Shevchenko A. E., Antoshkina V. K.

The scientific-practical Law Journal
“Almanac of Law” Volume 12 (2021), 99-109 p

DOI: 10.33663/2524-017X-2021-12-16

Shevchenko A. E., Antoshkina V. K. The scientific-legal doctrine and its influence on the law interpretation processes

The proposed paper outlines the main approaches to understanding of the scientific and legal doctrine and its constitutive features, as well as the influence on the law interpretation processes. The authors note that the scientific and legal doctrine not only defines the toolkit and approaches to the interpretation of legal texts, but forms the definitions, categories, conceptions, constructions which are used by legislators in creating regulations and by subjects of law which have to understand the true meaning of norms contained in such legal acts and implement in practice. The main provisions concerning the peculiarities of the doctrinal sources usage while judicial interpretation in different legal families are highlighted. The characteristic features of doctrinal interpretation, forms of its objectification and interconnection with judicial interpretation are determined. Particular attention is paid to the usage of doctrinal provisions in the legal interpretation by the Constitutional Court of Ukraine and the Supreme Court. The main forms in which the results of doctrinal interpretation are used in judicial activity are outlined: the functioning of scientific advisory councils, whose members provide their opinions on complex legal issues; involvement of an expert in the field of law to the court proceedings in certain cases provided by the current legislation. It is noted that during the court hearing of the case while the formation of a legal position the possibility to refer to the opinion of authoritative Ukrainian legal scholars is not typical and acceptable for the domestic legal system. It is noted that many authoritative lawyers, scientists with academic degrees and titles, who are also engaged in scientific activity, have worked and still work as judges, especially of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine. This practice is especially valuable because a judge is able to apply the results of his/her scientific work in interpreting the law in the process of judicial activity and at the same time to use his/her practical experience in scientific research. The authors of the paper cover issues related to the use of «judicial doctrines» and the solution of «exceptional legal issues», which are relatively new to domestic jurisprudence. The interconnection of these concepts with legal doctrine is determined. It is established that although the current legislation provides for certain ways of using doctrinal provisions and the results of doctrinal interpretation in law enforcement practice, but this process is not developed enough and needs further clarification.

Keywords: scientific-legal doctrine, legal interpretation, doctrinal interpretation, judicial doctrines, exceptional legal problem.

References

1. Lepish N. Ia. Naukove rozuminnia tlumachennia norm prava. Naukovyi visnyk Lvivskoho derzhavnoho universytetu vnutrishnikh sprav. 2015. №4. S.12–24.

2. Polianskyi Ye. Iu. Pravova doktryna yak bazysna kontseptsiia prava. Naukovi pratsi NU OIuA. 2015. S. 297–313.

3. Semenikhin I. V. Pravova doktryna: zahalnoteoretychnyi analiz / nauk. dop. nauk. red. O. V. Petryshyn ; hol. red. S.H. Serohina ; redkol. Yu. P. Bytiak ta in. ; Nats. akad. prav. nauk Ukrainy, Nauk.-doslid. in-t derzh. budivnytstva ta mistsevoho samovriaduvannia. Kharkiv : Yurait, 2012. 88 s.

4. Ievhrafova Ye. P. Doktrynalne tlumachennia norm prava (zakoniv): pryroda i zdiisnennia. Visnyk Akademii pravovykh nauk Ukrainy. 2010. № 2. S.40–51.

5. Perevalov V. D. Pravovaya doktrina: ponyatie i sootnoshenie s inymi bliz’kimi po soderzhaniyu kategoriyami. Rossijskoe pravo: obrazovanie, praktika, nauka. 2019. № 5. S. 42-48.

6. Shevchenko A. Ie., Karmalita M. V. Vplyv pravovoi doktryny na pravotvorchyi protses. Yurydychnyi visnyk. 2015. № 3 (36). S. 52–57.

7. Semenikhin I. Do pytannia pro spivvidnoshennia i vzaiemodiiu pravovoi doktryny ta yurydychnoi nauky. Visnyk Natsionalnoi akademii pravovykh nauk Ukrainy. 2013. № 3 (74). S. 64-72.

