COMPARATIVISTIC DISCOURSE OF THE UNIVERSALITY OF LAW
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##
Published:
Apr 4, 2022
Abstract
The most influential and representative dimension of comparative legal studies is the attempt to substantiate the universal nature of law. The basis of self-identification of comparative law as an independent legal science is the provision of legal knowledge of generally accepted scientific content, formed by natural science Modern time. Universal and invariant content of law should be equivalent to laws of nature. Supranational and non-national universality is established within the two main paradigms of universality of law. The first is the paradigm of causal universality, which explains the identity of the content of law by influencing the law of the same non-legal factors. The second is the paradigm of teleological universality, which considers the universal content of law as one formed by jurisprudence itself. The dialectic of the paradigm is the content of the comparative discourse on the nature of legal universals.
How to Cite
Tkachenko, O., & Saparova, A. (2022). COMPARATIVISTIC DISCOURSE OF THE UNIVERSALITY OF LAW. Baltic Journal of Legal and Social Sciences, (2), 150-157. https://doi.org/10.30525/2592-8813-2021-2-19
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
Keywords
comparative law, universality of law, causal paradigm, teleological paradigm, discourse
References
1. Alekseev S.S. (2006). Liniya prava [Line of law]. Moscow: Statute [in Russian].
2. Watson A. (2013). Pravo v knigah, pravo i realnist: porivnyalno-pravova perspektiva [Law in books, law and reality: comparative law perspective]. – Comparative jurisprudence. № № 1–2. P. 37–45 [in Ukrainian].
3. Dovgert A.S. (2009). Vsesvitnocivilne pravo – mif chi realnist [Worldwide civil law – myth or reality?] – Y.S. Schemschuchenko, L.V. Gubersky, I.S. Grizenko (ed.) Porivnyalne pravoznavstvo: suchasniy stan i perspektivi rosvitku [Comparative law: current state and prospects of development]:collection of articles. Kyiv: Logos. P. 401–403 [in Ukrainian].
4. Dudina V.I. (1999). Soziologicheskiy metod: ot klassicheskoy k postneklassicheskoy tochke zreniya [Sociological method: from classical to post-non-classical point of view]. – The Journal of sociology and social anthropology. Vol. II. № 3. P. 57–65 [in Russian].
5. Dudchenko V.V. (2005). Konzept positivismu v iurisprudenzii: genesis i vipravdannya [Concept of positivism in jurisprudence: genesis and justification]. – Actual problems of state and law. Issue 25. P. 6–14 [in Ukrainian].
6. Nikitin E.P. (1970). Obyasnenie – funkziya nauki [Explanation – function of science]. Moscow: Science [in Russian].
7. Ovchinnikov N.F. (2003). Metodologicheskiye prinzipi v istorii nauchnoy misli [Methodological principles in the history of scientific mind]. Moscow: Editorial URSS [in Russian].
8. Rozin V.M. (1996). Kontekstnoe, polyfonicheskoye myschlenie – perspektiva XXI veka [Contextual polyphonic thinking – prospect of XXI century]. – Social science and contemporary. № 5. P. 120–129 [in Russian].
9. Tarasov N.N. (2002). Metodologicheskie problemy sovremennoy iurisprudenzii [Methodological problems of contemporary jurisprudence]. – Thesis for a degree doctor of legal sciences. Ekaterinburg [in Russian].
10. Teubner G. (2013). Pravovi podrazniki: prinzip dobrosovestnosty u britanskomu pravi, abo yak unifikaziya prava prizvodit do novoi divergenzii [Legal irritants: Good Faith in British Law or how unifying law ends up new divergences]. – Comparative jurisprudence. № № 1–2. P. 77–101 [in Ukrainian].
11. Chestnov I.L. (2000). Pravo kak dialog: k formirovaniiu novoi ontologii pravovoi realnosti [Law as dialog: to the formation of a new ontology of legal reality]. Saint Petersburg [in Russian].
