В защиту "строгого Петражицкианства"
In Human rights in the context of a Petrażyckian perspective Prof. Polyakov criticized Fittipaldi’s “Strict Petrażyckianism”. Here Fittipaldi replies to Polyakov’s critiques. Fittipaldi argues that scientific concepts select classes of phenomena able to enter as causes into nomological hypotheses. Law, stipulatively defined as a particular class of psychical phenomena (psylaw) — namely, as perceptions/representations of actions coupled imperative-attributive emotions (a concept close to sense of entitlement) — is the proximate cause of conflicts and, in turn, of unifying tendencies somewhat counteracting them (positivization, formalizations, dikaspolization — from dikaspoloi). Further, psylaw causes the emergence of soclaw, understood as a gradual phenomenon whose degrees of existence increase with the degree of compatibility of the jural phenomena (psylaw) occurring in a given society. If psylaw is the distal cause of phenomena like states or market economies, soclaw can be regarded as their proximal cause, and so can be regarded as a legitimate scientific concept. In the remaining parts of this essay Fittipaldi defends the distinction between of intuitive and positive psylaw, and underscores the need both of legal dogmatics (understood as including deontic logic) and of sharply distinguishing it from psylaw and soclaw, thus implying that strict Petrażyckianism is probably incompatible with integral concepts of law.
The article analyzes the infl uence of the regulation on the non-repayable transfer of a work to the general public at the author’s will. This regulation is being proposed as an amendment to Russian intellectual property law. The author of the article believes that this legal rule will enrich Russian law with positive author’s rights in addition to negative prohibitive powers. The next step proposed is to legalize the author’s right to transfer works to the public domain. Positive author’s rights are considered in the context of accumulating information capital in order to develop Russia’s post-industrial economy.
The article presents an analysis of the concept of «paradigm of law». Unlike other kinds of legal paradigm this concept indicates not the way of thinking about legal reality but the legal reality itself, which includes the reality of legal norms and legal acts, law-making and law practice. The author introduces the definition of the concept of paradigm of law, its justifications and describes general and local paradigm of law. Particular attention is paid to the question of the legality of the theoretical and legal research of local paradigm of law. The article concludes on the significance of legal theoretical studies of local paradigms for applied legal science and legal practice.
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.
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/