impossible that any scientifically true result is innovative, extending over the facts (and this is the case regardless whether the scientific analysis is conducted by means of interpretation, analysis, or synthesis).84 The opinion was that juristic activity proper only brought forth what already existed and uncovered what was hidden in obscure rules of law. In effect it was only in the harmonization of contradictions in law (performed by means of interpretatio analogica) that jurisprudence tacitly admitted its own productivity.85 In short, the legal theory of the 16th Century did not provide jurists with a method that could help them to discover or produce new law. However, while legal theory in fact denied jurists the ability and authority to make new law, it simultaneously accepted: a) the idea that natural law existed autonomously of positive law; b) that positive law had to correspond to natural law; and c) that the legal scholars (as well as other normative authorities) had the authority to demonstrate the existence and content of natural law.Accordingly, the transfer of rules from natural law to positive law was made possible despite the fact that such a reception of natural law into positive law entailed the introduction and production of norms hitherto unknown in positive law, thus endowing jurisprudence with the tacit authority to produce new law. In such case, the problem is that two mutually excluding contentions about the possibility of including natural law into positive law make themselves heard. First, any inclusion of natural law into positive law, by definition, introduces new matter and new law and is thus unscientific and invalid insofar as the truly scientific conclusion should not contain anything novel to the system of law. Second, any logical subsumption of a positive rule of law under a principle of natural law only states the obvious, namely what is inherent in the premiss, and accordingly the scientific analysis of law does not produce new law, but p a r t v i i , c h a p t e r 1 584 84 Ibid., pp. 79-87 and 91-92. 85 Ibid., pp. 92-93.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=