

1832:

Why does religious law need to be included within this article? Sharia and Fiqh are purely matters of religion, with no real grounds in any modern, or even historic legal theory. I see no purpose for including this other than perhaps for the sake of diversity, which is great and all, but really has

1528:

You missed the point. I wasn't challenging that there are analytic and normative questions. The distinction is real and present in a broad swath of philosophy. I was saying that "Natural law" is a theory of jurisprudence, not a type of question within the area of jurisprudence. Natural law theory is

2758:

Given the content I'm in favour of a merge. In theory there's a distinction that the two terms might capture, like mathematics versus philosophy of mathematics, one is the "meta", one is the activity itself. Jurisprudence might be stuff like "stare decisis" etc while philosophy of law would be more

2240:

does mean "the study of law", but "jurisprudence" is narrower and the difference can be expressed by speaking of "theory"—albeit more commonly so in Continental Europe. I can't think offhand of anybody who attempts, or at least achieves, a very precise definition. Such an attempt I'm sure would not

1137:

I said "might" because I don't particularly have anyone in mind. As I say, I agree they are the same thing. I guess I sometimes see legal theory texts that might count as jurisprudence but are not written by philosophers, and there may be questions about where philosophy of law begins and where the

1046:

I think an essential aspect of the nature of the philosophy of law is greatly neglected in the article. The philosophical debate as to the role of 'reason' within law, presented in such works as Aristotle's 'The politics' and Thomas Hobbes' 'A dialogue between a philosopher and a student of the the

866:

Actually, the discussion here is also a bit of a caricature. I've made a first attempt at rewriting it. It should be noted that modern natural law and positivist theories often converge on many points. The differences can be more ones of degree. E.g. a positivist can find much that is useful in the

780:

I think the challenge involves defining it outside the context of any particular legal system. That being said, perhaps if the articles on "philosophy of law" and "legal theory" were concurently amended to reflect the distinctions between these three areas the current page would be much improved.

725:

Yes, you are right. I've deleted that passage, don't know when it popped up. It was wrong, and there's a disamiguation link at the top to show for it, because the jurisprudence of the courts is a way of saying case law. It seems that the person who put it in also had something against European law.

713:

This article states some "incorrect" uses of the term jurisprudence that are not incorrect at all. Seeing them as incorrect is a result of merging jurisprudence and philosophy of law. Philosophy of law is, indeed, one meaning for jurisprudence, but so is "Knowledge of or skill in law." (first OED

674:

Somebody might want to look at the punctuation in this page (do a search for '?' in your browser to see what I mean). I'm not sure if someone edited the page in Word, but there seems to be errant question marks (possible apostrophes?); in addition, some sentences seem to lack ending punctuation. --

2604:

Your recent contribution history reveals some rather disturbing reasons to be concerned about related problems on multiple articles. And this latest “no evidence” comment, given how easily refuted it was by the most casual glance at the articles I cited, seems to me pretty dispositive that you are

2285:

To look for some clear statement of relation between the terms “jurisprudence” and “legal theory” is a waste of time. For one thing, no such distinction is generally accepted. For another, whatever is referred to by either term operates equally or nearly so in several languages: English, German,

1011:

Right, philosophy of law is a well-established branch of philosophy. The definition given was completely inadequate as a definition of this philosophical subdiscipline; as a philosophical subdiscipline, it's not a "system of values" at all, or only in the most tenuous of senses. Hence, nonsense.

847:

The definition and discussion of positivism really described an extreme theory that is not held by any theorist in recent times. I doubt that even someone like Austin believed something this crude. I have rewritten this to give a better indication of what is believed by leading positivists such as

2742:

that, and it perhaps is long overdue for these two pages be merged, for they cover almost exactly the same material, both in terms of (i) the academic concepts of jurisprudence and the philosophy of law; and (ii) the substance, sources, and information presented in each article. I am opening this

1713:

Although many people seem to consider awareness and consciouness as synonymous, and many writers have used these words in overlapping way; when one minutely obsrves there marked differences seems to exist between legal awareness, legal consciouness, Jurisprudential awareness and Jurisprudential

1693:

This section is out of place, has the wrong type of header, thereby messing up the entry, and is uninformative. Can someone with Wiki credentials please consider whether this is relevant to the entry, and if yes, where it should go and how it can be made informative? Thanks. In the meantime I am

1101:

2. Both articles cover broadly similar topics - they talk about positivism and natural law, although there are strengths in some bits and not others, e.g. the philosophy of law page has a useful list of authors; or the jurisprudence page has an interesting stub referring to islamic jurisprudence

1006:

The original article didn't seem like nonsense, so much as a woefully inadequate stub (or, worst case, a dictionary entry). There really is such a thing as a "philosophy of law" (just do a search in Google and see how many responses come back), and while "A system of values that informs a legal

973:

757:"It is a historical, social, and cultural movement with the inherent contradiction that analysis of the law and understanding of its politics will unravel and reveal the 'truth' behind legal reasoning and the exercise of legal power, even while at the same time admitting there is no such thing." 1122:

Which thinkers do you have in mind? I agree, that there are always going to be some that want to draw a distinction. But it's probably true that the leading ones - Dworkin, Hart, Raz, Finnis, etc, have always taught them as the same, right? Besides, the articles' contents are pretty identical.

659:

Frankly, this is one of the most embarassingly bad entries on anything to do with law or philosophy in all of Knowledge (XXG). But, as many of the notes below complain, the problem is knowing just where to begin. Start over entirely, I guess. Or just give links to something from the Stanford

2340:

This article needs a lot of work and I'm reaching out to get feedback about the article's structure and some of its content. My suggestion is sectioning out natural law, legal positivism, and the other theories such as legal realism and Dworkin's interpretivism. In the natural law and legal

1717:

While undersigned is already working and developing on legal awareness, legal consciouness related articles, simultaneoully I am also coming across some information which would fit either in Jurisprudential awareness or under Jurisprudential consciouness concept. I would like to begin with

1029:

I think something should be said of the effect that post-modernism has had on legal thinking. Deconstruction and other concepts relating to literary analysis and power relationships have been applied to the law to good effect. I could add something but it wouldn't be that complete, I didn't

682:

2] I agree with the opinion gave in wikipedia for 'jurisprudence', but it could be interesting to note or to add, that in continental and latinamerican contexts, 'jurisprudence' also means some stream of opinion prevaling in tribunals. For example, we says that "according to the prevaling

2862:

I stand corrected. Looks like university courses and academia are using the terms interchangeably. I'm pretty sure I've heard practicing lawyer types use it to mean "how we make decisions" (as opposed to what social forces cause us to make decisions) (kind of in this for example

2619:

What is problematic to you is someone who has a different ideology than you. Quit harassing me. The opinions of three persons does not show that his work is more important than any other philosopher in the field, such as those I named, or Aristotle, Kant, Bentham, Mills, etc.

