scholarly journals Leading Russian legal theorist is 80 years old. For the anniversary of V.M. Syrykh

2021 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 732-737
Author(s):  
Nikolay A. Vlasenko

Dedicated to the 80th anniversary of the famous legal scholar Vladimir Mikhailovich Syrykh, the author of over 40 monographs, textbooks, teaching aids, many hundreds of scientific articles and other materials. The scientists contribution to legal science is analyzed. We focus on the methodology of the theory of law, method structure, content of the materialist theory of law, etc. The exceptional contribution of the scientist to preparation and publication of the Encyclopedic Dictionary Legal Science and Legal Ideology of Russia is distinguished. The ideas and assessments of the author's recent historical and legal monographs on the Soviet regime, the Red Terror, and Stalinist repressions are illustrated.

2009 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 225-249 ◽  
Author(s):  
JÖRG KAMMERHOFER

AbstractHans Kelsen is known both as a legal theorist and as an international lawyer. This article shows that his theory of international law is an integral part of the Kelsenian Pure Theory of Law. Two areas of international law are analysed: first, Kelsen's coercive order paradigm and its relationship to the bellum iustum doctrine; second, the Kelsenian notion of the unity of all law vis-à-vis theories of the relationship of international and municipal law. In a second step, the results of Kelsenian general legal theory of the late period – as interpreted and developed by the present author – are reapplied to selected doctrines of international law. Thus is the coercive order paradigm resolved, the unity of law dissolved, and the UN Charter reinterpreted to show that the concretization of norms as positive international law cannot be unmade by a scholarship usurping the right to make law.


Lex Russica ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 146-155
Author(s):  
V. G. Baev ◽  
A. N. Marchenko

The paper provides for a critical analysis of the monographic work by famous Marxist legal scholar, Doctor of Law, Professor, Honored Scientist of the Russian Federation Vladimir M. Syrykh. As known, there are a lot of works investigating the crimes of Stalinist politics based on open sources that have become available to scientists. Prof. Syrykh cultivates a different, legal view of the activities of Stalinist leadership. As a legal theorist and methodologist, he set himself the goal of analyzing the legal nature of Stalin’s repressive policies and his associates in the 1930s-1950s. The researcher concluded that Stalin’s leadership in the process of building the socialist state turned away from the requirements of the constitution and Soviet legislation, acted contrary to law, replacing it with Directives, which can be qualified as undermining the state system.Reviewers praise the work by Vladimir M. Syrykh, sharing many of his submissions. As reviewers see, the author’s intention was to purge the very idea of socialism from the distortions and perversions brought by Stalin. According to the author, Stalin perverted the creative nature of Marxism and Lenin’s legacy. However, the authors of the review indicate that the policy of terror against the Soviet people coincides with the period of Stalin’s rule, which gives grounds to Prof. Syrykh opponents to claim: 40 years of socialist construction involved violence, coercion and killing thousands of people. The book under review is written to counter such claims.


Legal Theory ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 19 (4) ◽  
pp. 331-346
Author(s):  
William A. Edmundson

The concept of law is not a theorist's invention but one that people use every day. Thus one measure of the adequacy of a theory of law is its degree of fidelity to the concept as it is understood by those who use it. That means “saving the truisms” as far as possible. There are important truisms about the law that have an evaluative cast. The theorist has either to say what would make those evaluative truisms true or to defend her choice to dismiss them as false of law or not of the essence of law. Thus the legal theorist must give an account of the truth grounds of the more central evaluative truisms about law. This account is a theory of legitimacy. It will contain framing judgments that state logical relations between descriptive judgments and directly evaluative judgments. Framing judgments are not directly evaluative, nor do they entail directly evaluative judgments, but they are nonetheless moral judgments. Therefore, an adequate theory of law must make (some) moral judgments. This means that an adequate theory of law has to take a stand on certain (but not all) contested issues in political philosophy. Legal theory is thus a branch of political philosophy. Moreover, one cannot be a moral-aim functionalist about legal institutions without compromising one's positivism about legal norms.


