Differences Between General Jurisprudence and Particular Jurisprudence are as follows:
- Austin defines “general jurisprudence”: “General jurisprudence is the science concerned with the exposition of the principles, notions and distinctions which are common to the systems of law, understanding by systems of law, the ampler and mature systems which, by reason of their amplitude and maturity, are pre-eminently pregnant with instruction”.
General jurisprudence is an attempt to expound the fundamental principles and broadest generalizations of two or more systems.
- It is an effort to bring two or more jurisprudences under one umbrella and analyze them.
- It is the province of general, pure or abstract jurisprudence to analyze and systematize the essential elements underlying the indefinite variety of legal rules without special reference to the institution of any particular country.
- The field of general jurisprudence is wider than particular jurisprudence.
- It procures data from two or more countries.
- EXAMPLE: possession is accepted as nine tenth of its right throughout the world.
- Austin defines ‘particular jurisprudence’: “particular jurisprudence is the science of any one of such systems of law or any portion of it. The only practical jurisprudence is particular”.
- Particular jurisprudence is confined only one jurisprudence at a time, viz. Hindu jurisprudence, Roman jurisprudence, Islamic jurisprudence, etc.
- The particular jurisprudence is practical jurisprudence.
- Particular jurisprudence is confined to particular country or sometimes to a particular area too.
- The field of particular jurisprudence is narrower than general jurisprudence.
- It procures data from one particular system of law only.
- EXAMPLE: in particular jurisprudence, the period of possession differs from one country to another.