INTRODUCTION :Jurisprudence is derived from the Latin term juris prudentia, which means "the study, knowledge, or science

of law"; in the United States, more broadly associated with the philosophy of law. Jurisprudence is the theory and philosophy of law. Scholars of jurisprudence, or legal theorists (including legal philosophers and social theorists of law), hope to obtain a deeper understanding of the nature of law, of legal reasoning, legal systems and of legal institutions. Modern jurisprudence began in the 18th century and was focused on the first principles of then atural law, civil law, and the law of nations. General jurisprudence can be broken into categories both by the type of question scholars seek to answer and by the theories of jurisprudence, or schools of thought, regarding how those questions are best to be answered. Contemporary philosophy of law, which deals with general jurisprudence, addresses problems in two rough groups: 1.) Problems internal to law and legal systems as such. 2.) Problems of law as a particular social institution as it relates to the larger political and social situation in which it exists.

Legal philosophy has many aspects, but four of them are the most common. The first and the most prevalent form of jurisprudence seeks to analyze, explain, classify, and criticize entire bodies of law. The second type of

jurisprudence compares and contrasts law with other fields of knowledge such as literature, economics, religion, and the social sciences. The third type of jurisprudence seeks to reveal the historical, moral, and cultural basis of a particular legal concept. The fourth body of jurisprudence focuses on finding the answer to such abstract questions as What is law? How do judges (properly) decide cases? Apart from different types of jurisprudence, different schools of jurisprudence exist. There are no bright lines between different schools of jurisprudence. The legal philosophy of a particular legal scholar may consist of a combination of strains from many schools of legal thought. Some scholars think that it is more appropriate to think about jurisprudence as a continuum.

ANALYTICAL POSITIVISM :Analytical jurisprudence is a legal theory that draws on the resources of modern analytical philosophy to try to understand the nature of law. Since the boundaries of analytical philosophy are somewhat vague, it is difficult to say how far it extends. Analytic, or 'clarificatory', jurisprudence means the use of a neutral point of view and descriptive language when referring to the aspects of legal systems. This was a philosophical development that rejected natural law's fusing of what law is and what it ought to be. The most

important questions of analytic jurisprudence are: "What are laws?"; "What is the law?"; "What is the relationship between law and power/sociology?"; and "What is the relationship between law and morality?" Legal positivism is the dominant theory, although there are a growing number of critics, who offer their own interpretations. Legal positivism, by contrast to natural law, holds that there is no necessary connection between law and morality and that the force of law comes from some basic social facts although positivists differ on what those facts are. Positivism simply means that law is something that is "posited": laws are validly made in accordance with socially accepted rules. The positivist view on law can be seen to cover two broad principles: Firstly, that laws may seek to enforce justice, morality, or any other normative end, but their success or failure in doing so does not determine their validity. Provided a law is properly formed, in accordance with the rules recognized in the society concerned, it is a valid law, regardless of whether it is just by some other standard. Secondly, that law is nothing more than a set of rules to provide order and governance of society. No legal positivist, however, argues that it follows that the law is therefore to be obeyed, no matter what. This is seen as a separate question entirely. Legal positivism is a school of thought of philosophy of law and jurisprudence, largely developed by nineteenthcentury legal thinkers such as Jeremy Bentham and John Austin. It is difficult to summarize positivist thinking, but it is generally accepted that the central claim of legal positivism is the following:

"In any legal system, whether a given norm is legally valid, and hence whether it forms part of the law of that system, depends on its sources, not its merits."

Jeremy Bentham :One of the main rationales for Bentham establishing the positive law theory was that he thought the system of common law, that was then in use in England in the 17th century, was insufficient and inconsistent. He classified this common law system as dog law, referring to the way it often applied retrospectively and assimilated it to the way in which we treat animals. He criticised the lack of legal certainty and clarity that the common law system provided. Bentham proposed a system whereby the limits of power and conduct were specifically outlined, and were available for all to see and abide by. He often intertwined his own ideas with the ideas of utilitarianism, which then obviously formed the basis of the scientific approach to the law. His science of legislation approach meant that the law had a rigid format, was clear in its terms, and achieved a positive result overall for the subjects of the law, thus satisfying the requirements of the utilitarian aspects of Benthams theory. He also identified that human behaviour is often governed by two key factors: the desire for pleasure, and the avoidance of pain. It was Bentham that proposed a

