「政策法學」是主張將「政策研究途徑」引進法學研究的方法，最早在美國是由Myres S. McDougal與Harold D. Lasswell於1940年代所倡導，但從法學的發展來看，早在16、17世紀近代國家發展之初，西歐法律學家或實務工作者就實際參與立法過程或政策性活動，這樣的學術研究後來在法學上被稱為「立法學」或「法政策學」。 法學上這種立法或政策研究的傳統，在18世紀後半葉蘇格蘭啟蒙運動的影響下，由於法律實證主義興起，法學家意圖建立一門獨立的科學，將自我研究限定在解釋、分析及排序的範圍內，成就了日後的註釋法學或分析法學的主流學統，而法學者也成功地將其研究重點從試圖設計一種立法學轉變成建立一種沒有立法的法律科學。 McDougal與Lasswell所倡導的「政策法學」，認為法律是一種基於社區期望的權威性決策過程，以求作成正確的決策；而法律教育的正當功能即是在訓練一批「政策制訂者」，最終目的則在達成「民主的價值」。他們雖將政策研究途徑帶進法學的領域，但並未形成風潮，僅在國際法學界發展為New Haven學派。最近，Jack Van Doran與Christopher J. Roederer著文評論其主張所存在問題及消頹的原因。 筆者基本上贊同McDougal與Lasswell「政策法學」的學術立場，支持行政學與行政法學整合研究行政現象及活動的功能，故以「政策法學的破與立」為論題，進一步論辯與釐析。首先說明本文研究的緣起，其次闡述「政策法學」的基本概念，復次說明Van Doran與Roederer及其他學者的論點，再次對於相關論點加以評析，最後提出政策法學的基本立場作一論結。

“Policy-oriented Jurisprudence” incorporates the “Policy-oriented Approach” into the methodology of jurisprudence. Though the school of thought was advocated in the United States by Myres S. McDougal and Harold D. Lasswell in the 1940’s, in terms of the development of jurisprudence, law scholars and practitioners had started to participate in legislation and policy-related activities from as early as the 16th and the 17th centuries. Such academic inquiries later came to be known as “jurisprudence of legal policy” or “legislative research”. The legislative and policy-study roots of jurisprudence, however, were cut loose in the face of the Scottish Enlightenment in the late 18th century. In view of the rise of Legal Positivism, jurists intended to establish an independent science, limiting the scope to interpretation, analyzing, and ordering. This approach later became the maintream in interpretative jurisprudence and analytical jurisprudence, with jurists successfully shifting the focus from the design of a legislative research to a jurisprudence without legislation. The “policy-oriented jurisprudence” proposed by McDougal and Lasswell believed that law stems from the authoritative decision-making process of a community that looks to formulate the right policy. And the true purpose of legal training is to train a group of policymakers in both planning and implementation, the ultimate goal of which is achieving democratic values. Despite having brought the policy-oriented approach into jurisprudence, their work received little attention, and has merely developed into the “New Haven school” in the field of international law. Recently, Jack van Doran and Christopher J. Roederer have published a paper that offers a critique of this school of thought and gives reasons for its decline. The writer in principle agrees with the academic viewpoint put forward by McDougal and Lasswell’s policy-oriented jurisprudence, that the fields of public administration and administrative law should combine in investigating phenomenon in administration, hence the title of this study “On the Innovativeness of ‘Policy-oriented Jurisprudence’” to open up further discussion and analysis. Firstly, the origin of this study will be discussed, then comes a description of the basic tenets of “policy-oriented jurisprudence,” after which the viewpoints of van Doran and Roederer and other academics will be given together with an analysis of each of them, and lastly a conclusion on how to establish a policy-oriented jurisprudence.