Teisės samprata : logikos taikymo problematika

LTŠiame darbe analizuojamas loginis teisės normos taikymas ir teisės supratimas bei siekiama parodyti, kad analizuojant ir taikant teisės normą svarbi reikšmė turi būti teikiama kitiems veiksniams, o ne tik hipotetiniam silogizmui taikyti. Taip pat analizuojama logikos reikšmė, kai yra taikomas teismo precedentas. Atskleidžiamos loginio mąstymo problemos: logika gana dažnai pradedama naudoti kaip piktnaudžiavimo teise įrankis, be toji riboja išsamų teisės aiškinimą istoriniu, teleologiniu, lyginamuoju ir kitais metodais, neleidžia lanksčiai remtis teisės principais. Šios tezės nagrinėjamos iš šiandienės visuomenės aktualijų, teisinio argumentavimo pozicijų. [Iš leidinio]Reikšminiai žodžiai: Logika; Teisės samprata; Logic; Concept of law.

ENLegal formality in its strict meaning is impossible because each stage of interpretation of law involves more or less subjective assessment. Society does not only strive to restrict a judge's freedom but also to perceive justice in general, not specific legal, sense. A court judgement should also be conceived in moral or ethical sense. A judge should, in a particular case, ground his judgement on criteria of good morals and general public understanding about what is fair and what is not, common sense and his experience, rather than following blindly the law which maybe has been adopted under the influence of lobbyists. Besides, the rules of logic do not serve to resolve the issue characteristic to application of case law - how to decide whether the differences between two cases are material or not. Here, a judge may only rely on general sense of justice, theological and other ways of interpretation, pragmatism and rationality. When making the principles of logic absolute, a legal provision is applied mechanically. Logic does not take into account the purpose for which this provision has been created, what legal relations has such provision intended to regulate and what result has been sought. Accordingly, a more extensive reliance on the principles of logic makes it more difficult to avoid an abuse of law. When passing a judgement, a judge should take into consideration a number of criteria, dismissing only those which cannot be applied along with an original source. From all possible versions required by law, a judge should choose one which is most valuable from moral, not logic, perspective. The largest weight on logic interpretation while passing judgements restricts unreasonably the use of legal principles and other methods of interpretation of law, which results in the absence of moral assessment in judgement.Consequently, a court judgement, however logical, may be socially unjust and therefore valueless in the eyes of the public. Thus, the making of the meaning of logic absolute in law leaves less space for law itself, legal argumentation and simple human and public values the protection whereof must be ensured by law. Proper interpretation of law secures the existence of law and guarantees its development along with changing society and its views. Law could not exist without interpretation where justice, morality and common sense prevail. Otherwise, law would be static, stiff and hardly applicable in practice - it would fail to meet public expectations. [From the publication]