• A
  • A
  • A
  • ABC
  • ABC
  • ABC
  • А
  • А
  • А
  • А
  • А
Regular version of the site

Article

Ойген Эрлих: живое право против правового плюрализма?

In this article the author questions the role of Eugen Ehrlich’s sociological jurisprudence in contemporary debates about legal pluralism. In author’s opinion, the modern legal pluralism is too much concentrated on opposing state law to social law. This dualist understanding of law was not characteristic for Ehrlich who defended the thesis about unity of law. Law in society always displays its integrity, even if composed of many inner social orders. Nevertheless, law can be conceptually divided into two logical units: official (state and juristic) law and living (social) law. Neither was Ehrlich inclined to advocate for mechanical transformation of facticity into normativity – for this effect creative work of lawyers is needed. From this point of view, it is not possible to use Ehrlich’s socio-legal theory for justification of the project of anthropological jurisprudence to construct the term of law as inclusive of all the normative systems of social regulation. Listing Ehrlich as one of the founding fathers of legal pluralism is not undisputable, because legal pluralism itself is not a unified scientific doctrine, and many assertions of legal pluralists contradict to Ehrlich’s position. Ehrlich by far was not biased to attribute inferior positions to law and judiciary in the legal reality, which sometimes is typical of some legal pluralists.