University studies mean critical reading of texts and also reflection. The latter should be stimulated by lectures and exercises as well as by discussions. In order to meet the needs of students, here we offer a manual for the study of legal philosophy. This manual is based on an innovative idea: to convey a legal aspect through questions and answers. It is based on a philosophical approach to the study of law. We have assumed that the subject of legal philosophy can be treated in five sections. These are: (i) methodology; (II) persons; (III) approaches; (IV) concepts; and (V) rigid cases. The content of our book reflects this division into parts. At the beginning, however, we must mention a few caveats. First, this textbook examines the problems of contemporary legal philosophy, but it is by no means a textbook of the history of legal philosophy. Secondly, this manual has a module-based organization. In the future, it will be possible to modify these modules as needed. It is therefore an open offer, which will certainly be – and this has been part of the project from the beginning – subject to further changes, additions and modifications in subsequent editions.
Some law schools in Indonesia reject social law studies with epistemological arguments that call for sui generis jurisprudence. The rejection is based on the argument that jurisprudence is a normative science. In fact, there have long been social law studies on the development of jurisprudence outside Indonesia that have contributed to legal reform. Social law studies are also important for legal reform. It is caused by the existence of a non-doctrinal aspect in the legislation and implementation of the law. Therefore, the place and relevance of social law research are not linked to the existence or absence of a place for social law research in the structure of case-law, but to the existence or absence of envisaged advantages for the development of national law or case-law. The purpose of this article is to formulate a new concept of naturalization of law. I will begin by highlighting the conceptual problems associated with the concept of naturalization. I then describe and criticize three different approaches to the naturalization project: separation, radical naturalization, and moderate naturalization.
I argue that the theoretical problems surrounding these three views are so profound that a new perspective on the naturalization of law is needed. Finally, I try to offer such a perspective by formulating a theory that emphasizes that naturalization is a matter of degree and is measured by the degree of consistency between legal and scientific knowledge. The practising lawyer of the past hardly needed to think about the trial. The methodology of doctrinal research has evolved intuitively within the common law – a research method at the heart of practice. There was no need to justify them or place them within a broader research framework. Modern academic lawyers face a different situation. At a time when competition for limited research funding is intensifying, interdisciplinary work is highly valued, and non-lawyers are involved in the review of funding applications, legal applicants conducting educational research need to be able to explain their methodology more clearly. Teachers need to be more open and articulate their methods. These methods may be different in different contexts.
This article examines the doctrinal method used in legal research and its place in recent research dialogue. Some commentators argue that the doctrinal method is simply scholarship rather than separate research. This article serves to distinguish a deeper understanding between normative and empirical legal research. Case law is typically sui generis or “in itself”, it contains norms, and its scope, namely legal dogmatics, legal theory and philosophy of law, is used to resolve legal questions or problems. Otherwise, empirical science, armed with its methodology, particularly in connection with the sociology of law and research in social law, describes only legal phenomena. Therefore, this article primarily criticizes the failure of the sociology of law to resolve legal issues or problems for legal practice or jurisprudence. Keywords: legal research, jurisprudence. The first chapter introduces the topic by explaining keywords such as research, legal research, method and methodology.