This article describes 10 differences between Analytical Schools and Historical Schools of Law.
- Leaders: Jeremy Betham and john Austin.
- “Law is the command of a sovereign” is the concept of this school.
- The jurisprudents of this school strongly opine that legislation is superior than custom, and that legislation is the result of the command of sovereign.
- The analysis of the first principles of civil law or the law of land is done irrespective of their historical origin or ethical significance.
- It is also called as “imperative approach”, as it has “command” in it by the sovereign.
- It concentrates on “civil law”.
- It investigates the theory of legal liability.
- According to this school “law is made”.
- The jurisprudents give preference to “is” fascinating new interpretations.
- This approach depends upon present and future.
- Leaders: savigny and puchta.
- “Law is the spirit of people (volksgeist), i.e. custom” is the concept of this school.
- The jurisprudents of this school strongly opine that custom is superior to legislation.
- The analysis of the first principle is that law is the result of historical reasons and circumstances and the spirit of the people.
- There is an offshoot of this school, known as “anthropological approach”.
- It deals with all branches of law.
- It enquires into past and finds the elements of legal liability.
- According to this school “law is found”.
- The jurisprudents give the preference to “ought” fascinating new interpretations.
- This approach depends upon present and past.