Teoретические альтернативы систематизации права (к логике нормативных систем)
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.
In this book are collected the principal works of the Argentinian legal philosophers Carlos Alchourron and Eugenio Bulygin on the legal philosophy, logic of norms, and on the theoretical problems of the normative analysis of law
This paper characterizes importance and the principal possibilities of application of the theory of normative systems to the problems of legal theory and of logic of norms.
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.
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
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.
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.