Critical Review of the Science of the Rules of Jurisprudence

Main Article Content

Megdouda Tayeb Arezki Manari


This study deals with the criteria used by scholars in their critical review of the rule of jurisprudence to adapt the rule, improve its formulation and realize its status in practice. The study's objectives are to understand the criteria established by the case law, uncover the aspects of innovation in jurisprudence by identifying the critical approach of jurisprudence developed by scholars and researchers, and use an analytical-inductive approach to draw results. First, the norms of judicial review are divided into two parts: norms of the formulation of the rule and norms of the status of the rule of law. Further, the criteria for the adjustment of the formulation of the rule are abstraction, progression or majority, realism, adjustment of the rule with the necessary limitation, and realization of the scope of the rule. Secondly, what the applicants have codified as jurisprudence in the works of jurisprudence must be considered and examined to take out what is not a rule and change what must be done. The previous studies serve as a rich source for developing critical research to help science continue on its regenerative path. According to the study, a reformulation of the doctrine in jurisprudence is required to account for its pillars, which include new chapters and doctrine that can be added to the doctrinal rule on the one hand and systematic and scientific additions on the other.

Article Details

How to Cite
Manari, M. T. A. (2022). Critical Review of the Science of the Rules of Jurisprudence. BiLD Law Journal, 7(2), 149–160. Retrieved from