THE IMPACT OF COMPARATIVE JURISPRUDENCE ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF JURISPRUDENTIAL RULES

Abstract

This study aims to examine the impact of comparative jurisprudence on the development of jurisprudential principles. Comparative jurisprudence serves as a vital tool for comparing the opinions of different jurisprudential schools and deriving rulings suitable for contemporary issues. The significance of this research lies in promoting intellectual flexibility and reducing jurisprudential rigidity, thereby enabling the discipline of jurisprudential principles to keep pace with social, economic, and technological changes. A descriptive-analytical approach was employed to study the relationship between comparative jurisprudence and jurisprudential principles, with a focus on how the latter benefits from the diversity of opinions among jurisprudential schools. The findings reveal that comparative jurisprudence contributes to broadening the scope of jurisprudential principles, refining their application, and highlighting their exceptions, thus enhancing their adaptability to emerging issues and novel cases. The study also examines practical examples of the influence of comparative jurisprudence, such as the principle "Necessity is treated as a degree of dire need " and the principle "Necessities permit the prohibited," illustrating how these principles have been applied to contemporary issues like gender reassignment surgery and dealings involving digital currencies. The study concludes that comparative jurisprudence fosters intellectual unity among jurisprudential schools and enhances the methodology of (independent legal reasoning) while preserving jurisprudential authenticity. It recommends promoting comparative studies in educational institutions, encouraging collective, and establishing specialized research platforms to address contemporary challenges.