Deo Dexter G.

Guillermo

Question: Compare and Contrast the following: 1. Analytic Jurisprudence, 2. Normative

Jurisprudence; 3. Critical Jurisprudence

Answer:
The principal objective of analytic jurisprudence has traditionally been to provide an account of what
distinguishes law as a system of norms from other systems of norms, such as ethical norms.
Accordingly, analytic jurisprudence is concerned with providing necessary and sufficient conditions
for the existence of law that distinguish law from non-law. To clarify the role of conceptual analysis
in law, Brian Bix (1995) distinguishes a number of different purposes that can be served by conceptual
claims: to track linguistic usage; to stipulate meanings; to explain what is important or essential about
a class of objects; and to establish an evaluative test for the concept-word.

On the other hand, Normative jurisprudence involves normative, evaluative, and otherwise
prescriptive questions about the law. It basically answers three key issues: (a) when and to what extent
laws can restrict the freedom of citizens, (b) the nature of one's obligation to obey the law, and (c) the
justification of punishment by law.

Lastly, Critical jurisprudence or Critical Legal Study (CLS) differs to the other two since it attempts to
expand the radical aspects of legal realism into a Marxist critique of mainstream liberal jurisprudence.
CLS theorists believe the realists understate the extent of indeterminacy; whereas the realists believe
that indeterminacy is local in the sense that it is confined to a certain class of cases, CLS theorists
argue that law is radically (or globally) indeterminate in the sense that the class of available legal
materials rarely, if ever, logically/causally entails a unique outcome. Moreover, CLS is a theory which
states that the law is necessarily intertwined with social issues, particularly stating that the law has
inherent social biases. Proponents of CLS believe that the law supports the interests of those who
create the law. As such, CLS states that the law supports a power dynamic which favors the historically
privileged and disadvantages the historically underprivileged. CLS finds that the wealthy and the
powerful use the law as an instrument for oppression in order to maintain their place in hierarchy.
Many in the CLS movement want to overturn the hierarchical structures of modern society and they
focus on the law as a tool in achieving this goal.

Sources:

Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Retrieved from: https://www.iep.utm.edu

Legal Information Institute, Retrieved from: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/critical_legal_theory