8. Varych O. H. Pravova doktryna: tsinnisnyi vymir. Problemy normotvorennia, realizatsii ta tlumachennia norm prava u svitli zahalnovyznanoho pryntsypu verkhovenstva prava : tezy dop. ta povidoml. uchasn. IV Mizhnar. nauk.-prakt.konf. (m. Ivano-Frankivsk, 3−4 zhovt. 2019 r.) / za zah. red. I. D. Shutaka. Kharkiv : Pravo, 2019. S. 33–35.

9. Kartashov V. N. Teoriya pravovoj sistemy obshchestva: uchebn. posob.: v 2-h t. Yaroslavl’: YaRGU, 2005. T. 1. 547 s.

10. Gadzhiev H. I. Sudebnye doktriny i effektivnost’ pravoprimeneniya. Zhurnal rossijskogo prava. 2019. № 6. S. 14–27.

11. David R., Zhoffre-Spinozi K. Osnovnye pravovye sistemy sovremennosti. Moskva : Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya, 1998. 400 s.

12. Hubanov O. O. Pravova doktryna yak dzherelo prava v mezhakh romano-hermanskoi, anhlosaksonskoi ta relihiinotradytsiinoi pravovoi simi: porivnialna kharakterystyka. Pravo i suspilstvo. 2015. № 6. S. 9–14.

13. Habrieva T. Ya. Tolkovanie Konstitucii RF: teoriya i praktika: diss. … d-ra. yurid. nauk: 12.00.02. Moskva, 1997. 369 s.

14. Nedil’ko Yu. V. K voprosu o sootnoshenii doktrinal’nogo i sudebnogo tolkovaniya v pravoprimenitel’noj praktike evropejskih gosudarstv. Vestnik Krasnodarskogo universiteta MVD Rossii. 2016. №.1 (31). S. 16-21.

15. Arzamasov Yu. G. Problemy doktrinal’nogo tolkovaniya prava. Vestnik RUDN. Ser. Yuridicheskie nauki. 2016. № 4. S. 9–25.

16. Abdrasulov E. Sub»ekty doktrinal’nogo tolkovaniya zakona. Mysl’. 2002. №7. S.60–63.

17. Krestovska N. M., Matvieieva L. H. Teoriia derzhavy i prava: Elementarnyi kurs. Vydannia druhe. Kharkiv : TOV «Odissei», 2008. 432 s.

18. Sadovskyi M. M. Osnovni formalni oznaky doktrynalnoho tlumachennia. Nacional’nyj yuridicheskij zhurnal: teoriya i praktika. 2016. №1. S. 20–24.

19. Ukrainskyi indeks naukovoho tsytuvannia. URL: http://uincit.uran.ua/scientists/fronts/about (data zvernennia: 21.04.2021).

20. Bychkovskyi Ye. L. Naukovo-praktychnyi komentar: osoblyvosti struktury ta kompozytsii. Naukovyi visnyk Mizhnarodnoho humanitarnoho universytetu. Ser. «Iurysprudentsiia». 2017. № 26. S.11-14.

21. Iurydychna entsyklopediia / red. Yu. S. Shemshuchenko [ta in.] ; NAN Ukrainy, In-t derzhavy i prava im. V. M. Koretskoho. Kyiv : Vyd-vo «Ukrainska entsyklopediia» im. M. P. Bazhana, 1998–2004. URL:http://www.irbis-nbuv.gov.ua/cgi-bin/irbis_nbuv/cgiirbis_64.exe?Z21ID=&I21DBN=EC&P21DBN=&S21STN=1&S21REF=10&S21FMT=JwU_B&C21COM=S&S21CNR=20&S21P01=0&S21P02=0&S21P03=U=&S21COLORTERMS=0&S21STR=%D0%A5.%D1%8F20 (data zvernennia: 21.04.2021).

22. Habrieva T. Ya. Venecianskaya komissiya kak sub»ekt tolkovaniya nacional’nogo prava. Zhurnal rossijskogo prava.2016. № 8 (236). S. 5–15.

23. Karvatska S. B. Interpretatsiia norm mizhnarodnoho prava: teoretychni ta praktychni aspekty: avtoref. dys. na zdobuttia nauk. stupenia d-ra. yuryd. nauk : 12.00.01. Kyiv, 2020. 41s.

24. Kopcha V. V. Verkhovenstvo prava yak pryntsyp suchasnoi derzhavy. Naukovyi visnyk Natsionalnoi akademii vnutrishnikh sprav. 2018. № 3 (108). S. 198–212.

