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

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.

Leader in law theory: in memory of Alexander Fedorovich Cherdantsev

The article is dedicated to the memory of Professor A.F. Cherdantsev, a well-known Russian legal theorist. In the focus are creative periods of the scientist's life. Particular attention is paid to his contribution to the development of legal science with the emphasis on law interpretation, scientists achievements in the field of investigating epistemological nature, values (principles) of interpretation of legal norms, formulation of linguistic, systemic and other rules. The author's contribution to the development of methodology of law and his criticism of the integrative approach in jurisprudence have also been illustrated. The article analyzes the scholars development of the legal norm doctrine, its structure, technical and legal regulations, etc. His contribution to the development of educational literature is separately considered and highly appreciated. The tribute is also given to his individual scientific papers. It is proposed to systematize and republish Professor Cherdantsevs works.

Autonomous Organizations

Under current business law, it is already possible to give legal personhood, or a very close surrogate of it, to software systems of any kind (from a simple automated escrow agent to a more hypothetical, truly smart artificial intelligence). This means that, for example, robots could enter into contracts, serve as legal agents, or own property. Ultimately, entire companies could actually be run by non-human agents. This study argues that this is not as scary as it might sound at first. Legal theorist and noted software developer Shawn Bayern argues that autonomous or zero-person organizations offer an opportunity for useful new types of interactions between software and the law. This creative contribution to the theory and practice of law and technology explores the social and political aspects of these new organizational structures and their implications for legal theory.

Direito e ciência na teoria pura do direito E o problema da liberdade em Kelsen

O estudo destina-se a abordar a relação entre o direito e a ciência na Teoria Pura do Direito e o problema da cientificidade na literatura de Hans Kelsen, inicia-se a abordagem com a análise entre a norma jurídica e a proposição jurídica, após uma realiza-se uma abordagem entre a causalidade (ser) e a imputação (dever-ser), expõe-se a ideia kelseneana de norma fundamental e por fim, coloca-se o complexo problema da liberdade na obra deste importante autor da literatura jurídica concluindo que o respostas a este problema só serão encontradas quando atendidas as exigências da ciência. O que se observa é que a norma fundamental defendida por Kelsen é necessária sim para o teórico do direito, aquele que tem a função de explicar a validade do direito, explicar de onde vem a força do direito - se do ser ou do dever-ser, ou seja, de um fato ou de uma norma -, mas não para o prático do direito, pois a norma fundamental, como já frisado, é uma norma hipotética, não tem conteúdo, e é justamente disso que precisam os operadores do direito para aplicarem a norma. The study is intended to address the relationship between law and science in the Pure Theory of Law and the problem of scientificity in Hans Kelsen's literature. an approach is made between causality (being) and imputation (should-be), it exposes the Kelsenean idea of ​​fundamental norm and, finally, the complex problem of freedom in the work of this important author of legal literature is presented, concluding that the answers to this problem will only be found when the demands of science are met. What is observed is that the fundamental norm defended by Kelsen is indeed necessary for the legal theorist, who has the function of explaining the validity of the law, explaining where the force of law comes from - whether of being or of the should-be , that is, of a fact or a norm -, but not for the legal practitioner, as the fundamental norm, as already emphasized, is a hypothetical norm, has no content, and this is precisely what the operators of the law need to apply the standard..

Terror as a Tool of Stalin’s Rule Book Review: Syrykh VM. The Legal Nature of Stalin’s Terror: In Compliance with the Directives of the Party, but Contrary to the Law. Moscow: Yurlitinform Publ.; 2020

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.

On hating and despising legal philosophy

This article is a cry for help. It is a search for some possible view of legal philosophy that does not render it either intrinsically useless or useless in its current form. In this article I focus on two methodological hallmarks of contemporary anglophone legal philosophy. The first is the Archimedean way in which the legal theorist places a critical distance between him- or herself and the subject matter of the philosophical inquiry. The second is the introverted way in which the accuracy of any given legal theory is confined to the theorist’s own puzzles, concerns, controversies, and preoccupations. Whilst I consider those who have turned against these methodological commitments and called for an anti-Archimedean or extroverted approach to legal theory, I explain how those who accept both commitments adopt a very modest view of the helpfulness of legal philosophy. I then consider whether, contrary to the modest view, if we accept both commitments, then whatever is true in legal philosophy will always be trivially true, irrelevant, or inconsequential, for any non-philosophical practice or non-philosophical inquiry about the law. The value of this article, I hope, lies in its refutation.

How to do things with Foucault (legally)

In this essay, I discuss the legal theorist, Peter Fitzpatrick's, reading of philosopher Michel Foucault. My intent is to show how and why Foucault was important to Fitzpatrick and what this reveals about the latter's practices of reading. I characterise this particular reading in three ways. First, against the disciplinary tendency to assume that Foucault is more useful to lawyers for how he approaches law (as method), Fitzpatrick takes seriously what Foucault has to say about law as a conceptual matter. Fitzpatrick hence reads Foucault as a legal thinker. Second, Fitzpatrick does not restrict himself to the conventional archive of Foucauldian texts that legal scholars routinely consult, but reads more widely and creatively in his search for law. Third, Fitzpatrick reads Foucault open-endedly and generously rather than instrumentally or dismissively – textual ambivalence and contradiction are always, in his hands, sources of creative possibility and insight. This leads into some concluding reflections about Fitzpatrick's practice of critically rereading thinkers – all thinkers, not simply Foucault.

Improvising with Peter

When listening to a recently rediscovered home cassette recording of South African musician and activist Hugh Masekela, which was a gift from the late legal theorist Peter Fitzpatrick in 2004, unleashed are a series of recollections and reflections on the distinctiveness and significance of Fitzpatrick's scholarship, especially in relation to the emerging field of critical legal studies in improvisation. This short piece recalls Peter's boundless wisdom, kindness and generosity, and the lasting impact that his thought and texts have had on his students, colleagues and readers the world over.

Dennis Patterson on Wittgenstein

Dennis Patterson, modern American legal theorist, is one of the active supporters of the importance and significance of later Wittgenstein’s ideas for resolving legal philosophy problems, including legal indeterminacy problem. On the basis of Wittgenstein’s ideas about rule-following and acting in accordance with rule, he developed his own special approach to law and legal interpretation. Although there are some doubts and possible objections that he understood and interpreted «Philosophical Investigations» correctly, it should be recognized that Patterson made a full-scale (and sometimes very convincing) attempt to explicate Wittgenstein’s thoughts in a quite different context, namely, in the context of legal theory. His treatment of wittgensteinian philosophy of language continues to be interesting and sound, despite the criticisms that have been made against his approach. It is in fact very hard to find among modern legal philosophers or theorists someone who could interpret Wittgenstein in a more sophisticated way than Patterson has done