12. Zweigert K., Kötz H. (2000) Vvedenie v sravnitelnoe pravovedenie v sfere chastnogo prava [An Introduction to the comparative law in the sphere of private law]. – Vol. 1. Moscow: International relations [in Russian].
13. Brand O. (2006–2007). Conceptual comparisons: towards a coherent methodology of comparative legal studies. – Brooklyn journal of International law. Vol. 32. P. 405–466.
14. Ewald W. (1995). Comparative Jurisprudence (II): The logic of legal transplants. – American journal of Comparative law. Vol. 43. P. 489–510.
15. Fletcher G.P. (1987). The universal and the particular in legal discourse. – Brigham Young University Law Review. P. 335–351.
16. Gordley G. (1995). Comparative legal research: its function in development of harmonized law. – The American journal of comparative law. Vol. 43. № 3. P. 555–568.
17. Graziadei M. (2006). Comparative law as the study of transplants and receptions. – M. Reimann, R. Zimmermann (ed.). The Oxford handbook of Comparative Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press. P. 441–475.
18. Kjaer A.N. (2004). A common legal language in Europe? – M.V. Hoecke (ed.). Epistemology and methodology of Comparative law. Portland: Hart Publishing. P. 377–398.
19. Langer M. (2004). From legal transplants to legal translations: the globalization of plea bargaining and the Americanization thesis in criminal procedure. – Harvard International law journal. Vol. 45. № 1. P. 1–64.
20. Legrand P. (2005). Paradoxically, Derrida: for a comparative legal studies. – Cardozo Law Review. Vol. 27. Issue. 2. P. 631–717.
21. Legrand P. (1995). The impossibility of legal transplants. – Maastricht journal of European and Comparative Law. Vol. 4. P. 111–124.
22. Legrand P. (2001). What legal transplants. – D. Nelken, J. Feest (ed.). Adapting legal cultures Oxford: Portland Oregon. P. 55–70.
23. Samuel G. (2007). Taking method seriously (part two). – The journal of Comparative law. Vol. II. Issue II. P. 210–237.
24. Schlesinger R.B. (1995). The past and future of Comparative law. – The American journal of Comparative law. Vol. 43. № 2. P. 477–481.
25. Van Hoecke M., Warrington M. (1998). Legal cultures, legal paradigms and legal doctrine: towards a new model for comparative law. – International and Comparative Law Quarterly. Vol. 47. № 4. P. 495–536.
26. Watson A. (1993). Legal transplants. An approach to Comparative law. Athens, 1993.
27. Whitman J.Q. (2003). The neo-Romantic turn. – P. Legrand, R. Munday (ed.). Comparative legal studies: traditions and transitions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. P. 312–344.
2. Watson A. (2013). Pravo v knigah, pravo i realnist: porivnyalno-pravova perspektiva [Law in books, law and reality: comparative law perspective]. – Comparative jurisprudence. № № 1–2. P. 37–45 [in Ukrainian].
3. Dovgert A.S. (2009). Vsesvitnocivilne pravo – mif chi realnist [Worldwide civil law – myth or reality?] – Y.S. Schemschuchenko, L.V. Gubersky, I.S. Grizenko (ed.) Porivnyalne pravoznavstvo: suchasniy stan i perspektivi rosvitku [Comparative law: current state and prospects of development]:collection of articles. Kyiv: Logos. P. 401–403 [in Ukrainian].
4. Dudina V.I. (1999). Soziologicheskiy metod: ot klassicheskoy k postneklassicheskoy tochke zreniya [Sociological method: from classical to post-non-classical point of view]. – The Journal of sociology and social anthropology. Vol. II. № 3. P. 57–65 [in Russian].
5. Dudchenko V.V. (2005). Konzept positivismu v iurisprudenzii: genesis i vipravdannya [Concept of positivism in jurisprudence: genesis and justification]. – Actual problems of state and law. Issue 25. P. 6–14 [in Ukrainian].
