Nowa wersja platformy, zawierająca wyłącznie zasoby pełnotekstowe, jest już dostępna.
Przejdź na https://bibliotekanauki.pl
Ograniczanie wyników
Czasopisma help
Lata help
Autorzy help
Preferencje help
Widoczny [Schowaj] Abstrakt
Liczba wyników

Znaleziono wyników: 29

Liczba wyników na stronie
first rewind previous Strona / 2 next fast forward last
Wyniki wyszukiwania
Wyszukiwano:
w słowach kluczowych:  legal positivism
help Sortuj według:

help Ogranicz wyniki do:
first rewind previous Strona / 2 next fast forward last
EN
The article reviews a monograph autored by Łukasz Święcicki. The book is devoted to the critiques of legal positivism which were put forward by two German conservative thinkers, i.e. a lawyer Carl Schmitt and a philosopher Leo Strauss. The said critique is presented on the backround of the accomplishments of Polish scholarly analyses of Germany, with particular attention being paid to the research on German political and legal thought. The author of the article — referencing the contents of Święcicki’s work — discusses the main premises and assumptions of the relevant criticism. While evaluating legal positivism, both Schmitt and Strauss reached similar conclusions even though their personal philosophical positions were vastly different. They both considered the paradigm of legal positivism as an example of modernity in reflection upon law which naturally clashed with the conservative understanding of legal questions.
EN
This paper presents human rights in connection with the dispute between legal posi-tivism and legal non-positivism. The importance of this topic can be evaluated by the debate that took place between Hart and Dworkin. Indeed, much of Dworkin’s work can be considered a reaction to Hart’s positivism. The presented study argues for the defense of the thesis that in order to understand such a debate it is important to take a position between moral noncognitivism and moral cognitivism. The hypothesis is that legal positivism does depend on the non plausibility of strong moral cognitivism. There-fore, only based on strong moral cognitivism would it be consistent to sustain the typi-cal non-positivistic thesis of the necessary connection between law and morality. Human rights are in the center of this debate because they constitute the core of the current morality, especially the most important core of justice.
The Lawyer Quarterly
|
2019
|
tom 9
|
nr 2
108-123
EN
This article focuses on the methodological nature of the economic analysis of law as a distinct discipline between jurisprudence and economics. A brief introduction to the dualist character of the discipline shall be provided by demonstrating how its component legal and economic parts may be changed. Finally, these findings will be applied to the case of the Austrian school of economics, with brief inquiry into the work of Karel Engliš, whose ideas on the methodology of law and economics offer a viable alternative to the current natural law conception of the Austrian school’s economic analysis of law.
EN
The article has been thought as a contribution to the discussion on comprehension of truth within the framework of the domestic jurisprudence. The author, describing philosophical and theoretical assumptions with respect to positivism epistemology indicates - basing on the sources presented in this article - the transformations to which the concept of the so-called ‘objective truth’ was subject and the extent to which various political and social factors influenced the concept mentioned. As he concludes complexity and dynamics concerning transformations of the domestic legal culture, as well as conflicts between the written law and the practice are disclosed in lawyers’ attitude to the truth.
5
Content available Ideology in Modern Russian Constitutional Practice
88%
EN
The article focuses on Russian constitutional ideology with overview of its historical preconditions and analysis of recent significant cases of the Russian Constitutional Court. There is a discussion of gay activist Alekseyev’s case and “foreign agents’ law” case in constitutional practice as most significant examples of positivistic way of legal reasoning. The paper argues that legal positivism through its form – legal formalism is the main ideology in the modern constitutional practice in Russia. This ideology is based on the assumption that constitutional justice can find social truth. German positivistic and Soviet Marxist views have strongly determined the modern Russian constitutional discourse.
