Next, the criticism of the definitions of jurisprudence given by different jurists is presented.
1. Criticisms of the Austin Definition of Jurisprudence:
has. Salmond’s critique
The error in Austin’s idea of general jurisprudence is that it assumes that unless a legal principle is common to many legal systems, it cannot be treated within general jurisprudence. There may be many schools of jurisprudence but not different types of it.
b. Criticism from Holland:
Holland points out that it is only the material that is particular and not the science itself.
2. Criticisms of Holland’s definition of jurisprudence:
has. by grey:
The actual relation of jurisprudence to the law depends not on what law it is but on how the law is treated.
b. By Dr Jenks:
He observed that the jurist can only recognize a law by its para, because it is the form that causes the multiple matter of phenomena to be perceived, but having obtained the form, as it were, on the operating table, he has to dissect it and determine its meaning. Jurisprudence is concerned with means rather than ends, although some of its means are ends in themselves.
3. Criticisms of Salmond’s Definition of Jurisprudence:
It is claimed that Salmond did not give a precise and scientific definition and also the divisions he made of jurisprudence in general and particular arouse much criticism, as Holland notes that these expressions should be discarded as science should be treated as such. unable to divide into these two branches.
