Система права в классическом и постклассическом измерениях
In this chapter of the collective monograph are analyzed some theoretical rejoinders against utilization of the concept "systemacity" for description of enacted law.
The analytical review of development of approaches to the structure of writing and the nature of agraphia in foreign neuropsychology is presented. In the first part of the paper the early theories (Wernicke-Lichtheim’s, Leischner’s, Pitres’, Chedru-Geschwind’s, Laine and Martilla’s, Barrière and Lorch’s theories) are discussed. The analysis is performed based on Russian neuropsychology statements where a set of two parameters characterizing the system structure of the psychic function is used. The first parameter corresponds to the internal structure of writing (the function of writing is treated as an undivided whole or a whole consisting of several components). The second parameter corresponds to the interfunctional relations between writing and other functions (describes if writing is a separate independent function or consists of components common to other psychic functions). In Russian neuropsychology foreign theories are traditionally considered as theories of narrow localizationalism. It is established however that in most reviewed theories writing is considered as a function with complex multicomponent structure containing components common to other psychic functions that provide the interaction between different functions.
theoretical problems of the legal system are considered. Known criteria for identifying branches of law are proposed to be added both with new criteria and with criteria such as “the presence of a system-forming codified regulatory legal act”. The problem of instability of the legal system is raised. It is noted that the theorists of law should not only make the appropriate adjustments to the current model of the legal system, but also identify trends in its development.
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.
In the present paper the author examines the problem of systemacity of law, analyzes the ways in which the normative material is structured. Basing on the conception of normative systems by C. Alchourron and E. Bugygin, the author criticizes some assertions made by Russian legal theoreticians about systemacity of law and calls for a more nuanced approach to elaboration of legal terminology.
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/