Systemacity of Law: A Phantasm?
Abstract
The subject-matter of this article is the ‘systemacity of law’ concept and its methodological feedback. Continuing a series of articles on this subject, the author focuses on the internal rationality of claims about the systemic character of law. This rationality is embedded in the legal thinking of Modernity and reveals itself in the belief in the rational nature of law. According to this style of legal thinking, such internal rationality impedes law from being chaotically or randomly organized and structured. Therefore, law shall have a reasonably organized structure, even if in reality it does not have such a structure. In this way, the belief in an internal rationality of law transforms itself into the requirement for the rational organization of law. These two elements – belief in an internal rationality and the requirement of the rational organization of law – are the pillars of the dogmatic conception of law which was established in Begriffsjurisprudenz of the 19th century and which still holds sway over contemporary continental legal thinking.
About the Author
Mikhail Antonov
National Research University – Higher School of Economics
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Associate Professor at Department of Theory and History of Law and State,
16 Soyuza Pechatnikov str., St. Petersburg, 190121
References
1. Alchourrón, Carlos E., & Bulygin, Eugenio. Normative Systems 165–80 (Springer 1971).
2. Antonov, Mikhail. Legal Systems Integrity in Philosophy, National Research University – Higher School of Economics Working Paper No. WP BRP 34/LAW/2014, <http://ssrn.com/abstract=2420315> (accessed Jul. 27, 2015).
3. Antonov, Mikhail. Some Reflections about Unity of Law and of Normative Systems, 5(2) Arts Soc. Sci. J. (2014), available at <http://www.omicsonline.com/open-access/some-reflections-about-unity-of-law-and-of-normative-systems-2151-6200.100068.pdf> (accessed Jul. 28, 2015). doi:10.4172/2151-6200.1000068
4. Aurelius, Marcus. Meditations 7.9.1, in 2 Harvard Classics (P.F. Collier & Son 1909).
5. Balkin, John M. Understanding Legal Understanding: The Legal Subject and the Problem of Legal Coherence, 103 Yale L.J. 105, 117 (1993), accessed http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/jbalkin/articles/understandinglegalunderstanding.pdf> (accessed Jul. 28, 2015).
6. Banakar, Reza. Integrating Reciprocal Perspectives: On Georges Gurvitch’s Theory of Immediate Jural Experience, 16(1) Can. J.L. & Soc. (2001), available at <http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract_id=1777167> (accessed Jul. 28, 2015).
7. Bulygin, Eugenio. On Legal Interpretation, in 4 Rechtssystem und praktische Vernunft / Legal System and Practical Reason: Verhandlungen des XV. Weltkongresses für Rechts- und Sozialphilosophie (IVR), Göttingen, 18. bis 24. August 1991 (= 53 Archiv für Rechts- und Sozialphilosophie – Beihefte (ARSP-B)) 11, 20–22 (Hans-Joachim Koch & Ulfrid Neumann, eds.) (Franz Steiner Verlag 1993).
8. Cummins, Robert C. Systematicity, 93(12) Journal of Philosophy 594 (1996).
9. Deleuze, Gilles. The Logic of Sense 298 (Mark Lester & Charles Stivale, trans, Constantin V. Boundas, ed.) (Columbia University Press 1990).
10. Durkheim, Emile. The Division of Labor in Society 24 (Macmillan 1984).
11. Hoecke, Mark van. Law as Communication 109–10 (Hart Pub. 2002).
12. Hume, David. A Treatise of Human Nature 469–70 (Clarendon Press 2000).
13. Kelsen, Hans. General Theory of Norms 256 (Michael Hartney, trans.) (Clarendon Press 1991). doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198252177.001.0001
14. Kelsen, Hans. The Function of a Constitution, in Essays on Kelsen (Richard Tur & William Twining, eds.) 117 (Clarendon Press 1986).
15. Kelsen, Hans. The Pure Theory of Law 193 ff., 202 (Max Knight, trans.) (University of California Press 1967).
16. Kerchove, Michel van der, & Ost, François. Legal System between Order and Disorder (Iain Stewart, trans.) (Clarendon Press 1994).
17. Luhmann, Niklas. Social Systems 25 (John Bednarz, Jr. & Dirk Baecker, trans.) (Stanford University Press 1995).
18. MacCormick, Neil, & Weinberger, Ota. An Institutional Theory of Law: New Approaches to Legal Positivism 49–74 (D. Reidel Pub. 1986).
19. Makkonen, Kaarle. Zur Problematik der juridischen Entscheidung: eine strukturanalytische Studie (Turun yliopisto 1965).
20. Perelman, Chaïm. The Realm of Rhetoric 126–27 (William Kluback, trans.)(University of Notre Dame Press 1982).
21. Raz, Joseph. From Normativity to Responsibility (Oxford University Press 2011).
22. Raz, Joseph. The Authority of Law: Essays on Law and Morality 79–102 (Clarendon Press 1979).
23. Rosati, Connie S. Some Puzzles about Objectivity of Law, 23(3) Law and Philosophy 275 (2004).
24. Schauer, Frederic. Playing by the Rules: A Philosophical Examination of Rules-Based
25. Decisions-Making in Law and in Life 164 (Clarendon Press 1991).
26. Searle, John R. The Social Construction of Reality 46 (Penguin 1995).
27. Stone, Julius. Legal System and Lawyers’ Reasonings (Stanford University Press 1964).
28. Wittgenstein, Ludwig. Philosophical Investigations 198 (Wiley-Blackwell 2009).
29. Wright, Georg H. von. Norm and Action: A Logical Enquiry (Routledge & Kegan Paul; The Humanities Press 1963).
30. Wróblewski, Jerzy. The Judicial Application of Law 137–49 (Zenon Bańkowski & Neil MacCormick, eds.) (Kluwer 1992).
Supporting agencies: National Research University – Higher School of Economics’ Academic Fund Program
For citation:
Antonov M. Systemacity of Law: A Phantasm? Russian Law Journal. 2015;3(3):110-125. https://doi.org/10.17589/2309-8678-2015-3-3-110-125
Views: 1810
Email this article 