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):||23 May 2016|
|PDF File Size:||9.10 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||10.9 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
However, their understanding of the method differ vaisvil essence. 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 manner that future generations cannot readily take them away”? My position is alfonaas the differentiation of some methods of legal interpretation is logically inadequate and, therefore, extrinsic and misleading. This circumstance presupposes the demand to supplement the conception of the object of environmental law violation by both human health and life and sustainable development categories.
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.
Scalia, Matter The doctrine of the separation of powers is not so impractical here. This appellation is especially used in the United States. It precisely reveals the secondary and even the third-tier role of the judicial branch in legislation. The court shall neither become a slave, blindly applying the letter of the statute, nor a rebel, not adhering to the statute.
Kluwer Law and Taxation Publishers, 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: Nevertheless, although all principal authors, discussed in this article, give their due to the critique of “Soviet formalism,” not all are “obsessed by the spirit” of the critique – expressed or hidden.
This “additional” puts the law, created by a judiciary, at a higher position than the law, created by a democratic legislature. 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 or even higher.
We know that cases are often dismissed on the absence of grounds or a legal norm to be applied. To generalize, the linguistic alfonsxs of interpretation is in danger of being devalued in Lithuania. For example, in the middle of the discussion about method, we find the statement that definition in the statute has its negative consequences, because the court is bound by it and may not consider changes in teorika relations.
Accordingly, stare decisis determines what the law is; not what the law meanseven though the decision of the court may itself be an interpretation of some other law.
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. But that is a mistake precisely, because of the difficulty with reality, to conclude that we should devalue or even abandon the doctrine of the separation of powers by saying that the separation is, in fact, cooperation. Other powers – courts and executive power, which are usually not formed directly by the society, but through its elected legislative power, shall follow the word of the legislator, formulated in the statute.
This means principally that these motives make no difference between a law created by a democratic legislature and a law created by the judiciary and, therefore, they are, to say the least, weak. Actually, in the United States there are already cases where the court refuses to fill an alleged gap in the law, even when it amounts to an obvious error by Congress.
Vikisritis:Teisė – Vikipedija
Three sorts of legal entities’ legal liability can be applied in Lithuania, namely, civil, criminal and administrative liability. This may presuppose a statement or hypothesis about the identity of interpretation and creation—”every interpretation of law is, in fact, creation of law. This is not the mechanical literalism, discussed above, as the literal method for Liekyte includes linguistic, grammatical and even systematic considerations see note 7: Neville Brown with Teorjia Kennedy and some other authors see e.
Izdatelstvo eksmo, [in Russian]. Also naming and discussing some methods of legal interpretation seem to be extrinsic because they have nothing alfonsaw do with the specificity of legal interpretation.
See the Civil Code of Lithuania, Article 1.
Vaišvila, A. (Alfonsas)
The other instance is clearer – alternative names alfoonsas the express or implied alleged linguistic method of interpretation. To generalize, a state, having a constitution with the very first article stating that the state is “a democratic republic”, 83 has only two possible ways – to pursue a radical or, at least, a relevant priority of the doctrine of the separation of powers.
Academic understanding of legal interpretation in Lithuania encounters conceptual and doctrinal problems.
The approach to legal interpretation in Lithuania confronts two problems at the initial stage: It is a message that is lacking in the academic texts on legal interpretation in Lithuania, where the teies of an activist court is raised and propagated. First of all, as stated in Part 1, an ideology or a doctrine is questionable if it is based on quasi-oppositions proposed by the use of unexplained nonsubstantive adjectives or adverbs.
That is, formal interpretation and various modes of interpretationincluding the formal one. The interpretative debate has been complicated by conflicting ways of distinguishing and naming the divergent interpretive methods.
Alfonsas Vaišvila – Teisės teorija – –
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 some general method of thinking in the court process, and secondly, should not be the differentiation of what amounts to the application of some general principle of trorija legal system or law in the court process.
This alonsas that the use of comparison yeorija not understood as a separate method of legal interpretation, but as a part of a contextual systematic interpretation. Writers sometimes refer to “canons of interpretation,” but it is better to think in terms of varying approaches: This is not an absolute rejection of the doctrine of an active court, but it shall be at least secondary in relation to the doctrine of the separation of powers. Therefore, these are usually only instances lafonsas the application of the systematic method of legal interpretation at a more general level.
This could be found, for example, in the opposition of the judge as an interpreter and as a formal applicator of law see note 5: