of inductive reasoning, legal concepts and principles emerge – almost as if by magic – out of the chaos that is law without doctrine. Legal doctrine, hence, exposes the unity within the legal system to the cold light of scientific inquiry, thereby making legal doctrine theoretically groundedand indispensable to the legal practitioner in one fell swoop. It is tempting to compare legal scholars with an unusually enthusiastic cleaning crew.The task is, basically, the same, to tidy up the mess caused by others. This might seem like a particularly ungrateful and unpleasant chore. Systematization is, after all, a never-ending task.The inductive character of legal systematization means that whenever something within the system changes – the introduction of a new or modified statute, even a precedent - the whole structure starts to shift. Even the most abstract elements of the legal system – principles and concepts – change emphasis and scope, albeit almost imperceptibly at first, as soon as their legal basis, statutes, customs and case law, is altered. The German jurist, Julius von Kirchmann, gave doctrine’s precarious dependence on other sources of law a succinct expression in his famous assertion that “three corrective words by the law-maker will turn whole libraries into waste paper”. It follows that legal scholars are hostages to, or possibly servants of, the system. Legal scholars, however, expected to be fully compensated. In the absence of a code, the vital task of systematizing law inevitably falls on the law faculties37, catapulting legal doctrine to an exalted position within the legal method. During the latter half of the 19th century, legal inventions emanate more often than not from legal doctrine, earning it an epithet the Law of professors that places it on a par with any other source of law. In fact, legal scholars at the time argued that the systematization of law was absolutely vital to a modern society, since the only way to ensure that judges are able to settle disputes in a uniform and foreseeable manner is to maintain a systematic structure in law.Were scholars to shirk their responsibility, the courts would have to settle disputes case by case. Legal scholars on strike are a threat to legal certainty. This is, however, only part of the rationale behind Swedish jurists’ penchant for this particular source of law. It turns out that legal scholars have another trick up their sleeves. Legal doctrine has, in actual fact, dual functions. Its theoretical function re cht swi s s e n scha f t al s j ur i st i sch e dok t r i n 306 37 At this point the Nordic legal family deviates from the civil law tradition in general, since the importance of legal doctrine is enhanced by the absence of a comprehensive code.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=