الحاصل من تلك الأدلة فقها ثم نظروا في تفاصيل The conclusion of that evidence was jurisprudence and then looked at the details

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.main##

Maria1

Abstract

The two grand theories of judging – legal realism and legal formalism - have their differences set around the importance of legal rules. For formalists, judging is a rule bound activity. In its more extreme versions, a judge is seen as an operator of a giant syllogism machine. Legal realists, in contrast, argue that legal rules, at least formal legal rules, do not determine outcomes of cases. Legal realism has been misunderstood almost everywhere outside its birthplace – the United States. Continental legal theory, for one, views legal realism as practical, down-to-earth, hard-nosed school of thought which is opposed to the more “scientific” theories.

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.details##

How to Cite
Maria1. (2020). الحاصل من تلك الأدلة فقها ثم نظروا في تفاصيل The conclusion of that evidence was jurisprudence and then looked at the details. Al-Qirtas, 2(1), 15-21. Retrieved from http://al-qirtas.com/index.php/Al-Qirtas/article/view/116