Alfonsas Vaišvila, celebrating his 70th jubilee birthday, was honoured for and most notably landmark work, “Teisės teorija,” (Theory of Law). Alfonsas Vaišvila, Mykolo Romerio universitetas;. Doc. dr. Vigintas Višinskis . Lietuvos ekologinės teisės paskirtį atspindinčių teisinių kategorijų tapatumo paieška teorijoje bei Vaišvila A. Teisės teorija – Vilnius, Kiti šaltiniai. 22 . Teisės teorija: vadovėlis by A Vaišvila(Book) 4 editions published between and in Lithuanian and held by 5 WorldCat member libraries worldwide.
|Published (Last):||11 May 2012|
|PDF File Size:||4.21 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||17.72 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
These are the concerns of Parts 1, 4 and 5 of this article. For instance, from alfonsax to capitalism. Therefore, in these cases, the propagation of the doctrine of an active court is done vaaisvila the detriment of the root terija of modern democracy – that of the separation of powers.
This is the main principle, if a relevant, but not radical, priority of the doctrine of the separation of powers is chosen, and here the main concept, requiring further explanation, is “possible” see further in the text. Interpretation of law is in no way an exact science but rather a judicial art. Simple theoretical proliferation of the understanding of legal interpretation has its problem at a more general level; that is the problem of the over-differentiation of the methods of legal interpretation.
This means that, after reading the text of the legal norm, one who applies the law should clearly understand the intention of the legislator, the real meaning of the legal norm.
Vaišvila, A. (Alfonsas) [WorldCat Identities]
The other motive offered is gaps in the lawand it is very popular. What distinguishes the method of legal interpretation from other methods of interpretation and other modes of thought analysis, analogy, comparisonis how the meaning of law specifically is determined, amounting to a specific legal interpretation.
The other instance is clearer – alternative names for the express or implied alleged linguistic method of interpretation. The problem of differentiation is, also naturally, teoruja problem of the definition of legal interpretation.
Kluwer Law and Taxation Publishers, What does certainty as teiaes to uncertainty mean? Antonin Scalia here is exactly the opposite: Why then complain about systematic inconsistency in Lithuanian law? Also, the inclusion of extensive and restrictive interpretations under the name creative vaisvjla for itself.
Doctrinal problems in Lithuania are related to the devaluation of the linguistic method of interpretation and, as a consequence, raising and propagating the doctrine of an active court to the detriment of the doctrine of the separation of powers.
This “additional” puts the law, created by a judiciary, at a higher position than the law, created by a democratic legislature. This problem arises when the authors of the principal texts use nonsubstantial adjectives or adverbs to define legal interpretation.
Rather, it aims at revealing and analyzing problems and possible flaws in the academic understanding of legal interpretation in Lithuania. There are different understandings of legal interpretation itself, as also of its methods – their names and contents.
What is important is what we look at when we compare or find analogies; that is, very generally, other law – constitutions, statutes, decrees, court decisions or even journal articles. However, while emphasizing the need of interpretative activism of the court, almost all the authors discussed here, sometimes unconsciously, 53 cross the line between the power to interpret law and the power to create lawwhich, in their view, may be exercised by the courts.
It is important to stress that this is a critical review. However, serious questions could be raised about the phenomenon of a gap itself and about the methods used to resolve the problem. Additionally, this kind of differentiation and definition does not provide a general ideological basis for the discussion of the concrete methods of legal interpretation, and may even be inconsistent with them. But that is a mistake precisely, because of the difficulty with reality, to conclude that we should devalue or even abandon the doctrine of the separation of powers by saying that the separation is, in fact, cooperation.
The author contends that “the problems of the imperfection of the statutes and the interpretation of legal acts can be solved by legislation, which corresponds to the technique of law, and by interpreting law adequately applying methods of legal interpretation, choosing kinds of legal interpretation A platform for action. On the first aspect – logic, analogy and comparison should not be the basis for distinguishing the corresponding methods of legal interpretation because they do not specify legal interpretation in relation to interpretation in general.
Nevertheless, although all principal authors, discussed in this article, give their due to the critique of “Soviet formalism,” not all are “obsessed by the spirit” of the critique – expressed or hidden. While analyzing legal interpretation a lot of [ Izdatelstvo eksmo, [in Russian]. The initial suggestions may be the following: It could be right that courts should, generally, interpret law, but the acceptance of the plurality of legal interpretation should not be a hasty process; especially in a constitutionally democratic state.
If the essence of legal interpretation is to make uncertain things certain, inexact – exact, unclear – clear, what then is the place of linguistic interpretation if it only deals with certain, clear or exact statutes?
This appellation is especially used in the United States. And that is a good start for the doctrine of an active court, This good start however, should not turn into a “rush towards” the unlimited activity of the court, by forgetting what else the doctrine of the separation of powers says: An analysis of the legislative mistake can be found in Scalia’s book, where a mistake of expression and a viasvila of legislative wisdom are distinguished see note Fletcher, Basic Concepts Therefore, these are usually only instances of the application of alfomsas systematic method of legal interpretation at a more general level.
How far can it go when interpreting legal teisee adopted by the legislature? It looks like a democratic and, therefore, logically adequate start. One of the measures which is able to ensure the implementation of sustainable development aims is the institute of legal entities’ environmental legal liability and its effective application.
Do we not by stating why the true meaning of the legal norm is rational or well-founded, further construct teoriia legal norm? A Matter of Interpretation. There are very few academic articles by Lithuanian authors that concentrate on the problems of legal interpretation. Do we have any criteria to give a nonostensive definition of these concepts?