system of codification of the law, similar to the system of legislation in the modern context, where the premise was that it would create a universal set of laws that was easy to understand, and was able to be easily communicated to the public, so they knew what they had to do to obey the laws. It also meant that judges would effectively have their lawmaking powers reduced or rescinded, meaning they assumed more of an administrative role in the judiciary. Bentham had a similar view of the sovereign, believing that the sovereign is a person or group to whom the people of the society are in a disposition to pay obedience to. For Bentham, law had to contain the following factors: A collection of signs Which indicate an intention Which are conceived or adopted by a sovereign in a state Which describe the desired behaviour Of the people to whom the intention is directed Which should also provide a motive for those subjects to obey.

Benthams rationale for creating such a system was that, as mentioned, judges were much more restricted in their lawmaking powers. This meant that they were not able to apply any form of morality to their legal arguments, as they were simply bound to apply the law as it was enacted by the

Parliament. This further supports the fact that those who follow analytical jurisprudence maintain a strict separation from the law and any social or political factors surrounding it, leaving the debate of merits and demerits to the legislature.

JOHN AUSTIN :John Austin played a significant role in establishing the legal positivist movement. Austins concept of law is that it implies a certain amount of clarity and certainty when laying down its principle. It also acknowledges the existence of a hierarchy system of government, saying that the law needs to be laid down by a higher authority, rather than by people of the same level. Austin also acknowledges that a law (or a command, as he calls it) is made up of a number of elements. Austin was the first systematic exponent of a view of law known as legal positivism. As to what is the core nature of law, Austin's theory signifies that laws are commands of a sovereign.. Austin's basic approach was to ascertain what can be said generally, but still with interest, about all laws. He clarifies the concept of positive law by analyzing the constituent concepts of his definition, and by distinguishing law from other concepts that are similar:

Commands involve an expressed wish that something be done, combined with a willingness and

ability to impose an evil if that wish is not complied with. Rules are general commands, as contrasted with specific or individual commands. Positive law consists of those commands laid down by a sovereign, to be contrasted to other law-givers, like God's general commands, and the general commands of an employer to an employee. The sovereign is defined as a person who receives habitual obedience from the bulk of the population, but who does not habitually obey any other person or institution. Austin thought that all independent political societies, by their nature, have a sovereign. Positive law should also be contrasted with laws by a close analogy and laws by remote analogy.

Austin's command theory was more influential than Bentham's, because the latter's jurisprudential writings did not appear in an even-roughly systematic form until well after Austin's work had already been published.

H.L.A. HART :It is important now to consider the works of HLA Hart, he was responsible for the reinvigoration of the notion of legal positivism in the 1960s. Hart presents a different set of views by comparison to Bentham and Austin, however the general points that Hart makes are relatively coherent with

the ideas of the other two theorists. Hart was not concerned with the ways in which rules were conveyed by a sovereign, as Bentham and Austin were. Rather he was concerned more so with the ways that law governed society and social behaviour, which is most probably more relevant to the modern context than the ideas of Bentham and Austin. Hart identified the five factors of the human condition, and believed that laws are in place to counteract these: Human vulnerability; Approximate equality; Limited altruism; Limited resources; Limited understanding and strength of will. Hart identified these factors as the minimum that need to be in place in order for a legal system to function effectively. Hart talks about law as obligation rules, and continues to maintain a separation between the obligations of the law and the obligations of morality. He talks about the law as rules, where a disobedience is generally frowned upon by the rest of the community, and hence the peer pressure can often force people to obey.

CONSTITUTION OF JAPAN
Structure :The constitution has a length of approximately 5,000 words. It consists of a preamble and 103 articles grouped into eleven chapters. These are:

I. The Emperor (18) II. Renunciation of War (9) III. Rights and Duties of the People (1040) IV. The Diet (4164) V. The Cabinet (6575) VI. Judiciary (7682) VII. Finance (8391) VIII. Local SelfGovernment (9295) IX. Amendments (96) X. Supreme Law (9799) XI. Supplementary Provisions (100103)

The Constitution of Japan, successor to the Constitution of the Empire of Japan, was promulgated on November 3, 1946, and took effect on May 3 the following year. Consisting of eleven chapters with a total of 103 articles as mentioned above is based on the following three principles: sovereignty of the people, pacifism, and respect for basic human rights.

