Introduction
Law does not exist to maintain a perfect symmetry of concepts, but to serve life. The theory of interests, developed by Rudolf von Ihering, Roscoe Pound, and Julius Stone, shifts the focus of jurisprudence from cold logic to the realm of real human claims. Instead of viewing the legal system as a self-sufficient edifice, it teaches us to see it as a process of constant conflict reconciliation. In this article, we will examine how this perspective allows for the weighing of conflicting aspirations and why the transparency of judicial choice is a cornerstone of the modern rule of law.
Ihering and Pound’s Social Engineering: Law in Action
Rudolf von Ihering revolutionized legal thought by recognizing that purpose is the creator of the entire legal order. Its task is to protect the conditions of social life, not to realize abstract ideas. Roscoe Pound developed this thought into the concept of social engineering. He saw law as a tool for the rational organization of interests, aimed at minimizing friction and maximizing the satisfaction of needs.
Crucial to this school is the distinction between “law in books” (static rules) and “law in action” (the actual functioning of norms in society). This vision is grounded in the pragmatism of William James, who formulated a simple guideline: we should always satisfy as many demands as we can. Law thus becomes the art of weaving interests into an order that makes society more inclusive.
The Catalog of Interests and Jural Postulates of Civilization
Pound created a meticulous catalog of interests, dividing them into individual, social, and public. However, Julius Stone pointed out the arbitrariness of these divisions, noting that individual and social interests are often just two perspectives on the same claim. Stone proposed a simplification: all aspirations must be evaluated through the common denominator of the public good.
An essential tool in this process is weighing interests on the same level. The theory forbids pitting an individual’s “right” against a state’s “policy,” as such linguistic asymmetry predisposes the outcome of the dispute. The framework for this process is provided by the jural postulates of civilization—working hypotheses about the minimum requirements of order (e.g., security of transactions or protection of property). These are not dogmas, but boundary conditions that allow us to determine which claims deserve protection in a given era.
Stone Debunks Formalism: From Illusion to Proportionality
Julius Stone brought critical rigor to the theory of interests by exposing categories of illusory reference. These are points in legal reasoning where words feign precision to mask a judge's actual choice. Stone argued that without reference to real-world goods, logic becomes a mask for personal preferences. In hard cases, where rules are silent, the theory of interests offers a method: identifying claims and choosing the solution that causes the least harm to the whole.
This approach laid the foundation for the modern principle of proportionality. It allows for the resolution of classic collisions, such as security vs. liberty, through a measurable assessment of costs and benefits. Stone emphasized that transparency of choice is crucial for judicial accountability. A decision must be explainable in the language of both principles and interests, which demasks dead formalism and forces authorities to provide sound justifications for their rulings to society.
Summary
By rejecting dogmatism, the theory of interests reminds us that law is a constant process of negotiation and adaptation. In a world where interests perpetually clash, can we find justice not in perfect harmony, but in the wise minimization of harm and the building of an inclusive community? The legacy of Ihering, Pound, and Stone teaches us that law is a bridge whose strength depends on the transparency of decisions and the courage to take responsibility for the social consequences of every judgment. Without this maturity, the legal system becomes merely an empty form, incapable of protecting the foundations of our civilization.
📄 Full analysis available in PDF