Теоретичні альтернативи систематизації права

Abstract

In this article the author examines the conceptual problems which the post-soviet jurisprudence meets when dealing with systematization of law, to wit with constructing an order of the legal material and with explaining of unity of law. The author critically reassesses the existing doctrine of divisions inside the law which are led on the base of such criteria as object and method of legal regulation. Subjective nature of these criteria is revealed in this article. From the theoretical standpoint, these criteria turn out to be devoid of sense, as they solely fix conventions of a legal community; one cannot verify significance and veracity of these criteria through a scientific analysis. The author also challenges the conception of systemacity of law which is based on a mixture of value judgments and of facts obtained from description of the positive law. These conceptions of the post-soviet jurisprudence are irretrievably connected with the vulgarized Marxist-Leninist philosophy. As a theoretical alternative to them, one can recur to the conception of «Normative Systems» which were elaborated in the 1970-s by the Argentinean scholars C. E. Alchourron and E. V. Bulygin and which gained a wide acceptance in the Western legal philosophy.