than the validity of politically legitimated sources of law (legislation, custom, and judicial practice). Taken together, the doctrines of legal sources and method illuminate Hägerström’s ideas of law, especially the doctrine of method, since he only considers himself to have the authority to criticize those parts of the doctrine of sources whose authority and validity depends upon the correct application of a philosophically sound method - that is, jurisprudential doctrine (unless one also fits judicial practice into the field of legal science, which Hägerström, contrary to the Historical School, does not). In conclusion, Hägerström’s critique of the unscientific elements of natural law theory and legal positivism amounts to the thesis that natural law theory, on account of its intrinsic metaphysical dependence, is unscientific per se, while legal positivism becomes unscientific on account of its own unsatisfactory implementation of its scientific theory, positivism, however, this is a defect that can be corrected if the science of law undertakes to reflect critically upon its fundamental principles. Did Hägerström propose a new theory of law or did he adhere to the traditional dogmatic method (subject to philosophical scrutiny)? A common opinion is that both he and the Scandinavian realists opened up legal science to the introduction of non-legal arguments, such as sociological arguments.4 However, it is difficult to give this question a definite answer, as Hägerström, on the one hand, advocates a traditional dogmatic view of legal science, while on the other, analyzes common legal notions and theories with regard to their basis in reality - the latter being an avenue of research that can be understood as realistic if one equates “reality” with sociological facts alone. However, as has p a r t v i i i 650 legal real i sm or legal dogmat i sm? 4 See, e.g.,Verdross, Abendl. Rechtsph., pp. 182-183; Kaufmann, Rechtsphilosophie, pp. 155161(Psychological positivism). Cf. Peczenik, Vad är rätt?, pp.263-264.However, Geiger and Rehbinder, Vorstudien zu einer Soziologie des Rechts, pp. 6-7.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=