Government of Japan :The government of Japan is a constitutional monarchy where the power of the Emperor is very limited. Power is held chiefly by the Prime Minister of Japan and other elected members of the Diet, while sovereignty is vested in the Japanese people. The Emperor carries out most of the functions of a head of state but his role is merely ceremonial and, unlike the forms of constitutional monarchy found in some other nations, he possesses no reserve powers. Japan's legislative organ is the National Diet, a bicameral parliament. The Prime Minister of Japan is the head of government. The position is appointed by the Emperor of Japan after being designated by the Diet from among its members and must enjoy the confidence of the House of Representatives to remain in office. The Prime Minister is the head of the Cabinet and appoints and dismisses the Ministers of State, a majority of whom must be Diet members. The current constitution requires that the Emperor promulgates legislation passed by the Diet, without specifically giving him the power to oppose the passing of the legislation. Executive authority is exercised by a Prime Minister and cabinet answerable to the legislature, while the judiciary is headed by a Supreme Court.

Japan's court system is divided into four basic tiers: the Supreme Court and three levels of lower courts.

Monarchy :
The Japanese monarchy has been around for at least 1,300 years, but, with the exception of a few hundred years, the Emperor has had little power and has primarily been regarded as a symbol of the nation. The symbolic status of the modern Emperor is not all that different than the status of the Emperor during the long period when Japan was ruled by shoguns. The emperors had power during the period in which Japan became a nation and the period between the Meiji Restoration and the end of World War II. Japan is a constitutional monarchy, but due to certain constitutional technicalities after WW2, it is not quite like the one in the UK, as the emperor is not the head of state officially. Instead, the role is officially one of 'symbol of State'. Though this effectively equivalent to head of state in the international arena, it is legally not the same. The Diet may direct the Emperor in the appointment and removal of the chiefs of the executives and judicial members. Japan is a constitutional monarchy in which the Emperor remains the symbol of the state. However, the term 'head of

state' is quite young and many insist that, ironically, the person with real power need not be head of state, but monarchs are not either as they are symbols of state instead. This is the case in Japan. Japan has no head of state. The emperor is the symbol of state, and the Prime Minister is the head of government. Before and during the Second World War, the Japanese Emperor enjoyed the power of an Absolute Monarch, along with high-ranking generals. After the war, the Allies proposed several changes to the inner workings of Japan, and a new constitution was approved. The new document limited the power of the Emperor to a completely ceremonial role. The Emperor of Japan is referred to as being the Chief of State. The distinction between Chief of State and Head of State is one which perhaps needs some clarification, though Chief of State would imply something more substantial that simply being a symbol. Yet, the Constitution of Japan refers to the Emperor as being the "symbol of the state and unity of the people." He acts, de facto, as Head of State, although this title appears not used to describe the Emperor. The Emperor, who inherits his throne and performs some ceremonial duties specified in the Constitution, possesses no real power. The sovereignty once embodied in the Japanese Emperor is now vested in the Japanese people.

Three Branches of Government :-

The Constitution of Japan provides for a democratic, fundamental separation of state powers. Legislative power is vested in the Diet; executive power is vested in the Cabinet; and all judicial power is vested in the Supreme. The three branches of government of Japan are explained in brief below:

Legislative Branch :The legislative branch of Japan is well known as National Diet and is bicameral in nature. By the Constitution, the Diet is the most powerful from the three branches and consists of two houses; the House of Representatives and the House of Councillors. It is the highest branch of state power and the sole legislative branch of the state. The Diet is vested with such powers as initiating constitutional revision, settling the budget, approving treaties, and selecting a prime minister. Its powers clearly outweigh those of the executive branch. The lower house has the right to prior deliberation on the budget bill drafted and submitted to the Diet by the cabinet and can also pass the bill, in the event the upper house rejects it, after a certain period of time has elapsed. The vote of the lower house also has precedence over that of the upper house in electing a new prime minister and approving the conclusion of treaties. The House of Representatives is empowered to pass motions of non-confidence or confidence in the cabinet. This is

the most important power of the lower house in parliamentary politics. The House of Councillors temporarily replaces the House of Representatives in the execution of Diet functions if and when the cabinet convenes an emergency session of the House of Councillors while the House of Representatives is dissolved. The speaker and vicespeakerpresident and vice president in the case of the upper househave the duty of maintaining order in the chamber and ordering the business of the day. To ensure the impartiality of Diet proceedings, all four of them customarily renounce their party affiliation.

