ON INTERACTION OF MATERIAL AND PROCEDURAL LAW IN THE CONTEXT OF REFORMING THE NOMENCLATURE OF SCIENTIFIC SPECIALTIES IN JURISPRUDENCE

Abstract

Introduction: the influence of the material branches of law on the content and development of procedural branches has long been substantiated in the legal literature. At the same time, civil law scholars, limited by the scope of the nomenclature of scientific specialties in legal sciences, do not have the opportunity to conduct dissertation research aimed at identifying the influence of procedural branches on the norms of substantive law. With regard to scientific research, the study of such an impact is currently permissible only within the specialty 12.00.15. Reforming the nomenclature of scientific specialties towards its enlargement creates the basis for the development of the scientific theory of intersectoral relations, developed by M.Iu. Chelyshev. An in-depth study of the intersectoral interaction of civil law and civil procedure will contribute not only to the development of scientific knowledge, but also will allow solving practical problems at a different methodological level. Purpose: to analyze the stages of the formation of scientific specialties in the context of the relationship between civil law and procedure, to identify the advantages and disadvantages of uniting and dividing civil law and procedure in scientific research, to analyze dissertations in different periods of development of the science of civil law and the science of civil procedure, to formulate ways to improve directions of research to bridge the gap between the science of civil law and procedure. Methods: empirical methods of description, interpretation; theoretical methods of formal and dialectical logic. The legal-dogmatic private scientific method was used. Results: identified the main views on the ratio of material and procedural branches in legal science; it is illustrated that the intersectoral approach is currently admissible only for dissertations in the specialty 12.00.15, which led to an almost complete absence of scientific research on this topic in civil science; substantiated the need to establish the bilateral nature of the relationship and interaction of material and procedural block. Conclusions: reforming the nomenclature of scientific specialties by right in the direction of their enlargement should have a positive effect on bridging the gap that has developed between works on civil law and civil law procedure in the last years of their separate existence. This is especially true of civil science, which developed its own scientific theories in isolation from the possibilities of their implementation within the framework of procedural law. The methodological basis for solving these problems has already been formed – this is an intersectoral method, the application of which is justified and demonstrated in the works of M.Iu. Chelyshev.