Teisės paradigmų pažinimo kelias

LTVis dažniau girdime ir matome vartojant žodį „paradigma“, tačiau tikslaus atsakymo, aiškesnio apibūdinimo, kas tai yra, labai sunku rasti. Atrodo, kad tai yra visiems savaime aišku. Vis dėlto kas yra paradigma? Kas yra teisės paradigma? Kokias teisės paradigmas būtų galima išskirti? Kokią įtaką teisės mokslui daro moksle vykstantys paradigminiai pokyčiai? Šiame straipsnyje bandoma ieškoti atsakymų j šiuos klausimus ir keliami kiti su šia problematika susiję klausimai. [Iš leidinio]Reikšminiai žodžiai: Paradigma; Teisės paradigma; Paradigm; Law paradigm.

ENToday we are living in the period of changes when the values, ideas, attitudes and the paradigms of thinking alter. However, the word "paradigm" is more often used and it is becoming taken for granted but at the same time there is "some ambiguity". What is the paradigm? What is law paradigm? What law paradigms can be distinguished? How can they be analyzed? How can we achieve a clearer understanding? What does paradigmatic perception give to us? Does the paradigm shift in science affect the science of law? What is the relationship of law paradigms? The article tries to provide at least a little "touch" to these issues. The aim of the article is to look for answers to the questions: what the paradigm is, what the law paradigm is, what law paradigms can be distinguished and what their main features are, as well as to answer the question what the relationship of law paradigms is. Answering the question what the paradigm is, the priority can be given to T. Kuhn's definition which suggests that the paradigm is a set of research approaches, values, principles and rules accepted or agreed upon by a scientific community, which affects not only the choice of research aims but also the interpretation of the obtained results. Paradigm is more than a theory, but less than a world outlook. Unfortunately, due to the incompleteness of cognition, the clear distinctions between the conceptions of law paradigms and theories disappear. The criteria for determining those distinctions need to be constantly adjusted.When we look for the answer to the question what the paradigm is, we can choose three ways. In our case we chose the way dealing with the paradigm as an ideological "field" which is realized in certain territories, and the whole field makes up certain paradigm of law. In this case we distinguished: analytical paradigm of law, normative paradigm of law, and the paradigm of critical law. In the widest sense of meaning we can distinguish the following features of law paradigms: analytical jurisprudence which can be perceived as the reflection of systemic, rational requirement of the science of law; normative jurisprudence which deals with normative, evaluative or otherwise regulating issues of law aiming at avoiding relativism and indicating the main principles of moral values; critical jurisprudence when the law is viewed wider compared to classical law paradigms. Law acquires a different "shade". Scientists in law have a great task - to verify the ways of cognition of law paradigms. In the period of contemporary changes it is also necessary to understand that law paradigms, however differently they are perceived, cannot destroy each other, they have to learn to coexist. The most important thing is that law paradigms have always been and still are, despite that fact that only now they have received attention. Today we come across issues of their distinction, criteria, reference points, but the ideas of cognition and research of law, its values, etc., have always existed. [From the publication]