In other words, the proper task of legal science is generally conceived of as being practical, namely to help the judge to determine the content of valid law.To the practical aspects of dogmatic legal science Hägerström had no objection, for he also held the opinion that jurisprudence could be of assistance to the judge if, and only if, jurisprudence determined valid law (Swedish: gällande rätt) by establishing which coercive measures prescribed by positive law that were either legal in respect to a higher positive norm, or legally applicable in a specific case.475 The task of legal science is thus to help the judge to decide under what conditions that a legal fact can be said to be at hand, and whether or not the corresponding legal effect should be applied.476 By defining the task of legal science in such a narrow, technical, and practical manner, Hägerström effectively denied that other areas of legal science other than legal dogmatics (jurisprudence) could produce texts having any legal authority. In other words, of the different discourses of legal science it was only the dogmatic discourse that had the authority to stipulate principles of law and constitute a source of law.477 Other areas of legal science, such as, for example, the sociology of law, legal philosophy, legal history, legal politics, legal psychology, and legal economics were, due to the fact that they never expressed valid principles of positive law, considered to be incapable of producing legal knowledge having any direct practical utility and relevance to the practicing judge.478 Consequently, these discourses neither could, nor did, constitute proper sources of law. With respect to Hägerström’s strict theory of science and his exclusion of the non-dogmatic scientific discourses from the doctrine of legal sources, the fact that legal positivists such as Hägerp a r t v i , c h a p t e r 8 528 475 Ibid., pp. 2-3; Hägerström,“Begreppet gällande rätt,” pp. 62-63. 476 Hägerström, Magistratische Ius, pp. 2-3;“Begreppet gällande rätt,” pp. 62-64 and 88. 477 Hägerström, Stat och rätt, pp. 1-18. 478 Hägerström,“Begreppet gällande rätt,” pp. 54-55 and 62-63. 8 . 1. 1 the enigma
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=