The Dichotomy of Approach in the Study of Legal Science: A Critical Review
Abstract
This study aims to examine and analyze the dichotomy between doctrinal and non-doctrinal approaches in the study of legal science. This research uses normative research methods. The collection of legal materials is done by using literature study techniques. The legal material obtained in this study was then analyzed qualitatively with a comparative approach to present conclusions and answer the research objectives. The results show that the dichotomy of approach in the study of legal science is a scientific dynamic in line with social changes in the community. The doctrinal approach is a normative legal study that always focuses on norms that are none other than the character of legal science itself. In contrast, the non-doctrinal approach is an empirical legal study that crosses other scientific disciplines and does not ignore legal norms as the character of legal science. In addition, the doctrinal approach determines substantially what is allowed and what is not (das sollen). At the same time, the non-doctrinal approach corrects legal behavior as nothing but a judiciary that creates justice, certainty, and utility in the empirical realm (das sein). Therefore, it is recommended for legal academics to have progressive legal thought construction. In addition, the government must ensure every legal academic’s competence when making academic manuscripts of Laws and Regulations Draft. In this case, the rule of law must achieve social justice for Indonesia’s people.
Downloads
References
Ali, A. (2002). Menguak Tabir Hukum: Suatu Kajian Filosofis dan Sosiologis. Gunung Agung.
Barlian, A. E. A., & Arief, B. N. (2017). Formulasi Ide Permaafan Hakim (Rechterlijk Pardon) dalam Pembaharuan Sistem Pemidanaan di Indonesia. Law Reform, 13(1), 28-44. https://doi.org/10.14710/lr.v13i1.15949
Barral, V. (2012). Sustainable Development in International Law: Nature and Operation of an Evolutive Legal Norm. European Journal of International Law, 23(2), 377-400. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chs016
Bruggink, J. J. H. (2015). Refleksi tentang Hukum: Pengertian-Pengertian Dasar dalam Teori Hukum (Trans. by Bernard Arief Sidharta). PT. Citra Aditya Bakti.
Christiani, T. A. (2016). Normative and Empirical Research Methods: Their Usefulness and Relevance in the Study of Law as an Object. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 219, 201-207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.05.006
Farid, A. Z. A. (1983). Persepsi Orang Bugis Makassar tentang Hukum, Negara dan Dunia Luar. PT. Alumni.
Gestel, R. v., & Micklitz, H.-W. (2013). Why Methods Matter in European Legal Scholarship. European Law Journal, 20(3), 292-316. https://doi.org/10.1111/eulj.12049
Hunter, R., Ingleby, R., & Johnstone, R. (Eds.). (1995). Thinking about Law: Perspectives on the History, Philosophy, and Sociology of Law. Allen & Unwin.
Hutchinson, T., & Duncan, N. (2012). Defining and Describing What We Do: Doctrinal Legal Research. Deakin Law Review, 17(1), 83-119. https://doi.org/10.21153/dlr2012vol17no1art70
Kelsen, H. (1978). The Pure Theory of Law (Trans. by Max Knight). University of California Press.
Leeuw, F. L. (2015). Empirical Legal Research: The Gap between Facts and Values and Legal Academic Training. Utrecht Law Review, 11(2), 19-33. https://doi.org/10.18352/ulr.315
Lopa, B. (1996). Masalah-Masalah Politik, Hukum, Sosial, Budaya, dan Agama: Sebuah Pemikiran. PT. Pustaka Sinar Harapan.
Marzuki, P. M. (2016). Penelitian Hukum. Kencana Prenada Media Group.
Meuwissen, D. H. M. (1975). Elementen van Staatsrecht. W.E.J. Tjeenk Willink.
Paton, G. W. (1972). A Textbook of Jurisprudence. Oxford University Press.
Pound, R. (2000). Jurisprudence. The Lawbook Exchange, Ltd.
Qamar, N. (2021). Theory Position in the Structure of Legal Science. SIGn Jurnal Hukum, 3(1), 52-64. https://doi.org/10.37276/sjh.v3i1.126
Qamar, N., & Gede, A. M. A. (2022). Tebaran Pemikiran tentang Hukum. CV. Social Politic Genius (SIGn).
Rahardjo, S. (1999). Ilmu Hukum. PT. Citra Aditya Bakti.
Rahardjo, S. (2005). Membedah Hukum Progresif. Kompas.
Rasjidi, L., & Rasjidi, I. T. (2002). Pengantar Filsafat Hukum. CV. Mandar Maju.
Rezah, F. S., & Muzakkir, A. K. (2021). Custom as a Critical Concept and Siri’ as the Core Concept of Ugi-Mangkasara Culture. SIGn Jurnal Hukum, 3(1), 40-51. https://doi.org/10.37276/sjh.v3i1.123
Ruhl, J. B., & Katz, D. M. (2015). Measuring, Monitoring, and Managing Legal Complexity. Iowa Law Review, 101(1), 191-244.
Shaffer, G., & Ginsburg, T. (2012). The Empirical Turn in International Legal Scholarship. The American Journal of International Law, 106(1), 1-46. https://doi.org/10.5305/amerjintelaw.106.1.0001
Sitabuana, T. H., & Adhari, A. (2020). Positivisme dan Implikasinya terhadap Ilmu dan Penegakan Hukum oleh Mahkamah Konstitusi (Analisa Putusan Nomor 46/PUU-XIV/2016). Jurnal Konstitusi, 17(1), 104-129. https://doi.org/10.31078/jk1715
Spaak, T. (2017). Realism about the Nature of Law. Ratio Juris, 30(1), 75-104. https://doi.org/10.1111/raju.12073
Syaputra, D. (2019). Analisa Ekonomi Atas Hukum Pidana terhadap Penanggulangan Tindak Pidana Korupsi. Wajah Hukum, 3(1), 60-64. http://dx.doi.org/10.33087/wjh.v3i1.48
Wignjosoebroto, S. (1994). Dari Hukum Kolonial ke Hukum Nasional: Dinamika Sosial – Politik dalam Perkembangan Hukum di Indonesia. Rajawali Pers.
Yusriyadi, Y. (2020). Development of an Ideal Model Based on Positivism and its Implication Towards Legal Science and Law Enforcement. Diponegoro Law Review, 5(2), 231-244. https://doi.org/10.14710/dilrev.5.2.2020.231-244
Copyright (c) 2022 Nurul Qamar, Farah Syah Rezah
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
