scholarly journals ON THE ISSUE OF A NEW COMPREHENSIVE INTERDISCIPLINARY ECONOMIC AND LEGAL INSTITUTE IN THE CONTEXT OF DIGITALIZATION

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (2(30)) ◽  
pp. 30-35
Author(s):  
Valentina Nikolaevna Sidorova

The article is devoted to the problematic issues of the development of a new complex interdisciplinary economic and legal institute in the theory of law and in civil legislation. The author comes to the conclusion that in the conditions of digital law and the digital economy, a unified economic and legal theory of regulating civil (commercial, entrepreneurial, economic, corporate) legal relations with the participation of legal entities is necessary as a new complex interdisciplinary economic and legal theory based on new principles. The development of new principles will require the efforts of scientists and specialists in various branches of law and special scientific disciplines.

2009 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 225-239
Author(s):  
Miodrag Jovanović

The paper argues that the legal-theoretical treatment of the issue of promoting certain collective entities to the status of legal entities cannot be satisfactorily accomplished within the methodological models of either Hart’s analytical jurisprudence or Kelsen's Pure Theory of Law. The question of the conceptualization of collective rights proves to be largely a question of justification rather than one of mere analysis or description. In this sense, the paper proposes to elucidate various aspects of the problem of the legal shaping of the social identity of relevant collective entities with the purpose of constructing legal personality. The first section of this paper briefly shows that the question of legal personality is a general problem of legal theory, and that there is consequently nothing specifically new about collective entities as potential legal entities. The second section of the paper considers in greater detail the social and legal "construction of diversity", on which the concept of collective rights is based. Finally, the paper suggests that the legal theory of collective rights can hardly accomplish these tasks without recourse to the methodological apparatus of both sociological and anthropological disciplines.


2021 ◽  
Vol 34 (1) ◽  
pp. 171-202
Author(s):  
Brian Z. Tamanaha

A century ago the pragmatists called for reconstruction in philosophy. Philosophy at the time was occupied with conceptual analysis, abstractions, a priori analysis, and the pursuit of necessary, universal truths. Pragmatists argued that philosophy instead should center on the pressing problems of the day, which requires theorists to pay attention to social complexity, variation, change, power, consequences, and other concrete aspects of social life. The parallels between philosophy then and jurisprudence today are striking, as I show, calling for a pragmatism-informed theory of law within contemporary jurisprudence. In the wake of H.L.A. Hart’s mid-century turn to conceptual analysis, “during the course of the twentieth century, the boundaries of jurisprudential inquiry were progressively narrowed.”1 Jurisprudence today is dominated by legal philosophers engaged in conceptual analysis built on intuitions, seeking to identify essential features and timeless truths about law. In the pursuit of these objectives, they detach law from its social and historical moorings, they ignore variation and change, they drastically reduce law to a singular phenomenon—like a coercive planning system for difficult moral problems2—and they deny that coercive force is a universal feature of law, among other ways in which they depart from the reality of law; a few prominent jurisprudents even proffer arguments that invoke aliens or societies of angels.


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.


2010 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jose R. Rodriguez

Formalism persists everywhere despite 100 years of critical legal theory. The reasons for that are sociological and political and include the persistence of the separation of powers idea as a central concept for the theory of law. In Brazil, this phenomenon manifests itself acutely for two supplementary reasons: (1) the lack of a real differentiation between academic research and professional lawyering and (2) the influence of neo-liberal economic thought.The persistence of formalism is a serious problem for Brazilian development since it naturalizes the existing institutions and their related power positions, creating an obstacle to any project of development that proposes something new. It blocks the development of a critical and reflexive knowledge on institutions, shortening institutional imagination to projects that could transform Brazilian reality.The main objective of this article is to develop a critique of formalism useful both as a general method to criticize formalism and as a tool to criticize its Brazilian manifestation. It will be argued here that the critique of formalism fails when it is only theoretical. An efficient critique must also grasp the ideas and the social relations responsible to reproduce formalism as a conceptual idea that informs social practices.To do that, this article will first propose a characterization of Brazilian formalism that does not fit in the Formalism X Instrumentalism dichotomy and is more adequate to grasp how law rationality works in countries from the Continental Law tradition. Afterwards, it will identify the power positions and the respective ideologies responsible to reproduce formalism in Brazil, giving criticism a sociological basis. Finally, it will show that only a positive view of what law should be will able to overcome formalism, both as a philosophical idea and as a social practice. In its final part, a sketch of such a view will be presented.


2020 ◽  
Vol 45 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 200-216
Author(s):  
Marek Zirk-Sadowski

This paper presents Jerzy Wróblewski’s (1926–1990) theory of law. He was an eminent Polish legal philosopher. His philosophical minimalism, anticognitivism, relativism and moderate reconstructivism constitute the basis for analytical theory of law in Poland. He was developing his theory of law over the span of several dozens of years but the assumptions were formulated already in his first work on legal interpretation published in 1959. His paradigm of legal theory includes several areas: the theory of the legal norm, theory of legal interpretation, theory of the legal system, theory of application of law, theory of law-making and the methodology of legal sciences.


