Материал: disser_arhipov

Внимание! Если размещение файла нарушает Ваши авторские права, то обязательно сообщите нам

Annex 3. The table of correspondence between expressions of legal dogma and the notions of the concept of the semantic limits of law

Table 3. The table of correspondence between expressions of legal dogma and the notions of the concept of the semantic limits of law

	№	Indicative567 expression of legal			Concept of the theory of	Clarification
	№		dogmatics		semantic limits of law	Clarification
			dogmatics		semantic limits of law
1.		«Absurd interpretation [of the legal		Meaning 1. The result of legal		Although both law enforcement
		text]”.		interpretation, which implies the		practice and individual legal texts
				application of the rule of law to		and legal interpretation theory use
				public relations, the subject matter		the criterion of “absurdity”, it is
				of which does not possess the		generally not disclosed in sufficient
				qualities of “seriousness” and		detail and specificity to be used in
				“reality” at the same time.		actual legal reasoning. Giving a
						clear meaning to the term “absurd”
				Meaning 2. The result of legal		in the context of legal
				interpretation, which implies the		interpretation is one of the key
				application of the rule of law to		objectives of this study.
				public relations, the subject matter
				of which does not possess any of
				the fundamental qualities
				(“seriousness” or “reality”), and the
				result of “weighing” moral values
				in a given society at this stage of
				development excludes the
				application of the legal norm.
2.		“The disposition		The subject matter of the		The “fantasy” of the object of the
		[hypothesis/sanction] of the legal		considered relations is fantasy		relationship, in terms of an
		norm does not cover [these] facts		(functionally inadequate) to the		isomorphic interpretation of the
		of the case” and/or “These facts of		central importance of the legal		theory of correspondent truth and
		the case are not subject to the legal		norm.		in relation to the central meaning of
		regulation of this legal norm”.				the legal norm, by definition means
						that the facts constituting the object
						are not legal facts.
3.		«Based on the meaning of the legal		«The object of public relations has		If the subject is an external referent
		rule in question, it does not apply		“socio-currency value”, although		of value from the point of view of
		to these relations»		we cannot necessarily assert that		empirical sociology (hereinafter –
				the object is functionally adequate		“ERV”) and (or) otherwise has a
				to the core meaning of the legal		social currency value referring to a
				norm. If the object is fantasized, we		convertible generalized symbolic
				need to “weigh” moral values to		media (hereinafter – “GSM”),
				establish the possibility of law		although it is not mentioned or
				enforcement as a result of an		implied in the legal norm directly,
				expansive interpretation of the		it can (and probably should)
				legal text».		nevertheless be regulated by law.
						However, since the decision to
						apply the law in this case is not
						obvious, a rationale involving
						weighing up moral values is
						necessary.

567 The word “indicative” in this case aims to clarify that specific expressions of legal dogma.

354

4.	«There is a gap in legislation and it	Similar to the above, but at the	Similarly, subject to the correction
	needs to be addressed by analogy	same time we can unequivocally	of a clear understanding of the
	of law [analogy of statute]»	assert that the function of the object	fantasy nature of the subject.
		of the relationship is inadequate
		(fantasy) to the function implied in
		the core meaning of the legal norm.

5.	«The most important social	Social relations, the object of	According to numerous
	relations».	which has “socio-currency value”.	publications in the field of legal
			theory, there is a universal
			“explanation” of what can be
			regulated by law. Of course, the
			law – on the example of a common
			definition of law – can only
			regulate “the most important social
			relations”. Of course, this is true.
			But the concept of semantic limits
			of law allows us to eliminate the
			amorphousness of the circle of
			meanings of this term and explain
			the principle of singling out the
			most important public relations
			through “socio-currency value”.
6.	«Special object of legal	External referent of value.	The special object of the legal
	relationship».568		relationship has value properties,
			and for law “value properties” has
			what reflects the “socio-currency
			value”, converted into alternative
			GSM. Therefore, a special object,
			as a specific material or non-
			material object, is an ERV.
7.	«Public danger»	«Seriousness» in the meaning of	The nuance is that seriousness does
		the convertible «socio-currency	not necessarily mean social danger
		value».	– it means the exact opposite of it
			quite often. Conditionally, this
			contrast can be called “public
			good” (it seems that here we are
			getting closer to utilitarianism).

568 As A.V. Polyakov and E.V. Timoshina point out: “The special object of legal relations can be considered specific material and non-material, animated and inanimate objects – carriers of value properties”. See: Polyakov A.V., Timoshina E.V. General theory of law. P. 387. The above definition is given within the framework of the pluralistic theory of the object of legal relations.

Источник: https://studfile.net/preview/16571856/

Смотрите также:



ЦЕНОВАЯ ПОЛИТИКА ПРЕДПРИЯТИЯ НА ПРИМЕРЕ ООО «ДНС РИТЕЙЛ»
_archivetempпротивовоспалительные
_Роджерс Карл, Брак и его альтернативы
- Обратный порядок следования фаз 4
- Сопротивление изоляции 25
!_Лабораторные_работы_1_сем_ОУТС
!Контрольная работа (задание)
!Фармакология препаратов для терапии заболеваний дыхательных путей