International law argumentation in the national courts of the Scandinavian countries: doctrinal approaches

Abstract

INTRODUCTION. In modern legal science the problem of the effect and implementation of international law in national legal systems is one of the most popular areas of research. This article is devoted to the consideration and critical analysis of doctrinal assessments of the application by courts of general jurisdiction of the Scandinavian countries of the international legal norms , as well as their possible approaches to resolving conflicts between the norms of international and national law.MATERIALS AND METHODS. The method of comparative law has been used in present essay as a special logical mechanism that permits us to construct a system of rules relating to conflict of laws. Especially these rules are the tertium comparationis in a case of conflict between international and domestic law in municipal courts, as it is going through the formula of induction (analogy): if A is B, and B is C, so A is C.RESEARCH RESULTS. Traditionally international law suggests two ways of solving the problem in a case of the conflict of laws: monistic and dualistic doctrines. But these doctrines are not realizable in a pure form because of their inner contradiction. The main cause of this contradiction is the impossi bility to join interests of the subjects of international law with each other. Taking the doctrine of Interessenjurisprudenz as a ground of our further reasoning we have found the third point, we were searching for: just – the mechanism of elaborating the special remedies by which the conflict of interpretations has to be solved. The main remedy is the overcoming (in a logical sense) the law of excluded the third in the form of analogy. So, we can formulate a construction of the rules relating to conflict of laws in international public law by the analogy with the international private law. The nature of these rules is coincided with the such norms as _esuetu iuris cive necessitates and general principles of law. Especially that permits us to avoid the conflict of interpretation of the two legal orders, that can be caused by the “double standards” and “soft power” doctrines.DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. The above mentioned analysis permits us to formulate some general principles to established the system of rules relating to conflict of laws. The main cause of them will be following logical premise: the conflict of laws is based on the conflict of interests. That can be evidently by the interpretation rules in a conflict. Interpretation has the aim to harmonized conflicting orders on the ground of the general principles of law relating to municipal and international law. Conflict of laws can be solved through the general principles of law, especially in the case of fundamental contradiction. Conflict of laws can be formulated by the analogy. Conflict of laws can’t be interpreted in teleological way.