Executive Branch :Often known as the Cabinet in Japan consists of the prime minister and not more than 17 ministers of state and is collectively responsible to the Diet. The prime minister, who must be a member of the Diet, is designated by the Diet and, in practice, is always a member of the House of the Representatives. The prime minister has the power to appoint and dismiss the ministers of state, all of whom must be civilians and majority of whom must be members of the Diet. The cabinet must resign if the House of Representatives passes a resolution of non-confidence or rejects a resolution of confidence in the government, unless the house is dissolved within 10 days of the passage of such a resolution. The cabinet handles general administrative functions; in addition,

its advice and approval are required for all acts of the emperor. In such cases, the cabinet assumes responsibility.

Judicial Branch :The judiciary is independent in Japan. The higher judicial members are appointed by the Emperor with the consensus of prime minister and cabinet. The Supreme Court is the court of final resort, and its ruling sets the precedent for all final decisions in the administration of justice. It is also authorized to determine the constitutionality of any law, order, regulation, or official act and to nominate judges of inferior courts. There are four types of court other than the Supreme Court in Japan; high courts, district courts, family courts, and summary courts. In addition to these, there is a court of impeachment in the Diet to try judges whose dismissal is sought. Only Supreme Court decisions have any direct effect on later interpretation of the law. The cabinet makes the final appointments from judges nominated by the Supreme Court. A majority of votes against a justice results in that justice's dismissal.

Local Government :
While the national government is in charge of defense, foreign policy, and other functions that are the inherent responsibility of the state, local

governments, both prefectural and municipal, are in charge of matters related to land regulation and development, disaster prevention and pollution control, labor, education, social welfare and health. Prefectural governments are entrusted with affairs that are large in scale or affect a relatively wide area and often act as a liaison in coordinating the activities of two or more municipal bodies. Municipal governments, for their part, are charged with responsibility for the administration of matters that are closely related to the daily life of their respective communities.

CONCLUSION :The concept of analytical jurisprudence is well established and respected as being a persuasive and valid legal theory. Bentham created a form of law that was codified, consistent and easy to understand. It was Bentham that proposed a system of codification of the law, similar to the system of legislation in the modern context. It meant that judges would effectively have their law-making powers reduced, meaning they assumed more of an administrative role in the judiciary. He had a similar view of the sovereign, believing that the sovereign is a person or group to whom the people of the society are in a disposition to pay obedience to.

Austin then further refined Benthams works, by giving birth to the idea that essential attributes of positive laws are: Command; Sanction; Duty; & Sovereignty. Where as Hart took a more community based approach to the law and law enforcement. It is still clear that analytical jurisprudence still contains a number of differences to other legal theories, it is just the gap is not quite as wide as it once was. Hart has succeeded in incorporating a number of natural law elements into his theories and, perhaps unlike Bentham and Austin, had the benefit of seeing how a modern legal system functions and was able to modify the positivist theory to fit a modern context. Therefore these theories of analytical positivism in a whole lay stress upon four aspects which are as follows:Command Sanction Duty Sovereignty The Constitution of Japan provides for a democratic, fundamental separation of state powers. Legislative power is vested in the Diet; executive power is vested in the Cabinet; and all judicial power is vested in the Supreme. The Cabinet (command) is the working executive class in which the Prime minister & 17 other ministers of the state are collectively responsible to the diet. National diet (duty) is bicameral in nature and is

the sole legislative branch of the state. The Judiciary (sanction) of Japan is independent and authorized to determine the constitutionality of any law, order, regulation, or official act and to nominate judges of inferior courts and lays upon certain rights & duties on the citizens of the state. According to Austin & Bentham sovereign is a person or group to whom the people of the society are in a disposition to pay obedience to. In early days of Japan, Emperor enjoyed the power of an Absolute Monarch (sovereign) but now in recent times, the emperor is not officially considered as the head of the state, but plays the role of symbol of the state. Therefore I would like to conclude that Japan has no head of state. The emperor is the symbol of state, and the Prime Minister is the head of government. The emperor now, possesses no real power like he did in ancient times of the state and hence, the sovereignty once embodied in the Japanese Emperor is now vested in the Japanese people.