The systematic method applied to law is based on the relationship between a specific law with the rest of the country's legal system, especially with the rest of the norms on the same subject. Thus, the followers of this method of legal interpretation affirm that the laws are part of a greater whole.
In general terms, this method consists of relating supposedly isolated ideas or facts to extract a unifying theory. Both in law and in other fields, the formulated theory starts from the discovery of the patterns present in individual facts. The result allows a better understanding of the system.
This method is part of the classification made by Friedrich Karl von Savigny, a German jurist who founded the historical school of law in the early nineteenth century, on the existing systems for interpreting laws. The other three are the grammatical, the logical and the historical.
It was another German jurist, Zacharias, who applied the systematic method to law. In addition to advocating the importance of grouping standards depending on the subject matter, it also included institutions within the scope of law..
One of the oldest debates in the field of law has been that of the legal interpretation of laws. Thus, experts have discussed how to bring to real cases what is written in the different codes of justice, since in many cases the literal content is not enough and has an important part of interpretation.
Throughout history, numerous schools of legal thought have appeared with different proposals to resolve this issue. Some have chosen to apply the laws as literally as possible, while others prefer to take into account aspects such as the socio-political context, history or existing jurisprudence on each subject..
One of the legal currents that began to use the systematic method was the School of Exegesis. This had appeared in France after the publication of the Civil Code that went down in history with the name of the Napoleonic Code, in March 1804.
The components of this school endorsed the use of a system of interpretation of the laws that combined logical, historical, literal and systematic methods..
Faced with this current, in Germany the so-called Historical School of Law emerged, in principle critical of French jurists. However, over time they would end up proposing the combined use of the different interpretation methods in order to better adjust the content of the laws to reality..
The German school became one of the most important for the jurisprudence of its time. His activity began in 1812 and his influence was decisive in the approval of a new legislative code in his country..
At first, this current defended the interpretation of the laws based on history, although it soon began to also apply the systematic method despite the fact that it contradicted the historical principle.
It was precisely one of the founders of the Historical School of Law, the German Friedrich Karl von Savigny, who defined the different methods of interpreting the laws. According to this jurist, there were four different systems: the grammatical, the logical, the systematic and the historical..
The first of them would have as its main aspect the interpretation of the words of the law. His followers essentially fixate on linguistic rules.
The logical method, for its part, tries to find the final purpose pursued by the law, as well as the social and political circumstances present at the time it was enacted. Among these two aspects, the supporters of this system give more importance to the first, since they go so far as to affirm that if the reason for the law disappears, it must cease to be in force..
The third of these systems, the historical one, studies what the legal situation was at the time the law was promulgated, as well as the background to it..
Finally, the systematic method focuses on the relationships between the different norms and legal entities. Thus, an attempt is made to discover how a specific law is related to the rest of the legal system.
A law is not a solitary norm, but is framed in an entire legal system made up of many more laws. Some are related to each other and others do not have any type of connection.
This reality led the supporters of the systematic method to affirm that it was necessary to take into account the legislative body to correctly interpret each individual law..
The interpretation of the laws as a whole is inevitable in any legal system. The person in charge of applying justice can not only keep a specific law in mind, but must look at all of them. Thus, you will be able to know the pillars of the legal system of the country in which you carry out your work.
The German jurist Zacharias applied the systematic method in the legislation of his country by grouping together the laws that had the same purpose. Likewise, he argued that the structure of the rules should be perfectly known.
That same structure had to be analyzed in all its elements. This encompassed from the requirements to its effects, through all its elements and its own legal nature..
Another novelty introduced by this jurist was the inclusion of legal institutions such as marriage within the law.
With the systematic method came the idea that a law was not an isolated norm. For their supporters, each of them was part of a legal system established for a specific purpose..
For this reason, individual laws must have the same spirit that is pursued by the whole. None of them can contradict the rest. The result of this coherence will be a better interpretation, both of each norm and of all of them..
The Italian jurist and academic Alberto Trabucchi (1907 - 1998) defined that this method gave meaning to the legal system as a whole. For him, this arrangement could be compared to a living organism, in which all its components are coordinated. To survive, it is not possible for contradictions to appear between them.
Yet No Comments