A society without a law school is a terrifying scenario.
The question of whether a law is a technology or a science is a classic question of legal philosophy. Jan-Erik Ingvall (HBL Debate 27.4) still makes it very easy for himself when he writes that law is not a science and the reason for his attaining college standing is only due to an old tradition. He says the law is “an arbitrary interpretation of arbitrary laws and decrees.”
Admittedly, it is interesting to discuss the status of law as a science, but such discussion must then be based on what is meant by science. Then one must not confuse the law, that is, jurisprudence, with the applicable law, that is, the application of the law.
The judge who applies the laws does not practice knowledge, but rather what he teaches jurisprudence, which is the science that allows the judge to avoid arbitrariness. A judge is as little scientific as a doctor when he takes care of his patients and applies what science (medicine) teaches him. To say that jurisprudence is not a science is as outrageous as to say that philosophy is not. But as I said, of course it depends on how we define science.
Nor were laws and regulations “added arbitrarily.” We have a legal system that has developed over several centuries and goes back in part to thousands of years. It places limits on what can be achieved through legislation. Here in the Nordic countries, we are often proud of the legal traditions and values that underpin our legal systems. We are also trying to live up to the international commitments that we have committed to.
As is well known, the legal system is not complete and there are many shortcomings. There are also internal and external threats. One of the most important tasks of jurists and jurists is to defend our legal system and to work continuously to develop it. A society without a law school is a terrifying scenario.
Sixty seductive, Legal Licensor, Legislative Council, Helsinki