2245:(London, Stevens, 5th edn 1967), which opens (p 3): "All systematic thinking about legal theory is linked at one end with philosophy and, at the other end, with political theory". If he had said "jurisprudence" instead of "legal theory", who would have noticed? 2867:) but I guess this this is encompassed by "analytic jurisprudence" vs "sociological jurisprudence" as your sources mention. An I don't think I can maintain such fine etymological distinctions in the face of a body of literature using the terms identically. 2907:

I don't think that "Jurisprudence" and "Philosophy of Law" are the same thing, although unfortunately there are philosophers who claim so. But I have no objection to counting Philosophy of Law as part of Jurisprudence. The redirect to "Case law" is good.

2302:

In the introduction you state that this subject is theoretical and a subject for philosophers or scientists. Sorry but this has from the (ancient)beginning (Old Roman law) never been so. It is a subject for "practitioners" and should be left that way.

1315:

more confusing than enlightening, at least till they figure it out or shrug and give up on it... unless they know (something about) Latin, in which case "jurisprudentia" won't surprise them because they already know about the purely orthographic

1074:

Agreed. I've corrected the mistakes in the positivism section. The errors in the Natural Law section now also need to be fixed. Could someone who knows the contemporary literature (especially Finnis, Alexy, and Murphy) try to do this.

1757:

According to Justice Brennan Jurisprudential consciouness represents that extra dimension knowledge, understanding and empathic imagination that supplies " the wellspring from which concepts such as dignity, decency and fairness flow"

1714:

consciouness. (Usually consciouness seems to indicate 'state of being' where as awareness is one of the means to acheive the same. For difference between legal awareness, legal consciouness more elaborate definition also is available)

3008: 2592: 2520: 2472:

Under normative jurisprudence, it is not clear why John Rawls has his own entry when other type of normative jurisprudence could take his place. I have nothing but respect for Rawls, it just does not fit. The sentence, "

1037:

I'm looking for an explanation of facts in the natural world and facts in the legal world. Clearly they are not the same as the rules governing what is accepted as fact in science is very different from that in law.

2540:

You have provided no evidence that Rawls' is more important than any other scholar of normative jurisprudence. It's also odd how you keep following me around WP. Almost like Knowledge (XXG):Harassment#Wikihounding

895:

The emphasis on Dooyeweerd's work - a relatively obscure Christian philosopher - is not justified. Major philosophers of law - contemporary or not- (e.g.Grotius, Hart, Raz, Dworkin, Austin, etc.) are not mentioned.

2368:

This subject is new to me and has provided a good introduction for me, but of course, there could be some improvements. Would this article benefit from having information from newer sources, like from this decade?

1416:

The intro here doesn't make sense to me. Natural Law is a theory of jurisprudence, not an area of investigation in the same sense that the other categories are. I have made a tentative edit using this as a source:

2998: 1333:

It's not just pedantic, it's wrong. See first part of my reply, to Ellinor127. Latin "j" (only ever seen before a vowel) or "i" (when before a vowel) represents the sound of English "y" in the word "you" or

3063: 2951:

see the two as equivalent, I’m not sure how to go about that. Step 1: I would like to add a hatnote, to at least make readers aware that there are two, potentially-confusable pages, but the phrasing for

1019:

Au contraire. Unlike the grand concept of philosophy, a philosophy of "law" cannot exist without a "system of values" because the very word "law" comes with core defined assumptions about its meaning.

1109:

I agree that they are the same thing, and I'm not opposed to a merge - though I'm also not all that strongly in favour because my view that they are the same thing might be contested by some thinkers.

54: 3013: 1642:; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. 3068: 3113: 3058: 2889:

the way law is actually practiced. Usually we like to think of theory and practice as quite distinct, but that doesn't really apply here. Check out the variety of usage examples given in

2602:

Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Knowledge (XXG) policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles.

2127:

a tone which has no noticeable bias. Finally, the sources regarding this article seem to all be from scholarly sources. Overall this article offers a solid description of jurisprudence.

1062:. These are both excellent works, but they hardly fit the definition of philosophy of law given by the article. Nor would any legal philosopher say they were works in philosophy of law. 340: 198: 2711:

with stale discussion; the key point in dispute is whether theory and practice are sufficiently distinct to warrant separate coverage; the discussion has been stale for many months.

1025:

entries on various topics in substantive areas such as contract theory, tort theory, etc., as well as summaries of those entries in the philosophy of law entry. Lot's of work here.

700:

This article needs a lot of work. I am going to edit it drastically because it falls so far short of how an encyclopedic entry for jurisprudence should. It is going to take ages. --

3078: 2793:

Hmmmm... these are not the exact same thing but the venn diagrams do overlap. If there is a merger then you would need to distinguish between modern legal analytic frameworks (

1450:

The intro and the general organisation of the article is correct, which is why I've reverted those changes of yours. My understanding is that after David Hume pointed out the

2407:

In the introduction, the article provides a general overview of what is to be included in the following sections and provides what the organization of the article will be.

250:

on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the

1180:

Might it be a good idea to structure the page by philosophers, rather than by the 'schools' that they belong to? It makes more sense to look at one person at a time maybe?

933:

this comment is from 2006, so it's definitely not relevant anymore ;) Look at the bottom of this page for the newest comments--everything at the top is over a decade old.

1098:

1. There is no difference between 'jurisprudence' and 'philosophy of law' - it's really the same thing generally, and only little fiddly differences could be conjured up

970:

1. There is no difference between 'jurisprudence' and 'philosophy of law' - it's really the same thing generally, and only little fiddly differences could be conjured up

2286:

French, Italian and Spanish (Latin is now almost entirely of historical interest). Your Google search gets only to a blog. I’m not going to continue this conversation.

2068: 2064: 2050: 1958: 1954: 1940: 683:

jurisprudence contractants ought to...", o "according with the dominant jurisprudence the article 14 of our constitution means...". [O. Sarlo, Montevideo, 08/02/2004)

3083: 2036: 1080:

I know of it I agree - more a book done from within the field of law than one looking at it from a more philosophical perspective. Or at least so it seems to me.

770:

I've rewritten this in a way that I think is both clearer and more reflective of what jurisprudential scholars/philosophers of law actually think they are doing.

620: 592: 287: 3073: 2261: 1217: 1207: 690:

of this article should probably be cleaned up according to wikipedia style (specifically having only two or three paragraphs before the Table of Contents). --

464: 900:

Well, edit boldly. I made a start some time back, but didn't get very far. Yes, the article needs to discuss those, and other major jurisprudential thinkers.

3038: 277: 2993: 569: 356: 202: 3103: 3093: 559: 454: 324: 194: 2893:. That said, any university course on jurisprudence is going to be a course on philosophy of law, full stop. Which is why I strongly favor the merge. 1292:

for the sake of spelling Latin as Cicero* did instead of the way it's often, perfectly legitimately, spelled today, consistency demands that you use

3048: 252: 3003: 2881:

Thanks for the thoughtful reply, Talpedia. Yeah, those practicing lawyer types are basically using the second definition I mentioned above, i.e.

430: 166: 876:

Why is Thomas Hobbes mentioned here and not John Locke? The two are inteimately connected, and also unique. Locke merits his own sections, imo.

3108: 1248:

Its a small point, but the latin is not juris, its iuris. There's no Classical Latin "j", it doesn't appear until well into the Middle Ages.