Legal Theory ◽  
1998 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 427-467 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen R. Perry

To understand H.L.A. Hart's general theory of law, it is helpful to distinguish between substantive and methodological legal positivism. Substantive legal positivism is the view that there is no necessary connection between morality and the content of law. Methodological legal positivism is the view that legal theory can and should offer a normatively neutral description of a particular social phenomenon, namely law. Methodological positivism holds, we might say, not that there is no necessary connection between morality and law, but rather that there is no connection, necessary or otherwise, between morality and legal theory. The respective claims of substantive and methodological positivism are, at least on the surface, logically independent. Hobbes and Bentham employed normative methodologies to defend versions of substantive positivism, and in modern times Michael Moore has developed what can be regarded as a variant of methodological positivism to defend a theory of natural law.


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.


2013 ◽  
Vol 26 (4) ◽  
pp. 1037-1053 ◽  
Author(s):  
JOSHUA PAINE

Hans Kelsen's vast body of work is perhaps one of the best examples of the unremarkable but important point that one's legal theory and methodological choices are intricately tied up with how one understands international law. Kelsen stands for a huge number of different positions, but chief amongst them must be his insistence on developing a ‘pure’ theory of law that accounted for the unique normativity of law, separate from empirical facts and causality on the one hand, and substantive theories of justice on the other. For Kelsen, the unique normativity of law is found within the legal system itself, in the idea of normative imputation – the ‘linking of a conditioning material fact with a conditioned consequence’. According to Kelsen, this specifically legal sense of ‘ought’ is an a priori category that allows us to correctly cognize the legal meaning of empirical data.


Author(s):  
Philipp Reimer

»L’ÉTAT, C’EST LE DROIT!« – SOBRE A ATUALIDADE DA TEORIA DO ESTADO DE HANS KELSEN EM FACE DA METAMORFOSE DO PODER ESTATAL*  »L’ÉTAT, C’EST LE DROIT!« - ZUR AKTUALITÄT DER STAATSLEHRE HANS KELSENS IM ANGESICHT SICH WANDELNDER STAATSGEWALT  »L’ÉTAT, C’EST LE DROIT!« - THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF HANS KELSEN'S STATE DOCTRINE IN LIGHT OF THE STATE POWER CHANGES   Philipp Reimer**  RESUMO: Confrontada com evidentes mutações na estruturação de instituições e atividades estatais, a teoria do direito pode nos dizer que aspectos deste processo de metamorfose devem ser considerados pelos estudos jurídicos – bem como quais aspectos não precisam ser levados em conta. Fazendo uso de uma abordagem kelseniana, este artigo demonstra como a teoria do direito (compreendida como disciplina normativa) não enfrenta quaisquer dificuldades ao lidar com fenômenos da ordem do dia tais quais „soft law“, „governo de múltiplos níveis“ ou „pluralismo jurídico“. A distinção entre normativo e empírico é a chave interpretativa, aqui, de tal forma que a investigação desta última esfera pertence ao domínio das ciências sociais e não da teoria do direito. PALAVRAS-CHAVE: Identidade entre Estado e direito. Hans Kelsen. Teoria pura do direito. Teoria normativa. Pluralismo jurídico. ABSTRACT: When facing eminent change of the way government institutions and activities are structured, legal theory can tell us in what respects legal scholarship needs to take account of such change - and also, in what respects is does not. Using a Kelsenian approach, this paper shows how legal theory (understood as a normative discipline) has no difficulty in coping with modern-day phenomena such as "soft law", "multi-level government", and "legal pluralism". The distinction of the normative and the empirical is key here, where the study of the latter falls into the domain of the social sciences, not legal theory. KEYWORDS: Identity of legal order and state. Hans Kelsen. Pure theory of law. Normative theory. Legal pluralism. SUMÁRIO: 1 Transformação do Estado – de que Estado? 1.1 Um Estado, duas dimensões, três elementos? 1.2 Diferenciação dos conceitos de Estado. 1.3 Conceito teórico-jurídico de Estado e transformação do Estado. 2 Transformações do conteúdo do direito. 2.1 Autorregulação. 2.2 »Soft law«. 3 Transformação da estrutura do direito: Substituição do Estado. 3.1 »Sistemas de múltiplos níveis« e »pluralismo jurídico« como (aparente) desafio a um teoria do direito centrada no Estado. 3.1.1 »Sistemas de múltiplos níveis«. 3.1.2 »Pluralismo jurídico«. 3.2 Substituição, não transformação do Estado. 3.2.1 A antiquada teoria do direito centrada no Estado como quimera. 3.2.2 A necessária unidade da perspectiva jurídica da ciência normativa. 3.2.2.1 Derrogação apenas internamente a uma ordem jurídica. 3.2.2.2 Construção do direito internacional público e do direito europeu. 3.2.3 O caráter arbitrário da escolha do ponto de partida da abordagem jurídica. Conclusão – perspectivas científico-normativas e científico-sociais sobre a “transformação do Estado”. Referências Bibliográficas. * Publicação original: REIMER, Philipp. »L’État, c’est le droit!« - Zur Aktualität der Staatslehre Hans Kelsens im Angesicht sich wandelnder Staatsgewalt. In: HESCHL, Lisa et seq (Eds.). L'État, c'est quoi? Staatsgewalt im Wandel. 54. Assistententagung Öffentliches Recht. Graz: Helbing & Lichtenhahn, 2014, p. 37-57. Traduzido por Rodrigo Garcia Cadore, doutorando em Teoria do Direito e Direito Público pela Universidade de Freiburg (Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg), Alemanha, com autorização do autor.** Livre-docente em Direito Público e Teoria do Direito pela Universidade de Freiburg (Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg), Alemanha. Professor Privatdozent na Faculdade de Direito da Universidade de Mainz (Johannes Gutenberg Universität Mainz), Alemanha.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document