EN
The paradigm of legal positivism, historically the most important attempt at turning law into science, has been subject to thorough criticism in past decades. The criticism has concerned the most important features of legal positivism, and especially the assumption of separation of law and morality, the dogma of statue being the only source of law, and the linguistic methods of interpreting legal texts. With a crisis of the positive paradigms, the demand for new, humanistic grounds for analysing philosophical and legal questions is intensifying. This is the reason for this article’s attempt to point to the application of Paul Ricoeur’s achievements to the key questions of the philosophy of law. It must be emphasised that his works, and especially Soimême comme un autre, may serve as a foundation for a philosophy of law rejecting the problematic claims about the dualism of being and obligation, the distinction of descriptive and prescriptive languages, and also the separation of law and morality. Thanks to this, the legal topos pacta sunt servanda (agreements must be kept) finds a reinforcement in the ontology of the subject applying law and can be understood as an ethically significant pattern of identity of the self. Equally fruitful seems the possibility of combining the questions of the ontology of the subject applying law with the question of a legal text and its interpretation. The assumption of Ricoeur’s perspective leads to a reduction in the distance between the legal text and its addressee, emphasised by the critics of legal positivism. This rapprochement becomes possible thanks to the connection of the question of the narrative that a legal text is with the question of narrativisation of the subject (i.e. the interpreter of a legal text), being itself in the ipse sense, i.e. applying the law.
7
Content available Nowe wyzwanie dla pozytywizmu prawniczego
75%
PL
In his lecture, delivered at the Department of the Philosophy of Law of the Autonomous University of Madrid on 29 October 1979, H.L.A. Hart directly responds to Ronald Dworkin’s attack on Legal Positivism, launched in Taking Rights Seriously. In the Sections I–II, Hart explicates his version of Legal Positivism by means of three central positivist theses: the Thesis of the Conceptual Separation of Law and Morals, the Thesis of the Social Sources of Law, and the Thesis of Judicial Discretion. Next, in Section III, he discusses Dworkin’s fundamental objections against the positivist theory of judicial discretion and claims that none of them seem convincing. Finally, in Sections IV–V, Hart analyses a new, herculean theory of adjudication, proposed by Dworkin as a „middle way theory” between the classic theories of Natural Law and Legal Positivism. In his answer to the criticism of the positivist Rule of Recognition, Hart claims that there is no reason why this rule, in certain jurisdictions, would not predict the use of the herculean procedure among the criteria that it provides for the identification of the law. He also states that the use of the herculean method of adjudication is unacceptable for the lawyers and that an impracticable character of this method is easy to demonstrate by referring to the case of the wicked legal systems, in which the principles underlying the law are morally bad. Thus, Hart concludes that instead of a sound vía media between Natural Law and Legal Positivism, the theory of Dworkin seems to offer the confusion of them.
EN
Literature provides a great deal of material for more general observations regarding the as- sessment of law and its role in public awareness. Literary works act as a mirror in which we can see the dangers of breaking the link between law and morality. An excellent example is William Golding’s novel, ‘Lord of the Flies’. His parabolic story about human nature provides a reflection on the role and nature of law in society. The task of defining the essence of law and its role in society has captured the minds of legal theorists, philosophers, and sociolo- gists for centuries. This paper includes a brief analysis of two basic concepts of the nature of law, i.e. natural law and legal positivism. It is an attempt to show that theoretical beliefs about the essence of law have a direct impact on the practice of making and applying laws. The pluralism of values is used by various social groups or the ruling political elite to achieve their own goals. They value individual civil liberties, giving primacy to values that safeguard their interests. This often happens at the expense of other groups whose freedoms are being limited. Importantly, such mechanisms of assigning value are used in both undemocratic and democratic systems.
EN
This article constitutes an attempt to evaluate the legal status of legislative acts of internal character provided for in the Constitution and some actions exhibiting features of normative acts not provided for in the Constitution of the Republic of Poland of April 2, 1997 but present in the process of administering the state, from the perspective of legal positivism and the theory of law sources. In particular, the article attempts to answer the following questions: Do such acts constitute legislation from the point of view of legal positivism, i.e. can they be considered to be normative acts containing rules of a general and abstract content established or approved by the state?
EN
The aim of the paper is to reconstruct the theoretical background and practical meaning of the so called war writings which emerged within the phenomenological movement during the First World War. The author exemplifies it by researching the works of two German representatives of this movement, Max Scheler and Kurt Stavenhagen. He focuses on their application of the phenomenological method to the analysis of Russian national identity, and historical as well as cultural foundations of Russian state. The paper’s main thesis is that the politicization and militarization of phenomenology consisted in both “personalization” and “sociologization” of the phenomenological approach to the problem of the state. While interpreting Scheler’s personalism as an exemplification of the approach to the state as a problem of social ontology, the author reconstructs the theoretical conditions of analyzing the Russian imperial state in terms of the “world.” The focus of the paper is particularly on the phenomenology of, as Scheler put it, Russian collective personality and Russian national consciousness or “soul” as well as on the question of legitimacy of Ukrainian resistance against Russian imperialism.