1234: 535: 3033: 3023: 2492:

John Rawls is far and away more influential than these others (in particular Ayn Rand, who is not taken seriously by academic philosophers

2388:

I feel like this article gives a good foundation on the history of jurisprudence, I also think that the article could be maybe more modern.

2306: 1576: 877: 156: 3088: 3053: 1397: 1371: 829: 670:

It certainly can be and often is without offering more. It is not enough to state what it is not, one must state then what it is! - RB

1774: 242: 189: 3098: 1695: 1916: 1662: 1622: 421: 382: 3028: 2046:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

1936:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

526: 487: 2634:

1) This is not harassment. Knowledge (XXG) is not a space where you are entitled to assert your views unopposed. If you disagree,

2517: 2037:

https://web.archive.org/web/20070505231025/http://metalibri.incubadora.fapesp.br/portal/authors/m/john-stuart-mill/utilitarianism/

1571:

I'm sorry, but why is Wittgenstein included as a philosopher of law? Or is that list only meant to include philosophers that have

3043: 1675: 797: 2988: 2743:

discussion as the merger would be quite complicated as both articles are quite large and are linked to by many other articles.

2439: 2146:

The lede begins “Jurisprudence or legal theory is the theoretical study of law …”. That seems muddled and overly complex. Qqs:

1879: 1841: 2834: 824:'Susandiction' the process of 'sue'ing somebody, is a military process borne by equal share through third-party constitutions. 63: 2453:

Really enjoyed reading this, awesome to learn the history behind it all. Any chance Dworkin's work can be elaborated more?

1799: 3018: 2938:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2356: 2040: 815:'Jurisprudence' in mathematics is a Class 3 Scammel Period Table which is known in the State Of Japan as an 'Ouija Board'; 1926: 2111: 2001: 1390:

contains definitions,meaning,scope,purpose,LAW,its kinds,Different theories of law,advantages and disadvantages of law

828:

Without these clarifications the article looks like something out of the stone age. The 'Law' article is worse, however.

1007:

system" doesn't do the topic justice (no pun intended), and the definition wasn't so much nonsense as dictionary-like.

127: 88: 1671: 726:

Ignorance produces prejudice perhaps! That said, you could have simply done the same yourself. Be bold in editting!

2435: 2374: 1875: 1837: 947: 821:

The whole law, once assembled, is the 50 United States Constitution resalable in the 50 United States Dollar (USD);

22: 2898: 2853: 2663: 2610: 2527: 2501: 2427: 2067:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

1957:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

1506:

Gonna make me go to real sources huh. Ok, but it's still wrong. Let me know what you think of the next revision?

687: 2748: 2581: 2514: 2458: 2412: 2310: 2475:

He is widely considered one of the most important English-language political philosophers of the 20th century.

1580: 881: 69: 2259:

AFAICS, some do. If one does a Google search for <difference between jurisprudence and "legal theory": -->

1401: 2102: 2028: 1992: 1908: 1375: 1155:

I have not yet read it, but if anyone is interested in exploring this more, there is an article about this:

833: 131:, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the 2885:. In a way, jurisprudence is a frustrating term because it can mean both the philosophy (or theory) of law 2344: 1393: 1367: 785: 2024: 1699: 1661:

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant

1253: 793: 2656:

are no slouches either. These are precisely the kinds of sources we use to support claims of this nature.

2370: 2086:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

2074: 1976:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

1964: 1139: 1110: 1081: 912: 901: 868: 853: 771: 534:

on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

429:

on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

2890: 2027:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 1907:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 1195: 2894: 2849: 2813:). Some re-organization would be needed but it is possible if someone wants to take on this project. 2659: 2606: 2570: 2523: 2511: 2497: 1557: 1451: 1279: 1249: 789: 761: 1817: 40: 2947:

Following the above discussion, it seems sensible to distinguish the two pages. But as someone who

2913: 2864: 2744: 2454: 2430:

to describe a group that includes a very senior judge and a number of eminent barristers. The word

2408: 2393: 2325: 2269: 2227: 2184: 2132: 1833:

no place here. Also, there is no credible reference which mentions Abul A'la Maududi as a Jurist.

920: 2644:. The three people I quoted just above are established subject-matter experts, and in the case of 2320:

I do not think any current textbook titled (simply or primarily) "Jurisprudence" takes that view.

1917:

https://web.archive.org/web/20060820100015/http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/h/hume/david/h92t/

2872: 2764: 2625: 2546: 2482: 1836:

For these reasons Islam and Maududi are being removed. Please discuss any insights here. Thanks.

1728: 1356:

Does "Equitative" mean anything? I cannot even guess what it is supposed to mean in this article!

1163: 2597: 2071:

before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template

1961:

before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template

2087: 1977: 1262:

Changing "A iudex" to "An iudex" seems overly pedantic. Or is it just meant to be said quickly?

1039: 2955: 2806: 2798: 2731: 2716: 2352: 2291: 2250: 2212: 1626: 1596: 1361: 1267: 1031: 397: 376: 234: 1647: 1203: 1156: 812:'Law' is passive metaphorical construct based on two equally-opposing concepts of just cause; 2818: 1455: 1341: 2845: 2635: 2094: 1984: 1654: 1199: 2837: 2828: 2649: 2645: 1920: 1862: 1553: 1230: 676: 518: 2775:

Almost two decades later, I'm pretty sure that they're still the same thing - go for it!

2641: 818:

A 'Judas Erasmus Walrus' (JEW) is a mainline Locum Law Judge (known in the USA as (LLJ));

2194:

One could suppose that, in principle, there would be a clear distinction between theory

1480:

Oh, also, websites (even from Cornell law school) are not adequate sources. Need books.

1210:

linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

2969: 2909: 2653: 2389: 2321: 2265: 2223: 2180: 2128: 2053:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by 2041:

http://metalibri.incubadora.fapesp.br/portal/authors/m/john-stuart-mill/utilitarianism/

1943:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by 1851: 941: 930: 916: 413: 2093:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

2060: 1983:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

1950: 1927:

https://web.archive.org/web/20120831060912/http://web.upmf-grenoble.fr/Haiti/Cours/Ak/

512: 502: 481: 348: 332: 316: 2982: 2868: 2794: 2760: 2735: 2621: 2542: 2478: 2020: 1900: 1779:(Fourth revised edition (2006) ed.). Philadelphia: John Delaney Publications. p. 108 1724: 1534: 1511: 1440: 1425: 1159: 986:

Forgot that perhaps the talk page from philosophy of law is needed to be merged too!!

691: 1206:

when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an

2831: 2782: 2777: 2739: 2712: 2348: 2287: 2246: 2208: 2173: 1650:

then you may need to upload it to Knowledge (XXG) (Commons does not allow fair use)

1592: 1487: 1482: 1465: 1460: 1357: 1328: 1263: 1181: 1124: 1103: 987: 975: 733: 728: 701: 615: 611: 1418: 604: 586: 103: 82: 2814: 2802: 2496:). Reliable secondary sources to support this should be extremely easy to find. 1337: 849: 113: 2059:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 1949:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 1858: 1615: 508: 407: 403: 247: 224: 119: 109: 1930: 2964: 2842:

the course of court decisions as distinguished from legislation and doctrine

2730:

A discussions back in 2005/2006 was proposed in order to merge the articles

1668:

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image

934: 426: 754:

Would an expert PLEASE write a better definition of "jurisprudence" than:

2150:

Is the ‘or’ intended to indicate the terms are synonymous? If so, source?

