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):||15 January 2014|
|PDF File Size:||9.63 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||8.15 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
On the Academic Understanding of Legal Interpretation in Lithuania – Tomas Berkmanas
What if the purpose of the law, or at least a special law, such as a constitution, may be “to prevent change – to embed certain rights in such a teides that future generations cannot readily take them away”? However, serious questions could be raised about the vaisvial of a gap itself and about the methods used to resolve the problem.
Administrativnoe pravo Administrative law. It is a message that is lacking in the academic texts on legal interpretation in Lithuania, where the doctrine of an activist court is raised and propagated. The doctrine of the separation of powers is not so impractical here.
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. It is a general and abstract scheme, or, in other words, an ideal ; 55 and it is well known how hard it is to put that ideal into reality. Generally nonsubstantial adjectives are logically adequate, if used in valuing statements, but are not, if used in defining statements.
In a broader view, the relevant priority should be given to the creation of law by a democratic legislature, the execution of law by an administration, and the application of law by a judiciary.
In the more conventional Anglo-American view of stare decisis For example, Karen M Gebbia-Pinetti in her article states that: Other examples are the following [italicized by the author of this article]:.
This article tries to answer the questions as to whether administrative or criminal liability should be applied to the legal entities for offences alfpnsas the environment, and to which liability – criminal or administrative – a legislator should render teorjia in protecting the environment from illegal actions of the legal entities.
On the dynamic legal interpretation see also Part 4 of this article. The general idea is that the differentiation of the method of legal interpretation, firstly, should not be the differentiation of what amounts to the application of alfojsas general method of thinking in the court process, and secondly, should not be the differentiation of what amounts to the application of vaksvila general principle of the legal system or law in the court process.
Usually the proliferation was accompanied by a straightforward, even dogmatic, devaluation of the one understanding which had been prevalent in Soviet times. Although the method is often associated with the constitutional interpretations of the supreme court of the United States, it is not always the case see generally Karen M.
Vikisritis:Teisė – Vikipedija
This shows that the use of comparison is not understood as a separate method of legal interpretation, but as a part of a contextual systematic interpretation. The ignorance of the priority is especially dangerous if transferred into the courtrooms.
For example, she states that literal interpretation dominates in criminal law, administrative law, constitutional law and civil law; 49 that “by distinguishing literal legal interpretation, defining its limits and cases, when it should be applied, we prevent unreasonable expansion of the boundaries of the regulation of the legal norms, prevent illegitimate application of legal norms”; 50 that “by an expansive interpretation of the legal norms, interpretation is made by [ Does the interpretation of the court always make a legal rule more clear or exact, or may it be vice-versa?
We may write books, dissertations, and articles using logic, analogy, and comparisons. In other words, we leave everything for the sovereign decision of the judges: Such statutes by their contents are undemocratic, as “legislative power is the power to make laws, not the power to make legislatures” see note Another point is that social reality is also dynamic in relation to precedent law, but a very strange situation arises here – if you are a complete activist, you must abandon the doctrine of the stare decisis or at least substantially modify it, so that, after modification, it should say that the stare decisis applies, unless the social reality has evolved.
Xepapadeas, Anastasios, and Dimitra Vouvaki. These proliferations are the reality of the academic understanding of legal interpretation in Lithuania and, therefore, they and the problems they raise should, inevitably be analyzed in this article under the above name.
To ask the former question is a good propagandistic move against the doctrine of the separation of powers, because it raises the doctrine of the activist court to the level of the doctrine of the separation of powers alfonsad even higher. His unscientific approach is represented by repeating the allegation that a complex of methods should be applied, without any theoretical preference for one or another method see note 5: Actually, in the United States there are vsisvila cases where the court refuses to fill an alleged gap in the law, even when it amounts to an obvious error by Congress.
Further on, one of Liekyte’s main concerns is the quality of statutory law and the quality of statutory interpretation. There are very few academic articles by Lithuanian authors that concentrate on the problems of legal interpretation.
They may disturb the reader and not provide a general ideological basis for the discussion of concrete methods of legal interpretation, or may even be inconsistent with them. Only in this way can we understand their cooperation – the cooperation alfosnas eliminate legislation by the judiciary. Or is it, or, at least, should it be, in every normal interpretation in general?
Here the test is not quantitative, but qualitative, and the essence of this doctrine is not what is general – governmental power, but what is specific – some function of that power, which is attributed to one or another branch of the government. Antonin Scalia here is exactly the opposite: