Understanding of Law. From the moment of its independence, Ukraine embarked on a journey of redefining its social, economic, and legal landscapes. The proclamation of the inviolability of private property and the freedom of enterprise marked a sharp departure from socialist legality, ushering in a new era defined by the principle of the rule of law. This transformation calls for a profound rethinking of the basic tenets of legal theory, presenting both challenges and opportunities for modern legal thought.
The Shifting Paradigm of Legal Understanding
The development of law is inherently dynamic, shaped by the unique trajectories of society and history. The conceptual differences in how law is understood today reflect this evolution, with approaches varying from viewing law as a set of legal phenomena, an organization of public order, to perceiving it as “the mind in action.” These perspectives underscore the absence of a unified understanding of law. Each legal school offers its own interpretation, enriching the discourse yet complicating the quest for a universal concept.
This diversity of thought is not merely academic; it shapes the framework through which legal phenomena are analyzed and understood. As society redefines itself, so too must law adapt, necessitating the creation of modern legal concepts that resonate with contemporary realities.
The Dual Aims of Legal Science
At its core, the science of law seeks two intertwined goals: attaining true knowledge of law and understanding the regularities of its action across all manifestations. However, traditional legal doctrine often faces limitations due to its categorical apparatus and epistemological challenges. Polemics around issues like the balance between codified laws and judicial discretion or the structuring of legal branches reveal the ongoing struggle to exit theoretical impasses.
Law, as a general concept, aspires toward infinity, leading to the potential for an infinite number of interpretations. Attempts to reconcile the abstract with the concrete—from Herbert Hart’s positivism to Ronald Dworkin’s interpretive theory—highlight the enduring tension in legal thought. Yet, these debates are essential, fostering a deeper engagement with the essence of law.
The Triadic Nature of Law: General, Particular, and Single
Understanding law requires navigating its triadic nature: law as a general idea, law as a particular regulation, and law as a singular reality. The abstract principles of justice and freedom, as general concepts, must transition into the realm of particular regulations to achieve legal certainty. This transformation, however, does not diminish the law’s abstract essence but integrates it into tangible legal frameworks—whether through legislation or judicial decisions.
Hence, the idea of law and law, as itself, as a general, cannot be realized by a simple mechanical transfer from the realm of abstraction to everyday life. Law as an abstract concept must necessarily go beyond abstraction and become law as special and reality—legal certainty, which in fact is no longer a law, but contains a law in itself.
In order to achieve legal certainty, the law in some way abandons itself and finds its expression in the legal regulation—the current legislation or court decisions. This process underscores the paradoxical nature of law: it must negate its abstraction to become effective while preserving its essence within these regulations.
The differences between normative legal acts and judicial precedents, while significant, do not undermine their shared goal of regulating social relations to establish order. Both serve as expressions of legal positivity, embodying the law’s journey from abstract ideals to concrete realities.
Law and Personality
The movement of the Law determines the possibility of staying the Persons in three states: a general, a particular, and a single. The Person as a single is a rational being, realizing himself as the Person, and answers the question “what” (the cause). The subject of law as a particular is the Person as act in legal relationship and answers the question “how” (the action). The Person of Law as a general is the purpose of the Law and answers the question “why” (the purpose).
The development of the Person is carried out from the single through the particular to the general, and thus the idea of Law from the Person through the subject of the Law embodied in the Person of the Law.
Primitive physical being absorbed by society and has no self-interest. Realizing different from other such creature becomes a Person, but at first only in the social and psychological sense. In a legal sense, such a person is only an object. The ability of a person to become the subject of the Law due to the development of the Person and is connected with awareness of the Law within yourself.
The Law as an idea is self-sufficient and can exist indefinitely without a person, but the exercise of the Law without the Person is impossible and hence, the Law as legal regulation cannot be the Law for no one.
A person can also exist without the Law as a single, but if there is only one person the legal regulation is nonsense in general. At the same time, everyone has the Law in himself and the movement of the Law is due to the interpenetration of the Law in the Person and the Person in the Law.
Originated within the person, the Law comes out and connects with the Law as an idea. Intelligent beings (having the Law within himself and the ability to create the Law outside) become a subject of the Law in the legal relationship.
Toward a Modern Conception of Law
In this context, creating a modern understanding of law demands an acknowledgment of its dual role: reflecting societal self-identification and serving as a vehicle for justice. Legal systems evolve alongside society, making it imperative to embrace the diversity of perspectives while striving for coherence. The age-old antagonism between legal positivism and natural law will persist until we recognize that codified rules and judicial decisions are two sides of the same coin.
The Eternal Dialogue of Law and Society
As society progresses, each stage brings forth its unique understanding of law. From Roscoe Pound’s “Chinese metaphysics” to Hegel’s “real reasonableness” and Spinoza’s “triangles,” these philosophies reflect not just differences in thought but the distinct contexts of their times. Law is not static; it is a living dialogue, continuously reshaped by the interplay of abstract ideals and the realities of human existence.
A Call for Reflection and Innovation
The recognition of the transformation of law from an abstract idea into practical regulation is not merely a theoretical exercise. It is the foundation upon which societies build order and justice. As legal thinkers, practitioners, and enthusiasts, we are tasked with bridging the gap between the abstract and the concrete, creating frameworks that resonate with the complexities of modern life.
Let us embrace this challenge with a spirit of innovation and reflection, striving not only to understand law but to shape it in ways that uphold its highest ideals. In doing so, we contribute to a legacy of legal thought that is as dynamic and enduring as the societies it serves.
Top 5 US Legal Franchises: Unlocking New Opportunities for Ukrainian Law Firms
No comments:
Post a Comment