1530: 1507: 1436: 1421: 1364:) 17:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC) yes sir i agree with u its nat a litin word 1013: 664: 531: 1030:

understand it that well in my "history and philosophy of law" class :)

246:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to 2974: 2902: 2876: 2857: 2822: 2788: 2768: 2752: 2720: 2667: 2629: 2614: 2550: 2531: 2505: 2486: 2462: 2443: 2416: 2397: 2378: 2329: 2314: 2273: 2254: 2231: 2216: 2188: 2136: 2116: 2006: 1883: 1866: 1845: 1732: 1703: 1679: 1600: 1584: 1561: 1538: 1515: 1493: 1471: 1444: 1429: 1405: 1379: 1345: 1271: 1257: 1238: 1184: 1167: 1142: 1113: 1084: 990: 954: 924: 904: 885: 871: 856: 837: 801: 774: 764: 739: 704: 694: 3009:

Knowledge (XXG) level-4 vital articles in Society and social sciences

2810: 2431: 2164: 1311:

Anyone reading the article to find out about jurisprudence will find

1202:, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the 218: 183: 2222:

but rather as overly restrictive. Why not simply ‘study of law’?

2865:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1468-2230.12527

1320: 1223:

That this article is linked to from the image description page.

2168: 1060:

Red, White and Blue: A Critical Analysis of Constitutional Law

132: 34: 26: 15: 2999:

Knowledge (XXG) vital articles in Society and social sciences

663:

1] No, jurisprudence is not definable as simply "the law." --

1857:

Where should this be directed so people know what it means?

1220:

on the image's description page for the use in this article.

347: 331: 315: 2960:(and vice versa) eludes me. Anyone have clearer thoughts? 2426:

I need a word with similar meaning in British English at

2031:

for additional information. I made the following changes:

1911:

for additional information. I made the following changes:

1709:

Jurisprudential awareness and Jurisprudential consciouness

1157:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/raju.12185

2241:

be useful here. For an example, see Wolfgang Friedmann,

3064:

High-importance social and political philosophy articles

1607:

File:Thomas Hobbes (portrait).jpg Nominated for Deletion

2176: 1921:

http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/h/hume/david/h92t/

1904: 3014:

C-Class vital articles in Society and social sciences

1056:

Sovereign Virtue: The Theory and Practice of Equality

2696:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

530:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 425:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 3069:

Social and political philosophy task force articles

2063:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors 1953:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors 1653:If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no 808:Please can this article be augmented to show that: 298: 3114:Articles copy edited by the Guild of Copy Editors 2434:is not acceptable. Any ideas? (there, please). -- 630:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors 3059:C-Class social and political philosophy articles 1435:would be quite a big task to take on for anybody 1419:http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/Jurisprudence 2579:American philosopher of the twentieth century. 2049:This message was posted before February 2018. 1939:This message was posted before February 2018. 1663:image page (File:Thomas Hobbes (portrait).jpg) 1233:. For assistance on the image use policy, see 1002:Discussion brought from Philosophy of Law page 2699:A summary of the conclusions reached follows. 1190:Image copyright problem with File:1kelsen.jpg 8: 3079:High-importance Analytic philosophy articles 2564:John Rawls, who turned 80 this year, is the 760:The existing definition doesn't make sense. 256:about philosophy content on Knowledge (XXG). 2568:moral and political philosopher of our age. 2510:Just a few refs from a very quick search: 2342: 2019:I have just modified one external link on 1931:http://web.upmf-grenoble.fr/Haiti/Cours/Ak 633:Template:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors 581: 476: 371: 295: 178: 77: 2954:“This page is about _____, for _____ see 2801:) and classical fields of jurisprudence ( 1899:I have just modified 2 external links on 1235:Knowledge (XXG):Media copyright questions 1198:is used in this article under a claim of 3084:Analytic philosophy task force articles 1776:How to Do Your Best on Law School Exams 1765: 1744:How to Do Your Best on Law School Exams 583: 478: 373: 180: 79: 38: 2994:Knowledge (XXG) level-4 vital articles 2953: 2882: 2841: 2601: 2590:American philosopher since John Dewey. 2585: 2575:John Rawls, who died in 2002, was the 2574: 2563: 262:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Philosophy 1625:, has been nominated for deletion at 1054:I removed the citations of Dworkin's 439:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Sociology 7: 3074:C-Class Analytic philosophy articles 2690:The following discussion is closed. 1070:is a work in constitutional theory. 544:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Politics 524:This article is within the scope of 419:This article is within the scope of 240:This article is within the scope of 125:This article is within the scope of 3039:High-importance Philosophy articles 2422:Suggestions please for related term 1657:then it cannot be uploaded or used. 1066:is a work in political philosophy. 135:and the subjects encompassed by it. 68:It is of interest to the following 14: 3104:High-importance politics articles 3094:Mid-importance sociology articles 2023:. Please take a moment to review 1903:. Please take a moment to review 1742:Author John Delaney in his book " 1623:File:Thomas Hobbes (portrait).jpg 2934:The discussion above is closed. 2428:Talk:Internal Market Bill#Jurist 2359:) 17:41, 24 May 2019 (URC) (UTC) 1614: 1284:If you're going to change every 603: 585: 511: 501: 480: 406: 396: 375: 227: 217: 182: 112: 102: 81: 48: 39: 3049:High-importance ethics articles 2640:2) Knowledge (XXG) is based on 2468:Suggestion to remove John Rawls 2161:I edited that to “Jurisprudence 1631:Deletion requests February 2012 1621:An image used in this article, 1229:This is an automated notice by 564:This article has been rated as 459:This article has been rated as 341:Social and political philosophy 282:This article has been rated as 265:Template:WikiProject Philosophy 161:This article has been rated as 141:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Law 3004:C-Class level-4 vital articles 2379:09:20, 26 September 2019 (UTC) 1585:10:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC) 1406:04:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC) 636:Guild of Copy Editors articles 442:Template:WikiProject Sociology 1: 3109:WikiProject Politics articles 2975:04:20, 12 December 2023 (UTC) 2903:05:53, 14 February 2023 (UTC) 2883:the course of court decisions 2877:12:33, 13 February 2023 (UTC) 2858:22:24, 12 February 2023 (UTC) 2823:21:47, 12 February 2023 (UTC) 2789:15:33, 11 February 2023 (UTC) 2769:13:43, 10 February 2023 (UTC) 2753:13:09, 10 February 2023 (UTC) 2682:Merger with Philosophy of Law 2648:a superlatively eminent one. 2274:06:12, 27 November 2018 (UTC) 2255:04:42, 27 November 2018 (UTC) 2232:04:11, 27 November 2018 (UTC) 2217:00:17, 27 November 2018 (UTC) 2189:23:58, 26 November 2018 (UTC) 2137:03:12, 7 September 2018 (UTC) 1704:11:57, 13 February 2014 (UTC) 1680:20:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC) 1346:18:28, 28 November 2014 (UTC) 1114:05:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC) 886:22:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC) 705:00:20, 16 November 2005 (UTC) 547:Template:WikiProject Politics 538:and see a list of open tasks. 433:and see a list of open tasks. 2943:Post-(non)-merger discussion 2721:16:23, 7 December 2023 (UTC) 2668:13:28, 28 January 2022 (UTC) 2630:08:35, 28 January 2022 (UTC) 2615:22:42, 27 January 2022 (UTC) 2551:22:17, 27 January 2022 (UTC) 2532:19:24, 26 January 2022 (UTC) 2506:19:16, 26 January 2022 (UTC) 2487:11:36, 25 January 2022 (UTC) 2398:01:31, 5 February 2020 (UTC) 2117:08:19, 3 December 2017 (UTC) 1753:Jurisprudential consciouness 1733:08:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC) 1539:15:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC) 1516:14:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC) 1494:14:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC) 1472:14:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC) 1445:13:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC) 1430:13:13, 11 October 2009 (UTC) 1204:requirements for such images 1185:01:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC) 1168:11:40, 25 January 2022 (UTC) 1143:14:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC) 991:01:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC) 872:01:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC) 857:01:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC) 802:22:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC) 775:01:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC) 3034:C-Class Philosophy articles 3024:Top-importance law articles 2605:not arguing in good faith. 