25. Hetmantsev M. Pravova pryroda vysnovku eksperta v haluzi prava. Pidpryiemnytstvo, hospodarstvo i pravo. 2018. № 6. S. 333–337.

26. Ekspert z pytan prava u rozghliadi sprav: analiz sudovoi praktyky. Protokol - yurydychnyi internet-resurs. URL: https://protocol.ua/ru/ekspert_ z_pitan_prava_u_rozglyadi_sprav_analiz_sudovoi_praktiki/ (data zvernennia: 28.04.2021).

27. Mykhailovych D. M. Ofitsiine tlumachennia zakonu: avtoref. dys. … kand. yuryd. nauk: 12.00.01. Kharkiv, 2003. 17 s.

28. Spasybo-Fatieieva I. V. Doktrynalne tlumachennia. Visnyk Akademii pravovykh nauk Ukrainy. 2006. №1(40). S. 14–25.

29. Nadezhin G. N. Doktrinal’noe tolkovanie norm prava: avtoref. diss. na soiskanie uch. stepeni kand. yurid. nauk: 12.00.01. Nizhnij Novgorod, 2005. 25 s.

30. Popov O. I. Pravova doktryna ta yii zastosuvannia Verkhovnym Sudom Ukrainy pry perehliadi sudovykh rishen u tsyvilnykh spravakh. Problemy zakonnosti. 2016. Vyp. 132. S. 83−90.

31. Ofitsiinyi veb-sait Konstytutsiinoho sudu Ukrainy. URL: https://ccu.gov.ua/storinka/sklad-naukovo-konsultatyvnoyirady-konstytuciynogo-sudu-ukrayiny (data zvernennia: 28.04.2021).

32. Doktrynalni pidkhody v diialnosti Konstytutsiinoho Sudu Ukrainy: zb. materialiv i tez nauk. prakt. onlain-konf. (m.Kyiv, 28 zhovtnia 2020 r). Kyiv : Vaite, 2020. 100 s.

33. Orzikh M. Doktryna v diialnosti Konstytutsiinoho Sudu Ukrainy. Visnyk Konstytutsiinoho Sudu Ukrainy. 2011. № 4–5. S.57−63.

34. Mohov R. M. Sudebnaya doktrina kak istochnik prava. Politika, ekonomika i innovacii. № 4 (21). 2018. S.1−29.

35. Emelin M. Yu. Pravovaya doktrina v sisteme istochnikov obshchego prava: na osnove analiza pravovoj sistemy SShA:avtoref. diss. … kand. yurid. nauk: 12.00.01. Saratov, 2015. 32 s.

36. Ianovska O. Doktryna zaborony vykorystannia «plodiv otruinoho dereva» ta vyniatky z nei: sudova praktyka Velykoi Palaty Verkhovnoho Sudu v kryminalnykh provadzhenniakh. URL: https://sud.ua/ru/news/blog/186447-doktrinazaboroni-vikoristannya-plodiv-otruynogo-dereva-ta-vinyatki-z-neyi-sudova-praktika-velikoyi-palati-verkhovnogosudu-v-kriminalnikh-provadzhennyakh (data zvernennia: 21.04.2021).

37. Kozlovska L. Vykliuchna pravova problema yak pidstava dlia peredannia spravy do VP VS. Zakon i biznes. 2019.URL:https://zib.com.ua/ua/138640viklyuchna_pravova_problema_yak_pidstava_dlya_peredannya_spr.html (data zvernennia: 27.04.2021).

38. Kosovych V. Vykliuchna pravova problema ta neobkhidnist rozvytku prava: zahalnoteoretychnyi analiz. Pravo Ukrainy. 2020. №3. S. 218−232.

39. Bernaziuk Ya. Vyrishennia vykliuchnoi pravovoi problemy yak sposib zabezpechennia odnakovoho zastosuvannia norm prava. Sudebno-yuridicheskaya gazeta. 2019. URL: https://sud.ua/ru/news/blog/136144-virishennya-viklyuchnoyi-pravovoyi-problemi-yak-sposib-zabezpechennya-odnakovogo-zastosuvannya-norm-prava (data zvernennia:27.04.2021).

<<Back