jura novit curia 228 ourtsunder Swedish law have the obligation to define the legal issue and solve a case in accordance with the applicable law, independently of any arguments presented by the parties. This is the C general meaning of the principle, jura novit curia, a principle common to most continental jurisdictions. In Swedish law, it generally is agreed that the“applicable law”should be defined as the “law-in- force”, (geltendes Recht or gällande rätt), and that a court’s ruling must be given in accordance with this concept. Though regarded by Swedish lawyers as wellknown and selfevident on a superficial level, the concept of a “law-in-force” is a complex idea, with many theoretical and practical implications. It is argued in this study, that a better understanding of the concept – including its theoretical and practical implications – can be achieved by an investigation of the history underlying the introduction of the concept to Swedish jurisprudence and its immediate impact on Swedish legal methodology. It is further argued that the principlejura novit curiaprovides a suitable framework for this investigation of the law-in-force as a concept. The main conclusion of this study is that the use of the concept of lawin-force within Swedish legal methodology must be understood in the light of theories put forward by the Historical School in the 19th century. Two driving forces underscore this development in legal methodology, as well as fuel the quest for a stable point of departure in the study of law. The first is an increased need for legality, legal certainty and stability in the practical application of law, the second is a reorientation in legal science towards legal positivism. These demands could only be met, however, by overcoming the inherent challenges of positive law, i. e., its historical character and lack of natural substantive limitations. The Historical School sought to solve this problem by advocating a formal limitation of positive law. The doctrine of legal sources provided a formal barrier between law and society, which limited the scope of the inquiry for both practitioners and scholars. The Summary
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=