6. Nikitin E.P. (1970). Obyasnenie – funkziya nauki [Explanation – function of science]. Moscow: Science [in Russian].
7. Ovchinnikov N.F. (2003). Metodologicheskiye prinzipi v istorii nauchnoy misli [Methodological principles in the history of scientific mind]. Moscow: Editorial URSS [in Russian].
8. Rozin V.M. (1996). Kontekstnoe, polyfonicheskoye myschlenie – perspektiva XXI veka [Contextual polyphonic thinking – prospect of XXI century]. – Social science and contemporary. № 5. P. 120–129 [in Russian].
9. Tarasov N.N. (2002). Metodologicheskie problemy sovremennoy iurisprudenzii [Methodological problems of contemporary jurisprudence]. – Thesis for a degree doctor of legal sciences. Ekaterinburg [in Russian].
10. Teubner G. (2013). Pravovi podrazniki: prinzip dobrosovestnosty u britanskomu pravi, abo yak unifikaziya prava prizvodit do novoi divergenzii [Legal irritants: Good Faith in British Law or how unifying law ends up new divergences]. – Comparative jurisprudence. № № 1–2. P. 77–101 [in Ukrainian].
11. Chestnov I.L. (2000). Pravo kak dialog: k formirovaniiu novoi ontologii pravovoi realnosti [Law as dialog: to the formation of a new ontology of legal reality]. Saint Petersburg [in Russian].
12. Zweigert K., Kötz H. (2000) Vvedenie v sravnitelnoe pravovedenie v sfere chastnogo prava [An Introduction to the comparative law in the sphere of private law]. – Vol. 1. Moscow: International relations [in Russian].
13. Brand O. (2006–2007). Conceptual comparisons: towards a coherent methodology of comparative legal studies. – Brooklyn journal of International law. Vol. 32. P. 405–466.
14. Ewald W. (1995). Comparative Jurisprudence (II): The logic of legal transplants. – American journal of Comparative law. Vol. 43. P. 489–510.
15. Fletcher G.P. (1987). The universal and the particular in legal discourse. – Brigham Young University Law Review. P. 335–351.
16. Gordley G. (1995). Comparative legal research: its function in development of harmonized law. – The American journal of comparative law. Vol. 43. № 3. P. 555–568.
17. Graziadei M. (2006). Comparative law as the study of transplants and receptions. – M. Reimann, R. Zimmermann (ed.). The Oxford handbook of Comparative Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press. P. 441–475.
18. Kjaer A.N. (2004). A common legal language in Europe? – M.V. Hoecke (ed.). Epistemology and methodology of Comparative law. Portland: Hart Publishing. P. 377–398.
19. Langer M. (2004). From legal transplants to legal translations: the globalization of plea bargaining and the Americanization thesis in criminal procedure. – Harvard International law journal. Vol. 45. № 1. P. 1–64.
20. Legrand P. (2005). Paradoxically, Derrida: for a comparative legal studies. – Cardozo Law Review. Vol. 27. Issue. 2. P. 631–717.
21. Legrand P. (1995). The impossibility of legal transplants. – Maastricht journal of European and Comparative Law. Vol. 4. P. 111–124.
22. Legrand P. (2001). What legal transplants. – D. Nelken, J. Feest (ed.). Adapting legal cultures Oxford: Portland Oregon. P. 55–70.
23. Samuel G. (2007). Taking method seriously (part two). – The journal of Comparative law. Vol. II. Issue II. P. 210–237.
24. Schlesinger R.B. (1995). The past and future of Comparative law. – The American journal of Comparative law. Vol. 43. № 2. P. 477–481.
25. Van Hoecke M., Warrington M. (1998). Legal cultures, legal paradigms and legal doctrine: towards a new model for comparative law. – International and Comparative Law Quarterly. Vol. 47. № 4. P. 495–536.
26. Watson A. (1993). Legal transplants. An approach to Comparative law. Athens, 1993.
27. Whitman J.Q. (2003). The neo-Romantic turn. – P. Legrand, R. Munday (ed.). Comparative legal studies: traditions and transitions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. P. 312–344.