This article characterizes the main events of the Intentional Symposium “Philosophy and Contemporary International Law” which united philosophers, logicians and lawyers from Russia, the Western Europe, and Latin America. The authors of this paper analyze the presentations of the key-note speakers and give a brief account of the discussions which took place in panel sessions. The leading theme of this conference was the cooperation between scholars belonging to different scientific disciplines. It was argued that this cooperation could be fruitful for solving the urgent issues of international law. Almost all the participant unanimously acknowledged that dealing with such issues only in terms of purely formalist understanding of law does not lead to any considerable results. Therefore, it is vital to employ the ideas developed in ethics and in logics. At the same time, a better understanding of the specific character of international legal relations provides for new insights into the problems traditionally discussed in general legal theory, in social philosophy, and in the logic of norms. As for the last aspect, the conception of normative systems elaborated in the 1970s by the Argentinean scholars C.E. Alchourron and Eugenio Bulygin is an important achievement in the legal philosophy of the XXth century. Application of this conception to the problems of international law and to the complex issues of legal theory in general, reveals many advantages for the scientific research. However, certain facets of this conception provoke arduous discussions among legal scholars.
This paper deals with the key ideas of the book “Philosophy of Law” by the Canadian legal thinker Bjarne Melkevik. The author considers the reflections of Melkevik about nature of legal thinking, about the object of legal philosophy. A special accent is made on the issues connected with the theory legal communication. Through this theory the Canadian thinker searches to reply to many important problems of science of law, inclusive of problems of euthanasia, national minorities’ rights, limits of liberty of speech. The Canadian researcher criticizes the postmodern views on law and defends the project of legal modern, i.e. the system of ideas which is basic for the Western legal tradition. The central place in Melkevik’s book is occupied by a description of the debates between J. Habermas and J. Rawls. The preferences of Melkevik are given to the theory of Habermas; Melkevik strongly attacks the theory of Rawls who builds his conception of law on an illusory image of a completely autonomous individuality without any need in communication with others to sustain his rights. Forwarding objections against these assumptions of Rawls, the Canadian author stresses the role of legal discourse in a free democratic society where one should look for the first existential foundations of law.
Regulations of the Constitution aren't always specific. As a result, its interpretation is various. Often such situation is used by the government to implement in practice the project, in fact contradicting the constitutional bases, under the pretext of specific interpretation. In such cases it is necessary to address not only to the text of the fundamental law, but also to its sense. But, how to understand the sense of the Constitution, how to find out the real meaning of its provisions and, the main thing, who is capable to make it, is considered in the provided article. The author recognizes that the Constitutional court - not the only expert in such questions as its decision is often connected with public interest which contradicts objective economic logic or even is opposite to it. Considering it, the main role in the constitutional interpretation must belong to the science which is more independent in the conclusions. Thus, the legal doctrine should closely interact with economic as only the latter represents us the system of objective laws of economic development, and the law is urged just to arrange them in the relevant legislative regulations.
This paper is dedicated to the 80th jubilee of a leading German legal scholar, theorist and philosopher of law Werner Krawietz. This thinker is famous not only due to his important contribution to development of the philosophical and sociological conceptions of law in the Western legal tradition, but also due to his active role in promotion of the German-Russian partnership in the sphere of legal studies. In the first part of this paper the authors accentuate this role of Professor Krawietz who is a cofounder of the International Center of German-Russian legal studies, a coordinator of some German-Russian educational programs, an active participant of scientific events held in Russia on the problems of jurisprudence. A particular attention is paid to the activities of Professor Krawietz as an editor-in-chief of the journal “Rechtstheorie” where many innovative works in legal logic, sociology of law and methodology of legal studies are published. In the second part the authors describe the scientific biography of Professor Krawietz, drawing lecturers’ attention to the continuity between his ideas and the conception of his predecessor at the Westphalian University, Helmut Schelsky. In the third part the authors succinctly characterize the scientific symposium at the Westphalian University which was held to celebrate the jubilee of Professor Krawietz. The authors especially distinguish the presentation of Professor Krawietz who in a very picturesque manner described his scientific objectives.социал
In this paper are studied the problems of legal development in the modern societies. This development is examined in the perspective of globalization and modernisation which lead the lawyers to the new understanding of communicative and social dimension of law. In author’s opinion, the contemporary theory of law needs a new approach to law which takes into account social possibilities of the interhuman behaviour and the social reality of law. Introducing such a theory implies a self-referent, operative and normative integrity of law and of the legal communication
The author of the article adheres to the principles of free banking activity and challenges
the generally recognized postulate in the economic theory about the danger of the
banking money multiplier. He proves that the only source of inflation is money emission
carried out by the state. The legal analysis of financial relations allows him to prove the
inadequacy of the statement that the inflation boom results from the activity of private
credit institutions issuing the so-called fiduciary means of circulation. The purpose of the
research is to clarify the legal nature of money emission. Scientists-economists do not
see a difference between the relations arising in this field. The emission itself, from the
legal point of view, is the property relation (production); and emission of fiduciary means
of circulation is a liability similar to a bill, a check etc. The legal nature of these relations
differs essentially. The author concludes that the amount of money is increased only by
emission while the banking multiplier multiplies liabilities regarding money rather than
the money itself. While the latter directly initiates the inflation, the former only facilitates
it, being a consequence of the unjustified state monetary policy, rather than a reason.
In this regard, restriction of the banking activity only damages the economy by removing
and eliminating entrepreneurial interest.