11
Content available Sedno idei pozytywizmu prawniczego
63%
PL
Much in recent discussions on legal positivism suggests that the controversy surrounding the notion turns on the distinction between inclusive and exclusive legal positivism. As a point of departure in distinguishing them, the separation principle is helpful. The separation principle counts as the contradictory of the morality principle, according to which there is “necessary overlap” between the law and morality. What the legal positivist’s denial of the morality principle comes to can be refined, we are told, by appealing to the distinction between inclusive and exclusive legal positivism. One can acquire a broader perspective by opening up the field in order to cover not only inclusive and exclusive legal positivism but also non-positivism, represented by the defence of the morality principle, that is the view that there is necessary overlap between the law and morality. Say what you will about inclusive versus exclusive legal positivism – some defend the distinction, others dismiss inclusive legal positivism as a non-starter. In any case, I want to argue that a far more fundamental distinction within the positivist camp lies elsewhere. The distinction I have in mind is that between legal positivism qua naturalism (J. Austin) and legal positivism without naturalism (H. Kelsen). For reasons institutional in nature, legal positivism has largely been discussed in a vacuum, there is a standing presumption to the effect that there are ties between legal positivism and ‘positivism writ large’ in the greater philosophical tradition – or, as it would be put in present-day philosophical circles, ties between legal positivism and naturalism.
PL
In his translator’s note to the H.L.A Hart’s paper New Challenge to Legal Positivism, Andrzej Grabowski describes the historical details of Hart’s Madrid lecture and the changes of the original Spanish text, introduced in the translation. He argues that Hart’s paper can be regarded as the prequel to the ‘Postscript’ from 1994, since the lecture deals with the criticism of Dworkin against the Hartian version of legal positivism and some important parts of them (from Section II) were in extenso included in the ‘Postscript’. The translator also emphasises the importance of Hart’s lecture as a text-source of information, which can be used in the contemporary debate on the inclusive legal positivism and for the critical reconstruction of Hart’s theoretical position.
EN
The article aims at reconstructing the defense of utilitarianism, a philosophical doctrine being the basis for legal positivism (which is the foundation of the constitutional concept of sources of law), undertaken by H.L.A. Hart. Hart took up this defense in the face of a significant increase in the interest of legal theorists in concepts related to natural law. Discussing the views of his master, J. Bentham, Hart also expresses his own deep doubts about the ideology of natural law, the adoption of which leads to the rejection of legal positivism deeply rooted in utilitarianism. Presented more than four decades ago, Hart’s remarks remain relevant today; modern thinkers still search an appropriate, other than referring to natural law, philosophical justification for a specific code of fundamental human rights.
PL
Celem artykułu jest rekonstrukcja podjętej przez H.L.A. Harta obrony utylitaryzmu, doktryny filozoficznej będącej gruntem dla pozytywizmu prawniczego, który jest fundamentem konstytucyjnej koncepcji źródeł prawa. Obrony tej podjął się Hart w obliczu znaczącego wzrostu zainteresowania teoretyków prawa koncepcjami nawiązującymi do prawa natury. Omawiając poglądy swego mistrza, J. Benthama, Hart wyraża też własne, głębokie wątpliwości dotyczące ideologii praw naturalnych, której przyjęcie prowadzi do odrzucenia głęboko ugruntowanego w utylitaryzmie pozytywizmu prawniczego. Uwagi Harta sprzed ponad czterech dekad nie tracą dziś na aktualności, współcześni myśliciele wciąż szukają odpowiedniego, innego niż nawiązujące do prawa natury, filozoficznego uzasadnienia dla swoistego kodeksu podstawowych ludzkich praw.