2444:18:00, 8 October 2020 (UTC) 1884:12:25, 16 August 2016 (UTC) 1867:07:44, 15 August 2016 (UTC) 1629:in the following category: 1601:22:56, 1 October 2010 (UTC) 1380:15:03, 4 October 2011 (UTC) 1272:22:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC) 1239:01:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC) 838:14:30, 5 January 2017 (UTC) 765:03:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC) 695:22:21, 3 October 2005 (UTC) 25:of this article appears in 3130: 3089:C-Class sociology articles 3054:Ethics task force articles 2463:07:37, 15 April 2021 (UTC) 2417:02:46, 17 April 2020 (UTC) 2080:(last update: 5 June 2024) 2016:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 2007:18:57, 29 April 2017 (UTC) 1970:(last update: 5 June 2024) 1896:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 1846:08:17, 2 August 2016 (UTC) 1806:. 10 (1988-1989) (1–2): 87 1258:09:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC) 1085:08:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC) 570:project's importance scale 465:project's importance scale 288:project's importance scale 167:project's importance scale 3099:C-Class politics articles 2707:merge, on the grounds of 2330:08:01, 21 July 2023 (UTC) 2260:, one of the top hits is 2179:. Hence this discussion. 1738:Jurisprudential awareness 1562:14:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC) 679:22:20 May 12, 2003 (UTC) 598: 563: 496: 458: 391: 355: 339: 323: 294: 281: 212: 160: 97: 76: 3029:WikiProject Law articles 2936:Please do not modify it. 2891:the Cambridge Dictionary 2693:Please do not modify it. 1874:Here is fine. Thank you 1828:Sharia and Fiqh in Islam 1800:"Law and Caunsciousness" 1042:6 July 2005 23:46 (UTC) 955:15:38, 8 June 2022 (UTC) 925:15:18, 8 June 2022 (UTC) 905:14:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC) 740:00:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC) 144:Template:WikiProject Law 3044:C-Class ethics articles 2315:10:48, 4 May 2019 (UTC) 2012:External links modified 1892:External links modified 1818:Knowledge (XXG):library 1050:21/08/2005, 16:33 GMT 867:claims made by Fuller. 862:Natural law - No Locke? 299:Associated task forces: 2989:C-Class vital articles 1816:Reffered with help of 1672:CommonsNotificationBot 1218:non-free use rationale 624:, on 1–8 January 2019. 352: 336: 320: 243:WikiProject Philosophy 2436:John Maynard Friedman 1876:....SandwitchHawk.... 1838:....SandwitchHawk.... 1820:access for Heinonline 1694:going to remove it.-- 1386:english jurisprudence 1300:s in louuercase, and 627:Guild of Copy Editors 621:Guild of Copy Editors 593:Guild of Copy Editors 422:WikiProject Sociology 351: 335: 319: 62:on Knowledge (XXG)'s 55:level-4 vital article 3019:C-Class law articles 2202:law and theory used 2163:is the study of the 2061:regular verification 1951:regular verification 1689:Critical Rationalism 1452:naturalistic fallacy 527:WikiProject Politics 199:Social and political 2586:Rawls remained the 2403:Evaluate an article 2051:After February 2018 1941:After February 2018 1068:Red, White and Blue 1058:and Mark Tushnet's 357:Analytic philosophy 268:Philosophy articles 2734:and the one here, 2566:most distinguished 2207:seem sufficient. 2122:Article Evaulation 2105:InternetArchiveBot 2056:InternetArchiveBot 1995:InternetArchiveBot 1946:InternetArchiveBot 1804:Cardozo Law Review 1798:Reich, Charles A. 1655:fair use rationale 1095:Reasons to merge: 967:Reasons to merge: 618:, a member of the 445:sociology articles 353: 337: 321: 253:general discussion 64:content assessment 2956:Philosophy of law 2807:canon (canon law) 2799:law and economics 2732:Philosophy of law 2360: 2347:comment added by 2081: 1971: 1686: 1685: 1635:What should I do? 1627:Wikimedia Commons 1396:comment added by 1370:comment added by 1296:s ;-) instead of 805: 788:comment added by 652: 651: 648: 647: 644: 643: 610:This article was 580: 579: 576: 575: 550:politics articles 475: 474: 471: 470: 370: 369: 366: 365: 362: 361: 235:Philosophy portal 177: 176: 173: 172: 33: 32: 3121: 2973: 2967: 2785: 2780: 2738:. I agree with @ 2695: 2642:reliable sources 2636:ANI is that way. 2577:most influential 2371:Drewhcochran1999 2115: 2106: 2079: 2078: 2057: 2005: 1996: 1969: 1968: 1947: 1821: 1815: 1813: 1811: 1795: 1789: 1788: 1786: 1784: 1770: 1721:Thanks and rgds 1646:If the image is 1618: 1611: 1610: 1490: 1485: 1468: 1463: 1456:is-ought problem 1408: 1382: 1332: 1283: 1216:That there is a 1196:File:1kelsen.jpg 1176:More alterations 1140:Metamagician3000 1111:Metamagician3000 1082:Metamagician3000 1064:Sovereign Virtue 937: 913:Metamagician3000 902:Metamagician3000 869:Metamagician3000 854:Metamagician3000 804: 782: 772:Metamagician3000 736: 731: 638: 637: 634: 631: 628: 607: 600: 599: 589: 582: 552: 551: 548: 545: 542: 521: 516: 515: 505: 498: 497: 492: 484: 477: 447: 446: 443: 440: 437: 416: 411: 410: 400: 393: 392: 387: 379: 372: 306: 296: 270: 269: 266: 263: 260: 237: 232: 231: 230: 221: 214: 213: 208: 205: 186: 179: 149: 148: 145: 142: 139: 122: 117: 116: 106: 99: 98: 93: 85: 78: 61: 52: 51: 44: 43: 35: 16: 3129: 3128: 3124: 3123: 3122: 3120: 3119: 3118: 2979: 2978: 2963: 2961: 2945: 2940: 2939: 2895:Generalrelative 2850:Generalrelative 2846:Merrian-Webster 2783: 2778: 2728: 2691: 2684: 2660:Generalrelative 2650:Michael C. Dorf 2646:Martha Nussbaum 2607:Generalrelative 2524:Generalrelative 2498:Generalrelative 2470: 2451: 2449:Page Evaluation 2424: 2405: 2386: 2366: 2364:New evaluation? 2338: 2336:Article quality 2300: 2144: 2124: 2109: 2104: 2072: 2065:have permission 2055: 2029:this simple FaQ 2014: 1999: 1994: 1962: 1955:have permission 1945: 1909:this simple FaQ 1894: 1855: 1830: 1825: 1824: 1809: 1807: 1797: 1796: 1792: 1782: 1780: 1773:Delaney, John. 1772: 1771: 1767: 1755: 1740: 1711: 1691: 1609: 1569: 1567:Wittgenstein??? 1552:same manner? - 1549: 1488: 1483: 1466: 1461: 1414: 1409: 1391: 1388: 1365: 1354: 1326: 1308:s in VPPERCASE. 