Jurisprudence, used as a technical term, has two meanings of equal currency, referring both to a philosophy of law and a science which "treats of the principles of positive law and legal relations." These meanings are vastly different in import. "Philosophy" suggests speculation and ideology, while "science" suggests fact and functionalism. Jurisprudence, like any discipline of observation and conclusion, can be a very useful tool in the legal analysis of one's own work and the work of others. The science, with its clear sight and objective standards, is obviously more dependable than the polemics of philosophy, and therefore the sole approach to be used in situations that demand objectivity. If any area of jurisprudence demands this objectivity, it is the area of judicial decision. It is the premise of this Comment that much of what is written about legal judgments, and often the judgments themselves, contain so much polemic that they sometimes produce results contrary to a primary function of legal systems, the settlement of disputes. This is an especially critical problem in the international sphere, where the tendency to mix fact and polemic often detracts from the legal justifications of a particular dispute's resolution.
Mack, Timothy C.
"Polemic in the International Court of Justice,"
Syracuse Journal of International Law and Commerce: Vol. 3:
1, Article 16.
Available at: https://surface.syr.edu/jilc/vol3/iss1/16