PL
Artykuł podejmuje zagadnienie wpływu szeroko rozpowszechnionej praktyki korzystania z prawniczych baz danych w polskiej praktyce sądowej. Niezależnie od niezaprzeczalnie pozytywnych efektów rozwoju cywilizacji elektronicznej, w tekście rozważane są negatywne skutki korzystania z baz danych. Wynika to z konfliktu między możliwościami oferowanymi przez najnowszą technologię w postaci łatwego dostępu do tekstów prawnych, komentarzy i tysięcy wyroków sądowych – a wyjątkowym doświadczeniem historycznym judykatury w byłym państwie komunistycznym, metodami wykładni prawa opartymi na pozytywizmie prawniczym oraz dominacją sylogistycznego modelu stosowania prawa. Wszystko to powoduje dysfunkcyjność prawniczych baz danych. Powstaje rodzaj „hybrydowej wykładni prawa”, będącej z jednej strony kombinacją spuścizny, skutków transformacji gospodarki i systemu, a także nowych reguł prawa, z drugiej zaś strony ideologii związanej decyzji sądowej. Natura „hybrydowej wykładni prawa” przejawia się w niezliczonej liczbie cytowanych orzeczeń sądowych i komentarzy dostępnych w bazach danych, przy braku szerszego teoretycznego namysłu. W braku argumentów powoływanie się na orzeczenie staje się podstawą dla rozstrzygnięcia sprawy. Pytanie, czy możliwości oferowane przez elektroniczne bazy danych spowodują, że tego rodzaju wykładnia przerodzi się w nową formę retoryki prawnej, czy też pozostanie jedynie środkiem adaptacji dyskrecjonalnej władzy sędziowskiej do doktryny pozytywistycznej, a tym samym sofizmatem z okresu transformacji, pozostaje otwarte.
EN
This article deals with the implications of the widespread practice of use of legal databases in Polish judicial practice. Apart from the undeniable positive effects of development of an electronic civilization, the article deals with the negative effects of use of databases. This is because a conflict arises between the possibilities offered by the latest technology in the form of easy access to legal texts, commentaries and thousands of judicial rulings, and the unique historical experience of the judiciary in a former communist country, methods of legal interpretation sustained by legal positivism, and domination by a syllogistic model for application of the law. All results in dysfunction of legal databases. A kind of “hybrid interpretation of law” is formed, which is a combination of a legacy, the effects of transformation of the economy and the system, as well as the new rules of law, on the one hand, and the ideology of bound judicial decision on the other. The nature of the “hybrid interpretation of law” is the infinite scope for citing judicial rulings and commentaries available in the databases without taking a broader theoretical view – without supporting arguments, and so the citing of a ruling has become the basis for adjudication. The question of whether the possibilities that electronic databases offer will cause interpretation of this kind to turn into a new form of legal rhetoric, or whether it will remain merely a means of adaptation of the discretionary power of judges to legal positivism doctrine, and thus the sophism of the period of transformation, remains an open one.
15
Content available Granice sporów interpretacyjnych w prawoznawstwie
63%
PL
Czy wykładnia prawa ma granice? Czy granice te są konwencjonalnie ustalone? Co sprawia, że dane „racje prawne”, postulowane przez kreślone normatywne teorie wykładni, są dopuszczalne w dyskursie prawnym, nawet jeżeli są nietrafne? W artykule argumentujemy, że pojęcie granic interpretacji prawa powiązane jest z ogólnym pojęciem granic prawa. Wskazujemy na zakres tzw. „interpretacyjnych sporów teoretycznych” dyskutowanych m.in. na gruncie pewnych wysublimowanych, „instytucjonalnych” wersji współczesnego pozytywizmu prawniczego. Granice interpretacyjne nie mają jednak wyłącznie charakteru granic „instytucjonalnych”. W naszym przekonaniu, granice te są także ogólnie wyznaczone przez truistyczne, powszechnie przyjęte przekonania na temat prawa i interpretacji.
EN
Does legal interpretation have borders? Are these borders conventionally established? What makes the given ‘legal reasons’, set forth by certain normative theories of legal interpretation, acceptable in legal discourse (even if the reasons are wrong)? In the present paper, we argue that the notion of the borders of legal interpretation is linked to the general notion of the borders of law. We indicate the scope of ‘interpretive theoretical disagreements’ in law, as discussed by certain new, ‘institutional’ versions of legal positivism. Interpretive borders are not fully determined by the given ‘institutional’ framework. In our view, these borders are also more generally determined inter alia by certain truistic (platitudinous) beliefs related to law and interpretation.
