The Institute of Living Law

Mykhailo Nykyforak, Eugene H. Ehrlich
{"title":"The Institute of Living Law","authors":"Mykhailo Nykyforak, Eugene H. Ehrlich","doi":"10.31861/EHRLICHSJOURNAL2018.02.086","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"S. V. Savchuk (Yuriy Fedkovych Chernivtsi National University, Ukraine) Abstract. The paper, published in 1911 on the pages of the Juristische Blätter, refers, firstly, to a dispute between Eugen Ehrlich and a scientific and practical priority in the aspect of the creation of an institution of applied law (in contrast to his dispute with another subject) with Geny Franсois in 1903 (Rechtsfindung und freie Rechtswissenschaft [The Free Law Finding and Free Jurisprudence]), or a dispute with Max Ernst Mayer in 1913 (Grundlegung der Soziologie des Rechts [Foundation of the Sociology of Law]), secondly, about the critique of the program of the Institute of Applied Law, thirdly , about the task of the Institute of living law of Ehrlich himself. In the first case it’s about a proposal and a plan of the professor of the Wien University (prof. Sperl) to establish the Institute of Applied Law. Ehrlich notes that, on the one hand, his own initiative to establish the Institute of Living Law and its implementation appears earlier, and on the other hand, that the institute of living law has tasks that coincide with the ones of the corresponding Sperl’s institute, and well as others that don’t, with the latter being more valuable both for science (scholarship) and practice. In general, Ehrlich denies the need to create the mentioned Institute of Sperl. This \"should be the institution of the application of the established law that therefore, is exclusively enclosed in the paragraphs, not the institute of studying the real-life law that develops and which is not spelled out in paragraphs\". Consequently, the Institute of Applied Law should deal only with utilitarian tasks (for example, a collection of teaching materials for conducting classes on the basis of visibility, etc.), and not scientific, related to the study of living law. In turn, the Institute of Living Law, according to the plan of Eugen Ehrlich, has a task of teaching scientific methods, encouraging students to independent mental activity. A branch of living law can be easily imagined as an integral part of the Institute of Living Law, the task of which would be to supply the Institute with materials and equipment, as well as archiving the results of the data, collected and processed by the Institute.","PeriodicalId":191182,"journal":{"name":"Erlìhìvsʹkij žurnal","volume":"98 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-06-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Erlìhìvsʹkij žurnal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31861/EHRLICHSJOURNAL2018.02.086","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

S. V. Savchuk (Yuriy Fedkovych Chernivtsi National University, Ukraine) Abstract. The paper, published in 1911 on the pages of the Juristische Blätter, refers, firstly, to a dispute between Eugen Ehrlich and a scientific and practical priority in the aspect of the creation of an institution of applied law (in contrast to his dispute with another subject) with Geny Franсois in 1903 (Rechtsfindung und freie Rechtswissenschaft [The Free Law Finding and Free Jurisprudence]), or a dispute with Max Ernst Mayer in 1913 (Grundlegung der Soziologie des Rechts [Foundation of the Sociology of Law]), secondly, about the critique of the program of the Institute of Applied Law, thirdly , about the task of the Institute of living law of Ehrlich himself. In the first case it’s about a proposal and a plan of the professor of the Wien University (prof. Sperl) to establish the Institute of Applied Law. Ehrlich notes that, on the one hand, his own initiative to establish the Institute of Living Law and its implementation appears earlier, and on the other hand, that the institute of living law has tasks that coincide with the ones of the corresponding Sperl’s institute, and well as others that don’t, with the latter being more valuable both for science (scholarship) and practice. In general, Ehrlich denies the need to create the mentioned Institute of Sperl. This "should be the institution of the application of the established law that therefore, is exclusively enclosed in the paragraphs, not the institute of studying the real-life law that develops and which is not spelled out in paragraphs". Consequently, the Institute of Applied Law should deal only with utilitarian tasks (for example, a collection of teaching materials for conducting classes on the basis of visibility, etc.), and not scientific, related to the study of living law. In turn, the Institute of Living Law, according to the plan of Eugen Ehrlich, has a task of teaching scientific methods, encouraging students to independent mental activity. A branch of living law can be easily imagined as an integral part of the Institute of Living Law, the task of which would be to supply the Institute with materials and equipment, as well as archiving the results of the data, collected and processed by the Institute.
生活法协会
s.v. Savchuk (yuri Fedkovych Chernivtsi国立大学,乌克兰)摘要1911年发表在《法理学》Blätter上的这篇论文,首先提到了欧根·埃利希与1903年盖尼·弗朗索瓦(Rechtsfindung und freie Rechtswissenschaft[自由法律的发现和自由法学])在创建应用法律机构方面的科学和实践优先权(与他与另一个主题的争论相反)之间的争论。或者是1913年与马克斯·恩斯特·迈耶的争论(《法社会学的基础》),第二,关于对应用法研究所计划的批判,第三,关于埃利希本人的生活法研究所的任务。第一个案例是关于维也纳大学教授(Sperl教授)关于建立应用法学研究所的提议和计划。埃利希指出,一方面,他自己建立“活法研究所”及其实施的倡议出现得更早,另一方面,“活法研究所”的任务与相应的斯佩尔研究所的任务一致,也与其他研究所的任务不一致,后者对科学(学术)和实践都更有价值。总的来说,埃利希否认有必要建立上述的Sperl研究所。这“应该是适用既定法律的机构,因此,这一机构完全列在各段内,而不是研究发展起来的实际法律的机构,这一机构没有列在各段内”。因此,应用法律研究所只应处理功利的任务(例如,收集教材,以便在可见性的基础上上课,等等),而不是与研究现行法律有关的科学任务。反过来,根据欧根·埃利希的计划,生活法研究所的任务是教授科学的方法,鼓励学生独立的心理活动。可以很容易地想象,活法的一个分支是活法研究所的一个组成部分,其任务是向研究所提供材料和设备,并将研究所收集和处理的数据结果存档。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信