What is the difference between Analytical Schools and Historical Schools of Law?

This article describes 10 differences between Analytical Schools and Historical Schools of Law.

Analytical School

1. Leaders: Jeremy Betham and john Austin.
2. “Law is the command of a sovereign” is the concept of this school.
3. The jurisprudents of this school strongly opine that legislation is superior than custom, and that legislation is the result of the command of sovereign.
4. The analysis of the first principles of civil law or the law of land is done irrespective of their historical origin or ethical significance.
5. It is also called as “imperative approach”, as it has “command” in it by the sovereign.
6. It concentrates on “civil law”.
7. It investigates the theory of legal liability.
8. According to this school “law is made”.
9. The jurisprudents give preference to “is” fascinating new interpretations.
10. This approach depends upon present and future.

Image Source: bestmadurai.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/1369822037school.jpg

Historical School

1. Leaders: savigny and puchta.
2. “Law is the spirit of people (volksgeist), i.e. custom” is the concept of this school.
3. The jurisprudents of this school strongly opine that custom is superior to legislation.
4. The analysis of the first principle is that law is the result of historical reasons and circumstances and the spirit of the people.
5. There is an offshoot of this school, known as “anthropological approach”.
6. It deals with all branches of law.
7. It enquires into past and finds the elements of legal liability.
8. According to this school “law is found”.
9. The jurisprudents give the preference to “ought” fascinating new interpretations.
10. This approach depends upon present and past.