Some Reflections about Unity of Law and of Normative Systems
This paper aims to analyse the philosophical premises on which the idea of unity of law (identity of legal system) is based. In the history of legal philosophy this idea found its main arguments in the presumption of totality of legal regulation. Such totality translated the philosophical tenets of holism according to which law is not limited to the positive-law rules and institutes. To substantiate the idea of systemacity of law, one can turn to the modern debates about logic of social cohesion and construct a legal system identity as a purely intellectual hypothesis necessary for thinking about law. This integrity can be described as a unity of discourse, or as a unity of societal practices. This reconstruction of integrity of law can be extended by appealing to the basic ideas of normative philosophy of law (from Hart and Kelsen to Raz and Dworkin) and is reconcilable with the conception of normative systems of Bulygin–Alchourron.
The article describes theoretical and practical contradictions of state identity, national identity and civic identity concepts. The conclusion on the preference of civic-state identity concept in describing the processes of individuals identifying with the social whole in the individualized society is developed. Contemporary challenges on controllability of postmodern society are discussed.
In this article are discussed the limits of application of general theory of systems in legal science. The author criticizes utilization of the notion «systemacity» for description of how legal norms are organized and how legal phenomena are structured. In author’s opinion, the term «system» is charged with a multiplicity of meanings, so that in social sciences this term is sometimes applied for characterization of the fundamentally different phenomena and realities. That is why legal scientists shall be especially careful in using this term. In the Russian jurisprudence the term «system» is applied for both «social reality of law» and for a set of the norms belonging to the positive law of the country. This use is tautological and has no conceptual justification. The author proposes to use the term «legal order» only for description of a structured set of legal rules, reserving the use of «system» for characterization of law from the point of view of comparative jurisprudence, legal sociology and other sciences which examine the relations between the law and other sectors of social reality. Argumentation in favor of «systemacity» of law is theoretically based on philosophy of objectivism. It results in vain illusions about a capacity of norms to produce themselves a legal order which emerges automatically insomuch as law is a functional entity. But this «systemacity» is not given in (the) law a priori. Logical coherence and consistence of norms always remain relative, being the outcome of the purposeful activity of lawmakers, judges, legal scholars. It is naïve to suppose that rules can enter into the law and find their adequate position there without human intervention. Such understanding can lead to apology of irresponsibility of those who create redundant and inconsistent norms in the false hope that these norms will anyways find their place in the law grace to «systemacity» of this latter.
Author reviews Russian legal system based on The Russian Constitution (1993) and also considers functioning of basic political institutions and others associated with them. At the same time author analyses reasons of unsatisfactory functioning of particular institutions from the point of view of the Constitution. In particular, author estimates constitutional status of Russian President and reveals his unproportional impact on other political and even civil societies institutions.
The article is devoted to a particular form of freedom of assembly — the right to counter-demonstrate. The author underlines the value of this right as an element of democratic society, but also acknowledges the risk of violent actions among participants of opposing demonstrations. Due to this risk, the government may adopt adequate measures restricting the right to counter-demonstrate, certain types of which are analyzed in this paper.
Development of standards of international controllability is reviewed in the article. Institutional approach is applied to development of international legal regime of Energy Charter. Definition of controllability is connected to development of international standards of dispute settlement, which are described in the article in detail. In connection with controllability, Russian interest, defense of investment in European Union and ecological investment encouragement, is reviewed in the article.
мировое управление и управляемость, Мировая экономика, международное экономическое право, энергетическая хартия, International control and controllability, International economics, international economic law, Energy Charter
международное частное право; недвижимость; ; школа бартолистов; бартолисты; теория статутов; статуарная теория/