On the Concept of Legal Symbols within Scope of the Institutional Legal Approach

IF 0.1 Q4 LAW
I. Maltsev
{"title":"On the Concept of Legal Symbols within Scope of the Institutional Legal Approach","authors":"I. Maltsev","doi":"10.17323/2072-8166.2019.4.100.121","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The article analyzes the approaches to study the phenomenon of legal symbols in thescience of law. The author pays attention to the fact that the existing approaches tostudy the symbols restrict the scope of their comprehension to the analyzing the legalforms within the historical-legal and technical-legal paradigms. The historical-legalapproach restricts the scope of the respective research works to the issues of the legalform building, where the notion of a ‘symbol’ is correlated to the notion of a ‘custom’.Here, beyond the historical context, the category of legal symbols frequently loses all andany legal significance and cannot be considered as the corresponding legal institution.Within the scope of the technical-legal approach symbols are considered just as asupplementary tool of the legal regulation or a tool of the legal technique. These methodsare unable to unfold the whole nature of symbols and do not allow us to solve the issue oftheir legal institutionalization. The author gives critical assessment of those researchers’considerations on the legal symbols, which are ambiguous in terms of the terminologicalborders of this scope, warning about the risk of penetration of questionable theoreticalstructures into the positive law. The research applies the institutional-legal approach tosymbols supported by induction through the search for the objects, which can be includedinto the notion of a ‘legal symbol’ as an intersectional legal institution with consideration ofthe important characteristic features of this concept, mentioned in the general scientificconcepts and the science of law, as well as with consideration of the terminologicalpractice expressed in the acts of law. The author’s definition of the legal symbols withinthe scope of the institutional-legal approach is based on the complex of the followingsignificant features: conditional character (conventionality); multiple meaning; specialvalue; exclusive legal correlation with the bearing subject; uniqueness; stability; legalmediation; 8) external objectification in a special form. The mentioned features allow usto distinguish the legal symbols from a broader category of social symbols, as well as todemarcate them from the adjacent sign phenomena with the legal importance.","PeriodicalId":42704,"journal":{"name":"Pravo-Zhurnal Vysshei Shkoly Ekonomiki","volume":"1 1","pages":"100-121"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2019-12-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pravo-Zhurnal Vysshei Shkoly Ekonomiki","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17323/2072-8166.2019.4.100.121","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

The article analyzes the approaches to study the phenomenon of legal symbols in thescience of law. The author pays attention to the fact that the existing approaches tostudy the symbols restrict the scope of their comprehension to the analyzing the legalforms within the historical-legal and technical-legal paradigms. The historical-legalapproach restricts the scope of the respective research works to the issues of the legalform building, where the notion of a ‘symbol’ is correlated to the notion of a ‘custom’.Here, beyond the historical context, the category of legal symbols frequently loses all andany legal significance and cannot be considered as the corresponding legal institution.Within the scope of the technical-legal approach symbols are considered just as asupplementary tool of the legal regulation or a tool of the legal technique. These methodsare unable to unfold the whole nature of symbols and do not allow us to solve the issue oftheir legal institutionalization. The author gives critical assessment of those researchers’considerations on the legal symbols, which are ambiguous in terms of the terminologicalborders of this scope, warning about the risk of penetration of questionable theoreticalstructures into the positive law. The research applies the institutional-legal approach tosymbols supported by induction through the search for the objects, which can be includedinto the notion of a ‘legal symbol’ as an intersectional legal institution with consideration ofthe important characteristic features of this concept, mentioned in the general scientificconcepts and the science of law, as well as with consideration of the terminologicalpractice expressed in the acts of law. The author’s definition of the legal symbols withinthe scope of the institutional-legal approach is based on the complex of the followingsignificant features: conditional character (conventionality); multiple meaning; specialvalue; exclusive legal correlation with the bearing subject; uniqueness; stability; legalmediation; 8) external objectification in a special form. The mentioned features allow usto distinguish the legal symbols from a broader category of social symbols, as well as todemarcate them from the adjacent sign phenomena with the legal importance.
本文分析了法学中研究法律符号现象的途径。作者注意到,现有的符号研究方法将其理解范围局限于对历史-法律范式和技术-法律范式下的法律形式的分析。历史-法律方法将各自研究工作的范围限制在法律形式建筑的问题上,其中“符号”的概念与“习俗”的概念相关。在这里,超越了历史语境,法律符号的范畴往往失去了所有和任何法律意义,不能被视为相应的法律制度。在技术-法律方法的范围内,符号被认为只是法律规则的辅助工具或法律技术的工具。这些方法无法展现符号的全部本质,也无法解决符号的法律制度化问题。作者对这些研究人员对法律符号的考虑进行了批判性评估,这些符号在这一范围的术语边界方面是模糊的,并警告有问题的理论结构渗透到成文法中的风险。本研究将制度-法律方法应用于通过寻找对象的归纳法支持的符号,考虑到一般科学概念和法律科学中提到的“法律符号”概念的重要特征,以及考虑到法律行为中表达的术语实践,可以将其纳入作为交叉法律制度的“法律符号”概念中。笔者对制度-法律方法范围内的法律符号的界定,是基于以下几个重要特征的综合体:条件性(约定俗成);多个意义;specialvalue;与承付主体具有排他性的法律相关性;独特性;稳定;legalmediation;8)特殊形式的外在客观化。上述特征使我们能够从更广泛的社会符号类别中区分法律符号,并将它们与具有法律重要性的相邻符号现象区分开来。
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
33.30%
发文量
0
审稿时长
9 weeks
×
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
小红书