Legal realism was primarily a reaction to the legal formalism of the late 19th and early 20th centuries and was the dominant approach for much of the early 20th century. With her negative willingness to challenge formalistic assumptions, she managed to ensure that judges always do what they said, so that it is often said that “we are all realistic now”. Realism, however, has failed in its positive quest to find a better way to predict how judges would behave than relying on the reasons given by judges. Realists are skeptical of established legal principles and concepts. It puts more emphasis on what the courts and individuals actually do. According to realism, the law is defined as “a general prediction of what the court will do.” If we talk about the factors responsible for the formation of this school or a realistic approach, several points arise. First, this system ideologically reflects the influence of pragmatic philosophy originating in America. Basically, this school has been accredited and its development is carried out by the American School of Jurisprudence. Secondly, the most important aspect that seems to correspond to its establishment is the organization of justice in the country. It is stated that the Supreme Court of the United States is the supreme court before which final judgments are rendered and enforced. In the lower courts, judges are appointed and they are influenced because they make irrelevant or underestimated decisions, which is why they do not receive popular support. The existence of state justice has led to an immense increase in judgments and laws.
All these approaches have led lawyers to focus only on the courts and not on the law. The historical school of law is based on people`s habits and customs that evolve when their desires and requirements change. In addition, it is called the continental school of jurisprudence. According to this school, judges do not create the law and it has no divine origin. Legal realism is characterized as a type of jurisprudence by emphasizing the law as it currently appears in reality, rather than how it works in books. To this end, it has focused on the conduct of judges and the conditions under which this conduct affects judicial decision-making processes. As Karl Llewellyn says: “Judges uphold judgments; Judges are men; They have a human history as men. Thus, law was not in an abstract domain with universal laws or values, but was inseparable from human behavior and the ability of judges to decide the law. To understand the decisions and actions of legal actors, legal realists have turned to social science ideas to understand the human relationships and behaviors that have resulted in a particular legal outcome.
Moral realists contradict the principles of natural law. Legal realists argue that these cultures are historical and/or natural concepts and should be approached by a variety of psychological and sociocultural assumptions, with legal concepts perceived as determined by human behavior that should be evaluated empirically, rather than theoretical assumptions about the law. Legal realism is therefore at odds with most versions of legal positivism. Legal realism was largely a response to the legal formalism of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, which became the dominant style for most of the early 20th century. In her negative optimism, she managed to suspect formalistic expectations that judges actually do what they want to say, so that it is always claimed that “we are only realistic now”. Realism, however, has struggled in its positive quest to find a reliable way to anticipate how judges will act, rather than relying on judges` explanations. By realist legal theories I mean theories that: (1) define what the law is and how it functions in human cultures without sentimental or moralistic illusions (descriptive adequacy takes precedence over moralizing sermons); (2) to recognize that the law is rarely sufficient to justify the manner in which the courts decide all proceedings before them; and (3) indemnify justice and jurisprudence to the fullest extent of the law. By “legal positivism” I mean the interpretation of the essence of the law, which H.L.A. Hart in 1961 and Joseph Raz developed further in the 1970s and 1980s, according to which (1) where there is a legal structure, there is a “rule of recognition” that defines the conditions under which norms are true laws; and (2) the rule of law is nothing more than a complicated deception. This ensures that rules and legal frameworks are essentially based on the traditional procedures of civil servants. Legal realism reached its peak from the 1920s to the 1940s.
In the 1950s, legal realism was largely supplanted by the legal litigation movement, which viewed law as a process of “reasoned elaboration” and asserted that appeals to “legislative ends” and other established legal norms could provide objectively correct answers to most legal questions. In his 1961 book The Concept of Law, British legal theorist H. L. A. Hart dealt a “decisive blow” to legal realism[16] by attacking the predictive legal theory that many realists had adopted from Holmes. Hart pointed out that if a law is just a prediction of what the courts will do, a judge thinking about the legal merits of a case before him really asks, “How am I going to decide this case?” As Hart notes, this completely overlooks the fact that judges use legal rules to guide their decisions, not as data to predict their eventual involvement. He stressed the psychological importance of doing the right thing. “You fight more effectively when you feel like you`re fighting for what`s right,” he says. In search of the origin of rights, he immersed himself in the Greek and Roman legal systems. He believed that contemporary law, like the old law, was ceremonial.