1277: 1246: 1192: 1178: 1093: 1004: 965: 935: 893: 864: 845: 783: 752: 734: 729: 657: 635: 632: 629: 626: 625: 566:High-importance 549: 546: 543: 540: 539: 519:Politics portal 517: 510: 491:High‑importance 490: 444: 441: 438: 435: 434: 412: 405: 385: 304: 284:High-importance 267: 264: 261: 258: 257: 233: 228: 226: 207:High‑importance 206: 192: 146: 143: 140: 137: 136: 128:WikiProject Law 118: 111: 91: 59: 49: 12: 11: 5: 3127: 3125: 3117: 3116: 3111: 3106: 3101: 3096: 3091: 3086: 3081: 3076: 3071: 3066: 3061: 3056: 3051: 3046: 3041: 3036: 3031: 3026: 3021: 3016: 3011: 3006: 3001: 2996: 2991: 2981: 2980: 2950: 2944: 2941: 2933: 2932: 2931: 2930: 2929: 2928: 2927: 2926: 2925: 2924: 2923: 2922: 2921: 2920: 2919: 2918: 2917: 2745:Dawkin Verbier 2727: 2726: 2725: 2724: 2723: 2686: 2685: 2683: 2680: 2679: 2678: 2677: 2676: 2675: 2674: 2673: 2672: 2671: 2670: 2657: 2654:Jedediah Purdy 2638: 2594: 2588:most important 2583: 2572: 2556: 2555: 2554: 2553: 2535: 2534: 2508: 2469: 2466: 2455:Vanessajibarra 2450: 2447: 2423: 2420: 2409:Tricia.e.advin 2404: 2401: 2385: 2384:New Evaluation 2382: 2365: 2362: 2337: 2334: 2333: 2332: 2307:145.129.136.48 2299: 2296: 2283: 2282: 2281: 2280: 2279: 2278: 2277: 2276: 2238:iurisprudentia 2159: 2158: 2151: 2143: 2140: 2123: 2120: 2099: 2098: 2091: 2044: 2043: 2035:Added archive 2013: 2010: 1989: 1988: 1981: 1934: 1933: 1925:Added archive 1923: 1915:Added archive 1893: 1890: 1889: 1888: 1887: 1886: 1854: 1852:juridical work 1849: 1829: 1826: 1823: 1822: 1790: 1764: 1763: 1761: 1754: 1751: 1749: 1739: 1736: 1710: 1707: 1690: 1687: 1684: 1683: 1659: 1658: 1651: 1637: 1636: 1619: 1608: 1605: 1604: 1603: 1577:75.141.113.231 1575:jurisprudence? 1568: 1565: 1548: 1545: 1544: 1543: 1542: 1541: 1523: 1522: 1521: 1520: 1519: 1518: 1499: 1498: 1497: 1496: 1475: 1474: 1413: 1410: 1389: 1387: 1384: 1353: 1352:?? Equitative? 1350: 1349: 1348: 1335: 1324: 1317: 1313:iurisprudentia 1309: 1245: 1242: 1227: 1226: 1225: 1224: 1221: 1191: 1188: 1177: 1174: 1173: 1172: 1171: 1170: 1150: 1149: 1148: 1147: 1146: 1145: 1130: 1129: 1128: 1127: 1117: 1116: 1092: 1089: 1088: 1087: 1072: 1052: 1044: 1035: 1027: 1022: 1017: 1009: 1003: 1000: 998: 996: 995: 994: 993: 980: 964: 961: 960: 959: 958: 957: 908: 907: 892: 889: 878:69.178.122.114 863: 860: 844: 841: 826: 825: 822: 819: 816: 813: 778: 777: 751: 748: 747: 746: 745: 744: 743: 742: 718: 717: 716: 715: 708: 707: 672: 671: 656: 653: 650: 649: 646: 645: 642: 641: 639: 608: 596: 595: 590: 578: 577: 574: 573: 562: 556: 555: 553: 536:the discussion 523: 522: 506: 494: 493: 485: 473: 472: 469: 468: 461:Mid-importance 457: 451: 450: 448: 431:the discussion 418: 417: 414:Society portal 401: 389: 388: 386:Mid‑importance 380: 368: 367: 364: 363: 360: 359: 354: 344: 343: 338: 328: 327: 322: 312: 311: 309: 307: 301: 300: 292: 291: 280: 274: 273: 271: 239: 238: 222: 210: 209: 187: 175: 174: 171: 170: 163:Top-importance 159: 153: 152: 150: 124: 123: 107: 95: 94: 92:Top‑importance 86: 74: 73: 67: 45: 31: 30: 19: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3126: 3115: 3112: 3110: 3107: 3105: 3102: 3100: 3097: 3095: 3092: 3090: 3087: 3085: 3082: 3080: 3077: 3075: 3072: 3070: 3067: 3065: 3062: 3060: 3057: 3055: 3052: 3050: 3047: 3045: 3042: 3040: 3037: 3035: 3032: 3030: 3027: 3025: 3022: 3020: 3017: 3015: 3012: 3010: 3007: 3005: 3002: 3000: 2997: 2995: 2992: 2990: 2987: 2986: 2984: 2977: 2976: 2971: 2966: 2959: 2957: 2948: 2942: 2937: 2915: 2911: 2906: 2905: 2904: 2900: 2896: 2892: 2888: 2884: 2880: 2879: 2878: 2874: 2870: 2866: 2861: 2860: 2859: 2855: 2851: 2847: 2843: 2839: 2836: 2833: 2830: 2826: 2825: 2824: 2820: 2816: 2812: 2808: 2804: 2800: 2796: 2795:legal realism 2792: 2791: 2790: 2787: 2786: 2781: 2774: 2773: 2772: 2771: 2770: 2766: 2762: 2757: 2756: 2755: 2754: 2750: 2746: 2741: 2737: 2736:Jurisprudence 2733: 2722: 2718: 2714: 2710: 2706: 2702: 2701: 2700: 2697: 2694: 2688: 2687: 2681: 2669: 2665: 2661: 2658: 2655: 2651: 2647: 2643: 2639: 2637: 2633: 2632: 2631: 2627: 2623: 2618: 2617: 2616: 2612: 2608: 2603: 2599: 2596:Finally, per 2595: 2593: 2591: 2589: 2584: 2582: 2580: 2578: 2573: 2571: 2569: 2567: 2562: 2561: 2560: 2559: 2558: 2557: 2552: 2548: 2544: 2539: 2538: 2537: 2536: 2533: 2529: 2525: 2521: 2518: 2515: 2512: 2509: 2507: 2503: 2499: 2495: 2491: 2490: 2489: 2488: 2484: 2480: 2476: 2467: 2465: 2464: 2460: 2456: 2448: 2446: 2445: 2441: 2437: 2433: 2429: 2421: 2419: 2418: 2414: 2410: 2402: 2400: 2399: 2395: 2391: 2383: 2381: 2380: 2376: 2372: 2363: 2361: 2358: 2354: 2350: 2346: 2335: 2331: 2327: 2323: 2319: 2318: 2317: 2316: 2312: 2308: 2304: 2297: 2295: 2293: 2289: 2275: 2271: 2267: 2263: 2258: 2257: 2256: 2252: 2248: 2244: 2239: 2235: 2234: 2233: 2229: 2225: 2220: 2219: 2218: 2214: 2210: 2205: 2201: 2197: 2193: 2192: 2191: 2190: 2186: 2182: 2178: 2175: 2172: 2170: 2166: 2157:study of law? 2156: 2152: 2149: 2148: 2147: 2142:Lede sentence 2141: 2139: 2138: 2134: 2130: 2121: 2119: 2118: 2113: 2108: 2107: 2096: 2092: 2089: 2085: 2084: 2083: 2076: 2070: 2066: 2062: 2058: 2052: 2047: 2042: 2038: 2034: 2033: 2032: 2030: 2026: 2022: 2021:Jurisprudence 2017: 2011: 2009: 2008: 2003: 1998: 1997: 1986: 1982: 1979: 1975: 1974: 1973: 1966: 1960: 1956: 1952: 1948: 1942: 1937: 1932: 1928: 1924: 1922: 1918: 1914: 1913: 1912: 1910: 1906: 1902: 1901:Jurisprudence 1897: 1891: 1885: 1881: 1877: 1873: 1872: 1871: 1870: 1869: 1868: 1864: 1860: 1853: 1850: 1848: 1847: 1843: 1839: 1834: 1827: 1819: 1805: 1801: 1794: 1791: 1778: 1777: 1769: 1766: 1762: 1759: 1752: 1750: 1747: 1745: 1737: 1735: 1734: 1730: 1726: 1722: 1719: 1715: 1708: 1706: 1705: 1701: 1697: 1688: 1682: 1681: 1677: 1673: 1669: 1665: 1664: 1656: 1652: 1649: 1645: 1644: 1643: 1641: 1634: 1633: 1632: 1628: 1624: 1620: 1617: 1613: 1612: 1606: 1602: 1598: 1594: 1589: 1588: 1587: 1586: 1582: 1578: 1574: 1566: 1564: 1563: 1559: 1555: 1546: 1540: 1536: 1532: 1527: 1526: 1525: 1524: 1517: 1513: 1509: 1505: 1504: 1503: 1502: 1501: 1500: 1495: 1492: 1491: 1486: 1479: 1478: 1477: 1476: 1473: 1470: 1469: 1464: 1457: 1453: 1449: 1448: 1447: 1446: 1442: 1438: 1432: 1431: 1427: 1423: 1420: 1411: 1407: 1403: 1399: 1398:119.154.31.36 1395: 1385: 1383: 1381: 1377: 1373: 1372:111.68.97.164 1369: 1363: 1359: 1351: 1347: 1343: 1339: 1336: 1330: 1325: 1322: 1319:* rather, as 1318: 1314: 1310: 1307: 1304:s instead of 1303: 1299: 1295: 1291: 1287: 1281: 1276: 1275: 1274: 1273: 1269: 1265: 1260: 1259: 1255: 1251: 1243: 1241: 1240: 1236: 1232: 1222: 1219: 1215: 1214: 1213: 1212: 1211: 1209: 1205: 1201: 1197: 1189: 1187: 1186: 1183: 1175: 1169: 1165: 1161: 1158: 1154: 1153: 1152: 1151: 1144: 1141: 1136: 1135: 1134: 1133: 1132: 1131: 1126: 1121: 1120: 1119: 1118: 1115: 1112: 