Perhaps numbers can be trusted after all? One thing is, at last, clear:The statistics prove without a shadow of a doubt that the prevailing doctrines of legal sources are inconsistent with the “practical” method used by a selection of Swedish jurists.This discrepancy may present a problem to legal scholars. Chances are, that most people – including jurists – will conclude that theory must adapt to practice.The question is, however, why theory must defer to a mere convention among legal practitioners.One can, of course, argue that empirical proof always supersedes theoretical speculation, but that would be to miss the point. The crux of the matter is whether legal method is prescribed to or developed by jurists. Legal method is arguably prescriptive, rather than descriptive in character, but the real question is whether it is theoretical or practical in nature. Nordling’s point of view, which I happen to share, is that legal method is neither theoretical, nor practical. Instead, it is clearly both. If one accepts this assumption, then the discrepancy between the prescriptive doctrines of legal sources and its descriptive counterpart is a real problem.A method, aimed at benchmarking legal practice, must surely pass the test of practical application. No amount of theoretical arguments can compensate for a poor practical performance. Another possible argument against the demand for a more “realistic” doctrine of legal sources is the passing of time. Both studies are now almost 15years old. Conditions within and “without” the legal profession have doubtless changed. It is possible, albeit very unlikely, that legal scholars just have been ahead of the game.Very little speak in favour of this hypothesis. Since the survey was carried out, most legal sources have been made readily available on the Internet, thus making more material easily accessible to jurists. The increased availability of legal material could have led to a decrease in the importance of legal doctrine, thereby reducing the chasm between theory and practice.41 In fact, the opposite seem to be true. Jurists seem to put even more faith in legal doctrine today than they did fifteen years ago. The sheer amount of material appears to prompt jurists to actively seek out a source of law that focuses on the structure of law. Even the internationalization of Swedish law seems to strengthen, rather than weaken mar i e sand st röm 309 41 Cf Sandgren, ibidem, p 592. Back to the future?
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=