PL
Niemal w każdej książce dotyczącej zagadnienia praworządności i demokracji wskazuje się na ideę trójpodziału władzy jako jedną z podstawowych zasad demokratycznego państwa prawnego. W polskiej kulturze prawnej i politycznej ostatnich kilku miesięcy pojawił się pewien problem, który nazywany jest powszechnie ‘sporem o Trybunał Konstytucyjny’, czasami ‘sporem o demokrację’ lub ‘kryzysem wokół Trybunału Konstytucyjnego’. W mojej ocenie nie jest to jedynie spór polityczny, jak najczęściej mówi się o nim w mediach, ale jest trudnym do rozwiązania zagadnieniem filozoficznym. Jego wyjaśnienie i potencjalne rozwiązanie musi sięgnąć do podstawowego aparatu pojęciowego filozofii prawa i samych fundamentów myślenia prawniczego i politycznego. W niniejszym artykule stawiam tezę, że spór ten jest immanentnie wpisany w naszą kulturę prawną i wiąże się ze szczególną pozycją prawa pozytywnego w tej kulturze wraz próbą budowy naukowego prawoznawstwa przez pozytywizm prawniczy.
EN
Almost in every book concerning a problem of law and order and democracy the principle of the tripartite separation of power is indicated as one of the basic principles of the democratic state based on the rule of law. Last months in Poland’s legal and political culture a problem appeared which is widely called ‘a dispute over the Constitutional Tribunal’, ‘a dispute over democracy’ or ‘a crisis regarding the Constitutional Tribunal’. In my opinion, it is not only a political dispute as it is most often presented in the media but it is a philosophical issue difficult to resolve. Its explanation and potential solution must reach basic means of legal philosophy and the grounds of legal and political thinking. In this article I challenge a thesis that the dispute is immanently connected with our legal culture and involves a distinctive position of positive law in that culture with an attempt of creating jurisprudence by legal positivism.
EN
This article aims to discuss the influence that personal views on philosophy of law held by individual judges exerts on their judicial decisions in a connection with philosophy of Gustav Radbruch. Commonly, the subconscious philosophical position held by the judge towards the law determines the statutory interpretation and, thus, the final decision. Through the juxtaposition of Gustav Radbruch’s and Hans Kelsen’s schools of thinking, it is proven that philosophical outlook of the judges is very much relevant for the process of making judicial decisions. Lon Fuller’s notorious article “The Case of Speluncean Explorers” is used to illustrate the problem and demonstrate the causality between accepting the positivistic paradigm and the preference for formalistic interpretation of the law and, conversely, between the adherence to legal realism or naturalism and the preference for antiformalistic interpretation.  Therefore, two key issues are introduced to prove the significance of philosophy of law for judicial decisions: the developments in philosophical and legal thought under the influence of law held by particular judges. historical events and the relationship between statutory interpretation and views on philosophy of law held by particular judges. historical events and the relationship between statutory interpretation and views on philosophy of
PL
Niniejszy artykuł ma na celu poruszenie problematyki filozofii prawa i jej wpływu na kształtowanie decyzji sędziowskiej na tle filozofii Gustava Radbrucha. Niejednokrotnie w sposób nieświadomy to przyjmowana przez sędziego postawa filozoficzna wobec prawa determinuje sposób wykładni norm, co wpływa na decyzję finalną. Poprzez analizę filozofii Gustava Radbrucha i zestawienie jej z poglądami Hansa Kelsena dowiedzione zostanie, że poglądy filozoficzne sędziów nie pozostają bez znaczenia dla decyzji sędziowskiej. Do uwidocznienia wspomnianego problemu zostanie wykorzystana analiza artykułu Lona Fullera „sprawa grotołazów”. Posłuży ona do przedstawienia zależności między przyjmowaniem pozytywistycznego paradygmatu a wykładnią formalistyczną, a także paradygmatów realistycznych lub prawonaturalnych a wykładnią antyformalistyczną.  Zatem aby wykazać, że filozofia prawa jest czynnikiem wpływającym na decyzję sędziowską podjęte zostaną dwa zasadnicze problemy – przemiany myśli filozoficzno-prawnej pod wpływem wydarzeń historycznych oraz korespondencja między filozofią prawa a sposobem prowadzenia wykładni przez sędziów.
