Book chapter
О системности права
In this chapter of the collective monograph are analyzed some theoretical rejoinders against utilization of the concept "systemacity" for description of enacted law.
The author examines to which extent are possible in the scope of legal science and are effective different approaches to validity (binding force) of law in the context of classical and postclassical scientific paradigms. The difference of approaches reveals diverging methodological foundations for understanding law as unity and to comprehend such characteristics of law as systemacity or integrity.
In this article the author examines the conceptual problems which the post-soviet jurisprudence meets when dealing with systematization of law, to wit with constructing an order of the legal material and with explaining of unity of law. The author critically reassesses the existing doctrine of divisions inside the law which are led on the base of such criteria as object and method of legal regulation. Subjective nature of these criteria is revealed in this article. From the theoretical standpoint, these criteria turn out to be devoid of sense, as they solely fix conventions of a legal community; one cannot verify significance and veracity of these criteria through a scientific analysis. The author also challenges the conception of systemacity of law which is based on a mixture of value judgments and of facts obtained from description of the positive law. These conceptions of the post-soviet jurisprudence are irretrievably connected with the vulgarized Marxist-Leninist philosophy. As a theoretical alternative to them, one can recur to the conception of “Normative Systems” which were elaborated in the 1970-s by the Argentinean scholars C.E. Alchourron and E.V. Bulygin and which gained a wide acceptance in the Western legal philosophy.
In this article the author examines the conceptual problems which the post-soviet jurisprudence meets when dealing with systematization of law, to wit with constructing an order of the legal material and with explaining of unity of law. The author critically reassesses the existing doctrine of divisions inside the law which are led on the base of such criteria as object and method of legal regulation. Subjective nature of these criteria is revealed in this article. From the theoretical standpoint, these criteria turn out to be devoid of sense, as they solely fix conventions of a legal community; one cannot verify significance and veracity of these criteria through a scientific analysis. The author also challenges the conception of systemacity of law which is based on a mixture of value judgments and of facts obtained from description of the positive law. These conceptions of the post-soviet jurisprudence are irretrievably connected with the vulgarized Marxist-Leninist philosophy. As a theoretical alternative to them, one can recur to the conception of «Normative Systems» which were elaborated in the 1970-s by the Argentinean scholars C. E. Alchourron and E. V. Bulygin and which gained a wide acceptance in the Western legal philosophy.
A presente obra tem dois objetivos. O primeiro é reunir o texto integral das conferências proferidas durante o V Simpósio Internacional de Filosofia do Direito, evento da Rede de pesquisa Brasil, Rússia e Argentina, realizado nas dependências do Programa de Pós-Graduação em Direito da Faculdade de Direito da Universidade Federal do Paraná em maio de 2017, cujo tema central foi Concepções de Sistema em Direito. O segundo objetivo é prestar uma homenagem especial ao professor Eugenio Bulygin, várias vezes premiado e reconhecido internacionalmente como um dos grandes expoentes da filosofia jurídica mundial, que com seu carisma e generosidade consegue estabelecer laços acadêmicos entre filósofos do Direito que transcendem idiomas, países e continentes. Participam da obra autores nacionais e estrangeiros como o próprio Eugenio Bulygin e Pablo E. Navarro da Argentina, Elena Lisanyuk e Mikhail Antonov da Rússia; Oscar Sarlo do Uruguai; e Cesar Antonio Serbena do Brasil. Os conceitos de Sistema no Direito foram debatidos e explorados por cada um dos autores de forma original, buscando refletir criticamente sobre os aspectos e problemas que a categoria de Sistema apresenta na filosofia jurídica e na teoria do direito. Praticamente não é possível debater atualmente o conceito de Sistema em Direito sem ter em conta a obra Normative Systems, escrita e publicada por Eugenio Bulygin e Carlos Alchourrón em 1971. Além da originalidade das diferentes abordagens, todos os capítulos do presente livro tiveram essa obra como ponto de partida e eixo condutor das reflexões sobre o conceito de Sistema. Indubitavelmente, ela ocupa uma posição de primeiro plano na filosofia e na teoria do Direito, na lógica jurídica e lógica deôntica, representando e alimentando uma corrente universal de estudos, e sendo considerada ainda hoje como uma das obras mais significativas produzidas pelo círculo da escola de orientação analítica de Buenos Aires.
This article deals with the key ideas, theses, and schemes which are elaborated in the book of the Hungarian researcher Csaba Varga. The reviewed book is focused on the issues of codification. Professor Varga pays particular attention to interconnection of codification projects and the social, cultural environment in which these projects are conceived and carried out. Even if the techniques of codification are similar or analogous to each other, this does not guarantee similarity or identity of the reached results. Such results are summing up from a multitude of different variables. The monograph of Csaba Varga examines these variables, and a special accent is made on analysis of the ideals which are pursued by initiators of codification projects. A total codification of law or creation of a gapless and consistent legal system is, in Professor Varga’s opinion, nothing but a utopian dream which nevertheless plays a decisive role in codification. The author of the reviewed volume proposes a complex and multifaceted classification of different kinds of systematization of legal norms. He stresses interdependence between the strategies of codification and the types of legal culture, the social and economical tasks to be achieved as a result of the codification.
This paper aims to analyse the philosophical premises on which the idea of unity of law (the identity of legal systems) is based. In the history of legal philosophy, this idea found its main arguments in the presumption of totality of legal regulation. Such totality affected the philosophical tenets of holism, according to which law is not limited to positive-law rules and institutes. Law refers to supreme values, which supersede legal instruments created by human beings and collectives to regulate their behaviour. This argument implies that there are higher values, such as justice, good, etc., which underlie all social relations and which provide the binding force for positive law. The author argues that this line of thought is based on philosophical objectivism and naturalism, and can easily lead to the primacy of the social over the individual. To substantiate the idea of the systematicity of law, one can turn to modern debates on the 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 the integrity of law can be extended by appealing to the basic ideas of the normative philosophy of law (from Hart and Kelsen to Raz and Dworkin) and is reconcilable with the conception of normative systems of Bulygin–Alchourron.