Theoretical aspects of understanding of legal doctrine
Keywords:legal doctrine, legal science, source of law, legal system, interpretation of the law
The conception of a «legal doctrine» is commonly used in Ukrainian jurisprudence. At the same time, in legal science there are significant differences on awareness of the legal nature of a legal doctrine, determination of its concept and characteristics, the disclosure of its relationship and interaction with legal science, which predetermines the importance and timeliness of this research. Actuality of the working out of the legal doctrine is closely connected with the problem of determination of its place and role in the development of domestic law, legal institutions.
So, the objectives of the study are to determine the role and significance of legal doctrine in the development of law. The article reveals the close links of legal doctrine with legal science, legal traditions and values. Separately, the classification of legal doctrines is developed and suggested in the paper. It is grounded, that legal doctrine is created, reproduced and developed primarily thanks to the intellectual and creative efforts of legal scholars, who focus on the study of law on the basis of formal dogmatic, historical and other methods, the development of techniques and methods for its interpretation and systematization, understanding of the accumulated legal experience and creation of «scientific picture» of the legal world on these grounds. This refers to legal knowledge represented in the generalized form: legal constructions, notions and categories, principles, legal ideas, concepts, etc. that shape the base of the legal doctrine, which in its turn has an objective form in terms of scientific works – monographs, scientific articles, reports, commentaries on legislation, etc. The provisions of the legal doctrine can be classified according to different criteria: by the source of its origin – personified (such as the «Radbruch Formula») and collective, which is communis opinio doctorum; according to the distribution in different legal order – recognized at the level of the national / supranational legal systems, legal families; by official recognition – sanctioned by public authorities and embodied in positive law and officially unrecognized. The legal doctrine in some way describes legal concepts, rules, principles and explains why they exist in society. This explanation can be historical, sociological, psychological, economic, etc. [the rule exists because it complies with traditions, social economic realities, moral principles of society] or it can rely on the internal logic of the law system structure. In the latter case, the validity of the legal norm is explained by the existence of another legal rule or legal principle, which brought it forth. At the same time, the legal doctrine is not a «photographic representation» of the current law. Describing law, carrying out its logical or economic analysis, lawyers find gaps in legislation, desuetude of the legal norms, their non-compliance with the principles of law, etc., and prove the need to establish / change / abolish legal rules.
Petryshyn, O.V (2009). Verkhovenstvo prava v systemі dіi prava. Problemy zakonnosti – Problems of Legality, issue 100, 18–30 [in Ukrainian].
Glovuk, I.V. (2004). Shchodo pytannia pro vykorystannia pravovoi doktryny u pravozastosovnii praktytsi. Aktualni problemy teorii ta istorii prav liudyny, prava i derzhavy : materialy II Vseukr. nauk. konf. (m. Odesa, 5–6 hrud. 2003 r.) – Actual problems of the theory and history of human rights, law and state : Proceedings of the Scientific Conference. Odessa: Yurydychna literatura, 96–99 [in Ukrainian].
Popov, O. I (2016). Pravova doktryna ta yii zastosuvannia Verkhovnym sudom Ukrainy pry perehliadi sudovykh rishen u tsyvilnykh spravakh. Problemy zakonnosti – Problems of Legality, issue 132, 83–90 [in Ukrainian].
Behruz, H. (2001). Doktryna yak dzherelo prava v osnovnykh pravovykh systemakh suchasnosti. Aktualni problemy derzhavy i prava – Current Problems of State and Law, issue 11, 48–51 [in Ukrainian].
Puzikov, R.V. (2003). Suschnost yuridicheskoy doktrinyi kak istochnika prava. Pravovaya politika i pravovaya jizn – Legal Policy and Legal Life, 4, 134–138 [in Russian].
Dan-Cohen, M. (1992). Listeners and Eavesdroppers: Substantive Legal Theory and Its Audience. University Colorado Law Review. 64, 569–594.
Friedman, L. (1998). Law Reviews and Legal Scholarship: Some Comments. Denver University Law Review, Vol. 75, 661–668.
Posner, R. (2002). Legal Scholarship Today. Harvard Law Review. Vol. 115, 1314–1326.
Rubin, E.L. (1988). The Practice and Discourse of Legal Scholarship. Michigan Law Review. Vol. 86, 1835–1905.