Critique ◽  
1977 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 31-46 ◽  
Author(s):  
C.J. Arthur

2015 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 9-18
Author(s):  
V V Lapaeva

Article deals with general characteristic of current state of the Russian theory of law, which is examined in the unity of such aspects as philosophy of law, sociology of law and legal dogmatics. For the philosophy of law the main direction of efforts should be connected with development of general doctrinal type of understanding of law, which would correspond to a human-centric legal ideology, assumed as the basis of the Constitution of the Russian Federation. The task of sociology of law is seen, first of all, in development on the basis of such understanding of law of theoretical-methodological basis for study of social conditionality of legislation and efficiency of its application. The proper transfer of the results of philosophical and legal and legal and sociological studies, conducted within the framework of the theory of law, at the level of law-making and law enforcement practice requires the development of an adequate legal dogmatics. The author substantiates the need for development of the human-centric dogma of the Russian law as such a system of legal-dogmatic constructions, which would specify the principle of human rights priority. Special attention is paid to disclosure of cognitive potential of libertarian juristic type of understanding of law in respect of each of the chosen directions of theoretical and legal studies.


2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (S3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sergey S. Shestopal ◽  
Elena A. Kazachanskaya ◽  
Svetlana V. Kachurova ◽  
Evgeniy V. Kachurov

The subject of this research is the recently intensified competition in modern jurisprudence of two equally respectable scientific disciplines: philosophy of law and theory of law. The goal is to demarcate the meaning of these concepts. Their ontological status (essential significance) in relation to the existence of the law, the reflection of which they are, is also considered. Based on analysis of the existential criticism of the dominant forms of modern ideology, it is proved that the existing theories of law depend on these forms. A stable tendency in modern philosophy to return legal science to the origins of philosophical knowledge of legal reality is stated.


Lex Russica ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 88-117
Author(s):  
Yu. A. Vedeneev

The law exists in the form of institutions and in the form of representations of institutions, since the representation of something (phenomenon) has a conceptual dimension in the representation of something (concept). Representations of law and representations of law are two aspects of the expression and manifestation of the general legal reality. This, in fact, leads to a fundamental dilemma in determining the subject of legal science. This is the science of law or the science of legal science. Given that the concept of law is a theory of law developed into a system of definitions, the practical language of law finds itself in the theoretical language of jurisprudence, and vice versa. The languages in which the law operates, and the languages in which the phenomenon of law is interpreted, constitute the general object and subject of jurisprudence.Jurisprudence is a conceptual part of legal reality, both an object and a subject of legal science. The evolution of jurisprudence in the cultural-historical logic of changes in its subject and methods is the basis for changes in its disciplinary structure and connections in the general system of social and political sciences. Each cultural and historical epoch of the existence of law corresponds to its own grammar of law and its own epistemology of law, that is, its own analytical language and disciplinary format of legal knowledge. The law exists in the definitions of its concept. The concept of law has both an ontological and epistemological status. One thinks of law because it exists, and one understands the law because it is defined. Each tradition of understanding the law can be conceptually seen in the phenomenon of law that other traditions of legal understanding do not see or do not notice. The history of the development of the concept of law (conceptualization of law) contains the history of the development of legal institutions (institutionalization of law). Both components of legal reality — objective and subjective grounds and conditions for the emergence and development of the phenomenon of law live in the framework definitions of their social culture, its language and discourse. That is, they live in historical forms of awareness and understanding of one’s own law — from the law indicated in rituals, myths, signs and symbols, to the law indicated in canonical texts, doctrines and concepts; from the law of disciplinary society to the law of network communities; from the law of political domination and bureaucratic management to the law of civil communications and network agreements.


2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 169-180
Author(s):  
Monika Zalewska

The main goal of Hans Kelsen’s Pure Theory of Law is to build a science of law. Kelsen is looking for a valid conditions of legal science and find them in neokantian philosophy. However, in the last phase when he turns into linguistic paradigm, he can’t explain science of law through neokantian terms anymore. In this case the question arises, how to recognize law from other linguistic expressions. Normally one could recall context of such expression (pragmatical context). In Kelsen’s case this is impossible as he distinguishes between is and ought and postulates that we should study law only on ought sphere. Despite this I will try to demonstrate that the pragmatics is possible in Pure Theory of Law by transforming previous neokantian categories into pragmatic ones.


2020 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 813-820
Author(s):  
Aelita M. Mongush

The article contains an overview of the published textbook “Problems of the theory of state and law”. The publication is devoted to topical and controversial issues in the theory of law and state, contains interesting materials for the study of modern problems of the methodology of legal science, approaches to understanding of law, etc. The textbook will familiarize the readers with the points of view of various authors and their arguments on many issues. The educational publication is a complex work of a team of authors and is intended for a wide range of readers.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document