18
Content available remote Norms and facts
63%
The Lawyer Quarterly
|
2017
|
tom 7
|
nr 3
180-199
EN
In this paper, I am going to deal with a logical relation between facts and norms. Humans both cognize some facts and take value attitudes to them. But what is a logical relation between these two activities of human thinking? I will focus on what it is for a fact to ground a norm. The normative beliefs that we ground on some facts ultimately always presuppose the acceptance of some normative principles that are no longer dependent on any facts. A full-blooded normativity is coming alive only from the position of participants in legal practice, and thus from within the practice. Ultimately, legal validity is not based on knowledge of a fact, whether normative or empirical. It is based on a practical stance of the acceptance of legal authority. Such an attitude is implicit in the day-to-day practice of human agents who use law without the need to thematise its normative grounds.
EN
The subject of the article, prepared as part of the commemorations for the 100th birthday anniversary of Professor Kazimierz Opałek, is the issue of the rule of law, which occupied a prominent place in his works. Accordingly, the analyses carried out in the article encompass different takes on the concept of the ‘rule of law’, its classifications, as well as the issue of safeguards of the rule of law, as understood by Opałek. A special emphasis in this regard is placed on the problem of limitations upon the exercise of constitutional freedoms and rights imposed by statutes. The article concludes with the observation that when Opałek raised the issue of the dispute over the notion of the rule of law as early as the 1950s, he made references in his analyses to German and English theories. Although a lot of time has passed since then, his conceptual analyses have remained relevant, and are bound to be brought up by future generations of researchers.
PL
Przedmiotem opracowania przygotowanego 100 rocznicę urodzin Profesora Kazimierza Opałka jest problematyka praworządności w opublikowanych przezeń pracach. W toku prowadzonych rozważań poddano analizie charakterystyki praworządności, podziały praworządności oraz problem gwarancji praworządności, tak jak one były rozumiane przez Opałka. Szczególną uwagę zwrócono na podjęty przezeń problem ograniczenia konstytucyjnych praw i wolności na mocy przepisów rangi ustawowej. Nadto porównano stanowisko teoretycznoprawne Kazimierza Opałka z poglądami Józefa Nowackiego. Podkreślono, że w pracach tych autorów można znaleźć zarówno miejsca wspólne, ale i pewne istotne różnice. Na zakończenie wskazano, że Opałek już w latach pięćdziesiątych XX w., podejmując problem sporu o pojęcie praworządności, odnosił prowadzone analizy do koncepcji niemieckich oraz angielskich. Przeprowadzone przezeń analizy pojęciowe pomimo upływu czasu nie straciły swojej aktualności, a przyszłe pokolenia naukowców będą przez lata do nich powracać.
EN
The paper analyses the institutional epistemology of the process of application of law in Poland. The concept of institutional epistemology is understood as a set of features, epistemic aims, values, and practices, which are intrinsic to the institutional structures. Two aspects of such an institutional epistemology are covered: the positivistic model of cognition and the concept of truth embedded in the judicial practices and legal norms. The philosophical and historical origins of these features are outlined. It is argued that they should be considered relics of previous socio-political system and obsolete philosophies of science, and, in consequence, they do not meet the standards of the constitutional principle of the democratic rule-of-law state (Polish demokratyczne państwo prawne). Evolution towards more deliberative forms of institutional epistemology is advocated.
PL
Artykuł analizuje epistemologię instytucjonalną procesu stosowania prawa w Polsce. Jest ona rozumiana jako zestaw cech, celów poznawczych, wartości, praktyk wpisanych w strukturę instytucjonalną. Analizowane są dwie podstawowe cechy tej epistemologii: pozytywistyczny model poznania oraz koncepcja prawdy. W artykule wskazuję jak te cechy zostały ukształtowane i dlaczego współcześnie należy uznać je za ograniczające. Argumentuję, że legitymacja procesów decyzyjnych opierających się na tych założeniach jest z punktu widzenia zasady demokratycznego państwa prawnego niezadowalająca, i dlatego cechy te powinny ewoluować w kierunku deliberatywnym.
first rewind previous Strona / 2 next fast forward last
JavaScript jest wyłączony w Twojej przeglądarce internetowej. Włącz go, a następnie odśwież stronę, aby móc w pełni z niej korzystać.