1108: 1107: 1106: 1105: 1099: 1096: 1090: 1086: 1083: 1078: 1077: 1076: 1071: 1069: 1065: 1061: 1057: 1051: 1048: 1043: 1041: 1034: 1033: 1026: 1021: 1016: 1015: 1008: 1001: 999: 992: 989: 985: 984: 983: 982: 981: 978: 977: 971: 968: 962: 956: 953: 951: 950: 945: 944: 938: 932: 928: 927: 926: 922: 918: 914: 910: 909: 906: 903: 899: 898: 897: 890: 888: 887: 883: 879: 874: 873: 870: 861: 859: 858: 855: 851: 842: 840: 839: 835: 831: 830:194.61.223.53 823: 820: 817: 814: 811: 810: 809: 806: 803: 799: 795: 791: 787: 776: 773: 769: 768: 767: 766: 763: 758: 755: 749: 741: 738: 737: 732: 724: 723: 722: 721: 720: 719: 712: 711: 710: 709: 706: 703: 699: 698: 697: 696: 693: 689: 684: 680: 678: 669: 668: 667: 666: 661: 654: 640: 623: 622: 617: 613: 609: 606: 602: 601: 597: 594: 591: 588: 584: 571: 567: 561: 558: 557: 554: 537: 533: 529: 528: 520: 514: 509: 507: 504: 500: 499: 495: 489: 486: 483: 479: 466: 462: 456: 453: 452: 449: 432: 428: 424: 423: 415: 409: 404: 402: 399: 395: 394: 390: 384: 381: 378: 374: 358: 350: 346: 345: 342: 334: 330: 329: 326: 318: 314: 313: 310: 308: 303: 302: 297: 293: 289: 285: 279: 276: 275: 272: 255: 254: 249: 245: 244: 236: 225: 223: 220: 216: 215: 211: 204: 200: 196: 191: 188: 185: 181: 168: 164: 158: 155: 154: 151: 134: 130: 129: 121: 115: 110: 108: 105: 101: 100: 96: 90: 87: 84: 80: 75: 71: 65: 57: 56: 46: 42: 37: 36: 28: 24: 20: 18: 17: 2946: 2935: 2886: 2776: 2729: 2709:no consensus 2708: 2704: 2698: 2692: 2689: 2587: 2576: 2565: 2493: 2474: 2471: 2452: 2425: 2406: 2387: 2367: 2343:— Preceding 2339: 2305: 2301: 2284: 2243:Legal Theory 2242: 2237: 2203: 2199: 2195: 2162: 2160: 2154: 2145: 2125: 2103: 2100: 2075:source check 2054: 2048: 2045: 2018: 2015: 1993: 1990: 1965:source check 1944: 1938: 1935: 1898: 1895: 1856: 1835: 1831: 1808:. Retrieved 1803: 1793: 1781:. Retrieved 1775: 1768: 1760: 1756: 1748: 1743: 1741: 1723: 1720: 1716: 1712: 1696:80.89.84.200 1692: 1667: 1666: 1660: 1639: 1638: 1630: 1572: 1570: 1550: 1481: 1459: 1433: 1415: 1412:Introduction 1366:— Preceding 1355: 1312: 1305: 1301: 1297: 1293: 1289: 1285: 1261: 1247: 1228: 1193: 1179: 1125:User:Wikidea 1104:User:Wikidea 1100: 1097: 1094: 1073: 1067: 1063: 1059: 1055: 1053: 1049: 1045: 1036: 1032:Psychobabble 1028: 1023: 1018: 1010: 1005: 997: 979: 976:User:Wikidea 972: 969: 966: 948: 942: 939: 894: 875: 865: 846: 827: 807: 779: 759: 756: 753: 727: 688:lead section 685: 681: 673: 662: 658: 655:Embarrassing 619: 565: 525: 460: 420: 283: 251: 241: 162: 147:law articles 126: 70:WikiProjects 53: 2803:natural law 2155:theoretical 2153:Source for 1640:Don't panic 1392:—Preceding 1208:explanation 891:Dooyeweerd? 850:H.L.A. Hart 784:—Preceding 612:copy edited 133:legal field 2983:Categories 2829:definitely 2112:Report bug 2002:Report bug 1810:21 October 1783:21 October 1573:influenced 1554:Jimmi Hugh 1280:Ellinor127 1250:Ellinor127 1231:FairuseBot 1194:The image 843:Positivism 790:Qwerty2001 762:Subversive 750:Definition 677:Notheruser 259:Philosophy 248:philosophy 190:Philosophy 120:Law portal 2910:Errantios 2827:They are 2390:Charieceb 2322:Errantios 2266:Humanengr 2224:Humanengr 2181:Humanengr 2129:Cantoncic 2095:this tool 2088:this tool 1985:this tool 1978:this tool 1244:Bad Latin 931:Czarking0 917:Czarking0 436:Sociology 427:sociology 383:Sociology 58:is rated 2869:Talpedia 2805:or even 2761:Talpedia 2622:Weagesdf 2598:WP:HOUND 2543:Weagesdf 2479:Weagesdf 2357:contribs 2345:unsigned 2298:Nowhere? 2177:reverted 2101:Cheers.— 1991:Cheers.— 1725:Mahitgar 1648:non-free 1591:lived.-- 1454:and the 1394:unsigned 1368:unsigned 1200:fair use 1160:Weagesdf 798:contribs 786:unsigned 692:Interiot 541:Politics 532:politics 488:Politics 203:Analytic 2740:Wikidea 2713:Klbrain 2349:Lorick7 2288:Wikiain 2247:Wikiain 2209:Wikiain 2174:Wikiain 2025:my edit 1905:my edit 1593:Wikiain 1329:Wikiain 1316:change. 1264:Wikiain 1182:Wikidea 1091:Merging 988:Wikidea 963:Merging 911:Hello @ 702:Never29 616:Dhtwiki 568:on the 463:on the 286:on the 165:on the 60:C-class 23:summary 2815:Jorahm 2811:sharia 2494:at all 2432:jurist 2236:Latin 2165:theory 1547:Humour 1338:Thnidu 1334:"yes". 1288:to an 325:Ethics 195:Ethics 66:scale. 2838:thing 2200:about 1859:Ranze 1358:Jezza 949:edits 47:This 2970:talk 2965:HTGS 2949:does 2914:talk 2899:talk 2873:talk 2854:talk 2844:per 2835:same 2819:talk 2809:and 2797:and 2784:idea 2765:talk 2749:talk 2717:talk 2664:talk 2652:and 2626:talk 2611:talk 2547:talk 2528:talk 2519:and 2502:talk 2483:talk 2459:talk 2440:talk 2413:talk 2394:talk 2375:talk 2353:talk 2326:talk 2311:talk 2292:talk 2270:talk 2262:this 2251:talk 2228:talk 2213:talk 2185:talk 2133:talk 1880:talk 1863:talk 1842:talk 1812:2015 1785:2015 1729:talk 1700:talk 1676:talk 1597:talk 1581:talk 1558:talk 1535:talk 1512:talk 1489:idea 1467:idea 1441:talk 1426:talk 1402:talk 1376:talk 1362:talk 1342:talk 1321:Tiro 1268:talk 1254:talk 1237:. -- 1164:talk 1040:Mulp 943:chat 936:Alyo 921:talk 882:talk 834:talk 794:talk 735:idea 686:The 560:High 278:High 2887:and 2832:the 2779:Wik 2705:not 2703:To 2198:or 2171:”. 2169:law 2167:of 2069:RfC 2039:to 1959:RfC 1929:to 1919:to 1531:JFQ 1508:JFQ 1484:Wik 1462:Wik 1437:JFQ 1422:JFQ 1323:did 1014:LMS 730:Wik 665:LMS 614:by 455:Mid 157:Top 138:Law 89:Law 27:Law 2985:: 2962:— 2901:) 2875:) 2856:) 2821:) 2767:) 2751:) 2719:) 2666:) 2628:) 2613:) 2600:: 2549:) 2530:) 2522:. 2516:, 2513:, 2504:) 2485:) 2461:) 2442:) 2415:) 2396:) 2377:) 2369:-- 2355:• 2328:) 2313:) 2294:) 2272:) 2253:) 2230:) 2215:) 2204:in 2196:of 2187:) 2135:) 2082:. 2077:}} 2073:{{ 1972:. 1967:}} 1963:{{ 1882:) 1865:) 1844:) 1802:. 1731:) 1702:) 1678:) 1670:-- 1599:) 1583:) 1560:) 1537:) 1514:) 1443:) 1428:) 1404:) 1378:) 1344:) 1270:) 1256:) 1166:) 1012:-- 923:) 884:) 852:. 836:) 800:) 796:• 305:/ 201:/ 197:/ 193:: 21:A 2972:) 2968:( 2958:” 2916:) 2912:( 2897:( 2871:( 2852:( 2817:( 2763:( 2747:( 2715:( 2662:( 2624:( 2609:( 2545:( 2526:( 2500:( 2481:( 2457:( 2438:( 2411:( 2392:( 2373:( 2351:( 2324:( 2309:( 2290:( 2268:( 2249:( 2226:( 2211:( 2183:( 2131:( 2114:) 2110:( 2097:. 2090:. 2004:) 2000:( 1987:. 1980:. 1878:( 1861:( 1840:( 1814:. 1787:. 1727:( 1698:( 1674:( 1595:( 1579:( 1556:( 1533:( 1510:( 1439:( 1424:( 1400:( 1374:( 1360:( 1340:( 1331:: 1327:@ 1306:U 1302:V 1298:v 1294:u 1290:i 1286:j 1282:: 1278:@ 1266:( 1252:( 1162:( 952:) 946:· 940:( 929:@ 919:( 880:( 832:( 792:( 572:. 467:. 290:. 169:. 72:: 29:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index