Nersesyants, V.S. (1999). Obschaya teoriya prava i gosudarstva. Moscow: INFRA-M [in Russian].
Malyshev, B.V. (2002). Sudovyi pretsedent u pravovii systemi Anhlii (teoretyko-pravovyi aspekt). Candidate’s thesis. Kharkiv [in Ukrainian].
Yevgrafova, Y. (2013). Doktryna u pravovii nautsi i yurydychnii praktytsi. Visnyk Natsionalnoi akademii pravovykh nauk Ukrainy – Journal of the National Academy of Legal Sciences of Ukraine, 2, 52–63 [in Ukrainian].
Tsvyk, M. V., Dashkovskaia, E. R. (1993). O sovremennoy traktovke teorii razdeleniya vlastey. Problemy zakonnosti – Problems of Legality, issue 28, 10–16 [in Ukrainian].
Poirmeur, Y. (1993). La doctrine juridique. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Malinova, I.P. (1995). Filosofiya prava (ot metafiziki k germenevtike). Ekaterinburg: Ural. gos. yurid. аkad. [in Russian].
Kaplina, O.V. (2008). Pravozastosovne tlumachennia norm kryminalno-protsesualnoho prava. Kharkiv: Pravo [in Ukrainian].
Van Hoecke, M. (2002). Law as Communication. (European Academy of Legal Theory Series). Oxford: Hart Publishing.
Gredeskul, N. (1909). Obshhaja teorija prava. St. Petersburg: Tipo-Litografija I. Trofimova [in Russian].
Koni, A.F. (2019). Nravstvennyie nachala v ugolovnom protsesse. Izbrannyie rabotyi. Moscow: Yurayt [in Russian].
Golovko, L.V. (2010). Sudebnyiy pretsedent kak nenormativnyiy sposob legitimatsii sudebnyih resheniy. Vestnik grajdanskogo prava – Civil Law Review, 6. URL: https://center-bereg.ru/l1581.html [in Russian].
Evseev, A.P. (2014). Verhovnyiy Sud Soedinennogo Korolevstva: stanovlenie. Kharkiv: Yurayt [in Russian].
Burnham, W. (1999). Vstup do prava ta pravovoi systemy SShA. Kyiv: Ukraina [in Ukrainian].
Aarnio, A. (1979). Denkweisen der Rechtswissenschaft. Wien; New York: Springer.
Peczenik, A. (2005). Scientia Juris: Legal Doctrine as Knowledge of Law and as a Source of Law. Dordrecht: Springer.
Wendt, J.A.I. (2008). De methode der rechtswetenschap vanuit kritisch-rationeel perspectief. Zutphen: Uitgeverij Paris.
Van Hoecke, M. (2001). Which Method(s) for What Kind of Discipline? European Academy of Legal Theory Series, Vol. 9, 1–18.
Fuller, Lon L. (1999). Anatomiia prava. Kyiv: Sfera [in Ukrainian].
Niiniluoto, I. (1985). Truth and Legal Norms. Conditions of Validity and Cognition in Modern Legal Thought. D. N. MacCormick et al. (Ed.). Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 168–190.
Aarnio, А. (1987). The Rational as Reasonable: a Treatise on Legal Justification. Dordrecht; Boston: Reidel.
Mackor, A.R. (2012). Legal doctrine as a non-normative discipline: а refinement of Niiniluoto's and Aarnio's disctinction between norm-descriptions, norm-contentions and norm-recommendations. Recht & Methode, Vol. 2, 22–45.
Lyubitenko, D. (2011). Sistemnyie svoystva pravovyih doktrin. Vestnik Vladimirskogo yuridicheskogo instituta – Bulletin of Vladimir Law Institute, 1, 140–145 [in Russian].
Maksymov, S.I. (2013). Pravova doktryna: filosofsko-pravovyi pidkhid. Pravo Ukrainy – Law of Ukraine, 9, 43–54 [in Ukrainian].
Varha, Ch. (2011). Pravova doktryna: metodolohiia ta ontolohiia. Pravo Ukrainy – Law of Ukraine, 8, 99–108 [in Ukrainian].
How to Cite
Copyright (c) 2019 Ігор Вікторович Семеніхін
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.