Klasikinio požiūrio į teisėją kaip teisės aiškintoją ir taikytoją alternatyvos

LTStraipsnyje aptariami realistinis ir socioekonominis požiūris į teisėjo vaidmenį santykyje su teise, žvelgiantis teisės atradimo/kūrimo perspektyvos. Šie požiūriai dar gali būti vadinami laisvo teisėjų sprendimų priėmimo ir racionalaus teisėjų sprendimų priėmimo modeliais. Nagrinėjami svarbiausi šių požiūrių bruožai, paskirų teisės mokslininkų pozicijos. [Iš leidinio]Reikšminiai žodžiai: Teisės aiškinimas; Teisėjo vaidmuo teismo procese; Teisinis realizmas; Socio-ekonominis požiūris teisės filosofijoje; Legal interpretation; The role of judge in a court process; Legal realism; Socio-economical approach in legal philosophy; Teisės aiškinimas; Teisėjai; Interpretation of Law; Judges.

ENAll approaches to the judicial application of law, that is to the role of judges in interpreting and applying law, may be divided into three broad groups: the Classical approach or the model of bound judicial decision-making; the Realistic approach or the model of free judicial decision-making; and the Socio-Economic approach or the model of rational judicial decision-making. The Classical approach denies that courts are the real authors of the law and proposes that judges are only the mouthpieces which give it expression. This approach is traditionally accepted and generally approved, therefore the other approaches may be called alternative approaches to the role of judges in interpreting and applying law. The Realist approach to the role of the judge in interpreting and applying law rejects the view that law is an abstract entity pre-existing and waiting to be found by a judge, and asserts that law is, in a great measure, made by the judge. According to the model of free judicial decision-making, judges are viewed as both a law-applying and law-making body at the same time. The Realists agreed that the law and legal reasons are rationally indeterminate, so that the best explanation for why judges decide as they do must look beyond the law itself. In deciding cases judges respond primarily to the stimulus of the facts of the case, rather that to legal rules and reasons.Law is considered to be the prophecies of what the courts will do in fact. As law is open to a plethora of divergent readings, this model goes on, there is no qualitative difference between the tasks performed by the judiciary and those of the legislature. The socio-economic approach states that judges have to apply legal rules, created by legislature. But in doing this judiciary has to evaluate and react to social changes and social needs. The purpose of law is "social engineering", meaning thereby identified task of judges as social engineers. Judges should ensure that interpretation and application of laws take account of social facts. "Social engineering" aims at building as efficient structure of society as possible, which requires the satisfaction of the maximum of wants with minimum of conflicts and waste. Maximization of social welfare through the instrumentality of social justice is considered to be the goal of the judiciary. [From the publication]