Philosophy of Law as Compared to Theory of Law and Jurisprudence

Abstract

Considerations of general jurisprudence are undertaken in three disciplines of knowledge recognised as separate: theory of law, philosophy of law and jurisprudence. However, the problems undertaken in the three above-mentioned disciplines are very similar. The author of the article tries to show that these disciplines, while having a different subject of study, are at the same time separate branches of knowledge within general jurisprudence. The subject of theory of law and the subject of philosophy of law are analysed, since, in the author’s opinion, jurisprudence – in the strict sense of the word – is not a science of law, but it is the art of applying law; its aim is actual application of law and it is connected with practical, common sense cognition. Philosophy of law seeks answers to the questions: “what is law?”, “how and why does law exist?”, “what are the aims and functions of law?” These questions have a philosophical character. Having its starting point in the fact of existence of proclaimed law, philosophy of law strives after explaining the very fact of law in the epistemological, ontological and axiological aspects. Theory of law does not formulate its statements on such a level of generalisation as philosophy. Analyses carried out within this theory are concerned with notions used in jurisprudence, notions of the legal language and with the rules of interpretation. It also has a descriptive character, showing how law functions and what its reception in the society is. Theory of law will include studies of proclaimed law using sociological and psychological methods.