Doctrinal forms and sources of law

 
PIIS013207690001508-0-1
DOI10.31857/S013207690001508-0
Publication type Article
Status Published
Authors
Affiliation:
Institute of Public Administration and Civil Service at the Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration of the Russian Federation (IPACS RANEPA)
Consulting and Legal Protection of People Foundation
Address: Russian Federation, Moscow
Journal nameGosudarstvo i pravo
EditionIssue 9
Pages5-15
Abstract

The subject of research is doctrinal phenomena (science, scholarly opinions, opinions recognised in science, scientific schools) in the system of forms and sources of law. Historically doctrinal forms play different roles, having ascended once to the role of exercising direct control over social relations (in Emperor Valentinian's Laws), which presented the peak of their potential. In the modern context in Romano-Germanic states, including the Russian Federation, where positivism serves as the governing ideology, the doctrine does not present a form of law; besides, it is laid down as an axiom that the doctrine does not present a source of law. Nevertheless, judicial practice supplies many cases of applying doctrinal sources. Herewith, courts can give either a positive valuation of such sources, while making reference to doctrinal regulators of social relations (the article cites examples from practice of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation and the European Court of Human Rights), or negative valuation when judges discharge court decisions, delivered with reference to theory of law. The author examines the impact of scholarly works published by certain scientists (for example, the academician A.V. Venediktov), who laid the foundation of new legal institutions. However, legislation does not preserve authorship, thus modern legislative style and legal engineering principles do not recognise authorial views. The present article examines science as a legal awareness factor. By means of this informational flow, doctrinal sources affect formation of judges’ legal conscience and beliefs. The article uses empiric evidence of the survey that involved judges’ opinion poll. The judges admitted that scholarly works could contribute to forming their legal views. The article contains the list of authors whose works, according to the polling data, the judges acknowledged as reputed sources.

Having analysed different forms, in which science influences legal regulation and law enforcement, the author works out a proposal to make amendments into Article 6 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation by complementing it with Para 3, which would read as follows: “When applying legislation, cov-enants of the parties and custom there shall be taken into consideration general sense of relevant legal regulations, determined by statutory and doctrinal interpretation as well as by a juridical doctrine”. This new version of the law will make it legatimate to engage doctrinal interpretation and the doctrine in the course of law enforcement.

Keywordsforms of law, sources of law, legal science, doctrine, doctrinal forms of law, statutory and regulatory enactments, court practice, precedent, reputation of the source of law, legal precedent, law enforcement official law enforcement, legislator, law-making process, legal system, legal regulation, positivism, sociological approach to law, law of scholar schools, an authority’s opinion, scientific opinion, expert, expert opinion, analogy of law, Civil Code of the Russian Federation
Received26.10.2018
Publication date31.10.2018
Cite   Download pdf To download PDF you should sign in

Price publication: 0

Number of purchasers: 0, views: 1865

Readers community rating: votes 0

1. Boshno S.V. Doktrinal'nye i drugie netraditsionnye formy prava // Zhurnal ross. prava. 2003. № 1. S. 82–91.

2. Petrazhitskij L.I. Teoriya gosudarstva i prava v svyazi s teoriej nravstvennosti. SPb., 2000.

3. Khvostov V.M. Obschaya teoriya prava. M., 1914.

4. Pukhta G.F. Ehntsiklopediya prava. Yaroslavl'. 1872.

5. Muromtsev S.M. Stat'i i rechi. Vyp. 2. M., 1910.

6. Gambarov Yu.A. Russkoe grazhdanskoe pravo.

7. Grimm D. K voprosu o ponyatii i istochnikakh obyazatel'nosti yuridicheskikh norm. SPb., 1896.

8. Chechot D.M. K voprosu o kriterii istinnosti vyvodov yuridicheskoj nauki // Sov. gosudarstvo i pravo. 1965. № 2.

9. Shapsugov D.Yu. Sootnoshenie nauki pozitivnogo prava i podlinnoj nauki o prave: eschyo odna gran' krizisa yuridicheskoj nauki // Severo-Kavkazskij yurid. vestnik. 2016. № 1. S. 5–16.

10. Trofimov V.V. Ob'ektivnost' nauki i teoreticheskie formy znaniya // Nauchnye vedomosti Belgorodsk. gos. un-ta. Ser. “Filosofiya. Sotsiologiya. Pravo”. T. 39. 2007. № 3 (252). S. 162–165.

11. Chashin A.N. Pravovaya doktrina: osnovnye formy vyrazheniya, aspekty vliyaniya na pravotvorcheskuyu i pravoprimenitel'nuyu praktiku // Sovremennoe pravo. 2017. № 2. S. 5–11.

12. Osipov M.Yu. Rol' yuridicheskoj nauki v razvitii prava // Razvitie rossijskogo prava: novye konteksty i poiski resheniya problem. III Moskovskij yuridicheskij forum. Kh Mezhdunar. nauch.- prakt. konf. (Kutafinskie chteniya): materialy konf.: v 4 ch. M., 2016. S. 88–93.

13. Shiner R.A. Legal Institution and Sources of Law. Springer, 2005.

14. Silving H. Sources of law. Buffalo, N.Y., 1968.

15. Dvorkin R. A Matter of Principle. Cambridge, 1985.

16. Goodhart A.L. Essays in Jurisprudence and the Common Law. Cambridge, 1931.

17. Tolstoj Yu.K. Anatolij Vasil'evich Venediktov // Pravo i sovremennye gosudarstva. 2017. № 1. S. 47–62.

18. Boshno S.V. Pretsedent, zakon i doktrina (Opyt sotsiologo-yuridicheskogo issledovaniya) // Gosudarstvo i pravo. 2007. № 4. S. 72–78.

19. Kozhushko L; Mandziuk O. Transformation of Property Relations in Agricultural Land-reclamation in Ukraine as a Way to the Development of Innovation Activity in this Field // Proceedings of the International Scientific Conference: Rural De. Vol. 4. 2009. Issue 1.

20. Schleyer C. Economic and Ecological Transformation Processes in East German Water Management Regimes: The Role of Property Rights and Governance Structures // CEESA Discussion Paper. 2002. № 9.

21. Rossinskij B.V. O neobkhodimosti izmeneniya redaktsii statej Kodeksa Rossijskoj Federatsii ob administrativnykh pravonarusheniyakh, reglamentiruyuschikh naznachenie administrativnykh nakazanij sobstvennikam (vladel'tsam) transportnykh sredstv // Zakony Rossii: opyt, analiz, praktika. 2011. № 1. S. 89.

22. Lunts L.A. Kurs mezhdunarodnogo chastnogo prava. Obschaya chast'. M., 1973.

23. Boguslavskij M.M. Mezhdunarodnoe chastnoe pravo: ucheb. 3-e izd., pererab. i dop. M., 1998.

24. Zlatopol'skij D.L. SSSR – federativnoe gosudarstvo. M., 1967.

25. Shafir M.A. Kompetentsiya SSSR i soyuznoj respubliki.

26. Grimm D. K voprosu o ponyatii i istochnikakh obyazatel'nosti yuridicheskikh norm. SPb., 1896.

Система Orphus

Loading...
Up