Legal Certainty: Pro et Contra

Юлія Геннадіївна Матвєєва
{"title":"Legal Certainty: Pro et Contra","authors":"Юлія Геннадіївна Матвєєва","doi":"10.18523/2617-2607.2018.29-32","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The question addressed by this article is whether it is possible to state that European adherence to legal certainty and American legal uncertainty make up the characteristics of the two distinct legal systems (common law and civil law). There is an inevitable certainty and uncertainty both in common law and civil law states. The law is based on the language which leads us to the “internal uncertainty of the language itself.” This applies to the court practice, statutory law; nevertheless, the worldwide tendency regarding the usage of the plain language can be observed. It is also worth to support the idea that the law resembles a number of “legal formants”. This means that legal analysis should take into account the legislation, court practice and legal academic works regardless of whether the legal system considers the latter as sources of law. Further research should focus on how these formants compete and interact with each other. Therefore, legal systems very rarely have only one correct key answer to a certain problem. Thus, legal reforms that nowadays appear to be fairly frequent and lead to system changes in the legal regulation, reveal the legal system instability. In addition, both the change of judicial practice and the dynamic approach (method) of legal interpretation are the display of legal uncertainty. But those are quite usual practices. In fact, the law is a phenomenon that depends on changes of public life. At the same time, legal certainty is an element of the rule of law without which, according to Professor Ronald Dworkin, a well-known American philosopher of law, it is impossible to understand the phenomenon of law as such. Therefore, legal certainty is also inherent to the law itself. It is realized in requirements to written legal texts (clarity, exactness, and availability of acts of legislation, court decisions, acts of subjects of imperious plenary powers) and in an attempt to provide the unity of judicial practice. As a result, the regarded elements of legal certainty and uncertainty are at the same degree specific both for common and civil law. Sometimes certain legal uncertainty is acceptable and even desirable. Countries have to balance between certainty and ability to adjust to the law.","PeriodicalId":34101,"journal":{"name":"Naukovi zapiski NaUKMA Iuridichni nauki","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-12-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Naukovi zapiski NaUKMA Iuridichni nauki","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18523/2617-2607.2018.29-32","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

The question addressed by this article is whether it is possible to state that European adherence to legal certainty and American legal uncertainty make up the characteristics of the two distinct legal systems (common law and civil law). There is an inevitable certainty and uncertainty both in common law and civil law states. The law is based on the language which leads us to the “internal uncertainty of the language itself.” This applies to the court practice, statutory law; nevertheless, the worldwide tendency regarding the usage of the plain language can be observed. It is also worth to support the idea that the law resembles a number of “legal formants”. This means that legal analysis should take into account the legislation, court practice and legal academic works regardless of whether the legal system considers the latter as sources of law. Further research should focus on how these formants compete and interact with each other. Therefore, legal systems very rarely have only one correct key answer to a certain problem. Thus, legal reforms that nowadays appear to be fairly frequent and lead to system changes in the legal regulation, reveal the legal system instability. In addition, both the change of judicial practice and the dynamic approach (method) of legal interpretation are the display of legal uncertainty. But those are quite usual practices. In fact, the law is a phenomenon that depends on changes of public life. At the same time, legal certainty is an element of the rule of law without which, according to Professor Ronald Dworkin, a well-known American philosopher of law, it is impossible to understand the phenomenon of law as such. Therefore, legal certainty is also inherent to the law itself. It is realized in requirements to written legal texts (clarity, exactness, and availability of acts of legislation, court decisions, acts of subjects of imperious plenary powers) and in an attempt to provide the unity of judicial practice. As a result, the regarded elements of legal certainty and uncertainty are at the same degree specific both for common and civil law. Sometimes certain legal uncertainty is acceptable and even desirable. Countries have to balance between certainty and ability to adjust to the law.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
法律确定性:赞成与反对
本文所讨论的问题是,是否有可能指出,欧洲对法律确定性的坚持和美国的法律不确定性构成了两个不同法律体系(普通法和民法)的特征。英美法系国家和大陆法系国家都存在着不可避免的确定性和不确定性。法律是以语言为基础的,这导致我们产生“语言本身的内部不确定性”。这适用于法院实践、成文法;然而,可以观察到世界范围内使用通俗语言的趋势。同样值得支持的是,该法律类似于许多“法律共振峰”。这意味着法律分析应考虑立法、法院实践和法律学术著作,无论法律体系是否将后者视为法律来源。进一步的研究应该集中在这些共振峰如何相互竞争和相互作用上。因此,法律体系很少对某个问题只有一个正确的关键答案。因此,如今似乎相当频繁的法律改革导致了法律法规的制度变迁,揭示了法律制度的不稳定性。此外,司法实践的变化和法律解释的动态方式(方法)都是法律不确定性的表现。但这些都是很常见的做法。事实上,法律是一种取决于公共生活变化的现象。与此同时,法律确定性是法治的一个要素,根据美国著名法律哲学家罗纳德·德沃金教授的说法,如果没有法治,就不可能理解法律现象。因此,法律确定性也是法律本身所固有的。它体现在对书面法律文本的要求(立法行为、法院裁决、全体权力主体行为的明确性、准确性和可用性),并试图提供司法实践的统一性。因此,所认为的法律确定性和不确定性要素在普通法和民法中都具有相同程度的特殊性。有时某些法律上的不确定性是可以接受的,甚至是可取的。各国必须在确定性和适应法律的能力之间取得平衡。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
10
审稿时长
24 weeks
期刊最新文献
Perspectives for the Application of Remote Justice after COVID-19 Pandemic The Rule of Law and the Welfare State: The Ways to Overcome Contradictions Concept of Guidelines of Release from Punishment EU Law in Non-EU Countries: Reflections on Ukrainian Supreme Court’s Jurisprudence on Energy Matters Situation Model of the Next Stage of Court Proceedings
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1