书评:Aleš Novak 和 Marijan Pavčnik (eds), SODNIŠKO PRAVO (eng. Judge-made law), Lexpera, GV Založba, Ljubljana, 2023

Q4 Social Sciences
Timotej Obreza
{"title":"书评:Aleš Novak 和 Marijan Pavčnik (eds), SODNIŠKO PRAVO (eng. Judge-made law), Lexpera, GV Založba, Ljubljana, 2023","authors":"Timotej Obreza","doi":"10.3935/zpfz.73.6.06","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The concept of legal normativity is inherently ambiguous. What qualifies as law, and by which criterion do we define it? The ongoing debate has for a long time revolved around its typologies. Yet, delving into the intricacies of the various players, their roles, and content creation within the legal game remains a formidable undertaking. Despite the consideration of various perspectives by the contemporary legal theory, the discourse sometimes remains superficial. Why does a segment of legal scholarship continue to assert that laws enacted by the legislature are the only convincingly viable source of legal norms? This paradigm, which one could connect with the allure of legal sentences as general and abstract norms contained within a legal code, may have a deeper and more complex epistemic origin than we imagine. There is something peculiar about our European-Continental legal culture, it seems. “Oh, a rule we shall follow? Write it down, pass it as law and I might consider it.” The persistent preoccupation with an abstract, all-encompassing system of knowledge highlights the serious attention given to this form of legal normativity. Despite the vast efficacy of such an approach, however, there will always be at least one critical step separating it from completely seizing our reality. As the numerous Slovenian authors of the here reviewed and recently published work Judge-made law have convincingly argued: It is none other than the judge whom the privilege of this very step belongs to. With the arising complexity of our social orders and various predicaments regarding applicable law, only the judge both can and must intervene in the equilibrium-establishing process, framed by the ever so persistent proliferation of legal regulation on one front while effectively resolving a (legal) dispute on the other.","PeriodicalId":34908,"journal":{"name":"Zbornik Pravnog Fakulteta u Zagrebu","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Book review: Aleš Novak and Marijan Pavčnik (eds.), SODNIŠKO PRAVO (eng. Judge-made law), Lexpera, GV Založba, Ljubljana, 2023\",\"authors\":\"Timotej Obreza\",\"doi\":\"10.3935/zpfz.73.6.06\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The concept of legal normativity is inherently ambiguous. What qualifies as law, and by which criterion do we define it? The ongoing debate has for a long time revolved around its typologies. Yet, delving into the intricacies of the various players, their roles, and content creation within the legal game remains a formidable undertaking. Despite the consideration of various perspectives by the contemporary legal theory, the discourse sometimes remains superficial. Why does a segment of legal scholarship continue to assert that laws enacted by the legislature are the only convincingly viable source of legal norms? This paradigm, which one could connect with the allure of legal sentences as general and abstract norms contained within a legal code, may have a deeper and more complex epistemic origin than we imagine. There is something peculiar about our European-Continental legal culture, it seems. “Oh, a rule we shall follow? Write it down, pass it as law and I might consider it.” The persistent preoccupation with an abstract, all-encompassing system of knowledge highlights the serious attention given to this form of legal normativity. Despite the vast efficacy of such an approach, however, there will always be at least one critical step separating it from completely seizing our reality. As the numerous Slovenian authors of the here reviewed and recently published work Judge-made law have convincingly argued: It is none other than the judge whom the privilege of this very step belongs to. With the arising complexity of our social orders and various predicaments regarding applicable law, only the judge both can and must intervene in the equilibrium-establishing process, framed by the ever so persistent proliferation of legal regulation on one front while effectively resolving a (legal) dispute on the other.\",\"PeriodicalId\":34908,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Zbornik Pravnog Fakulteta u Zagrebu\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Zbornik Pravnog Fakulteta u Zagrebu\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3935/zpfz.73.6.06\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Zbornik Pravnog Fakulteta u Zagrebu","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3935/zpfz.73.6.06","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

法律规范性的概念本质上是模糊的。什么才算法律,我们又该用什么标准来定义它?长期以来,人们一直围绕着法律的类型进行争论。然而,深入探讨法律游戏中的各种参与者、他们的角色和内容创造的复杂性仍然是一项艰巨的任务。尽管当代法学理论考虑了各种视角,但讨论有时仍然流于表面。为什么一部分法学学者继续主张立法机关制定的法律是法律规范唯一令人信服的可行来源?我们可以将这种范式与法律句子作为包含在法典中的一般和抽象规范的诱惑力联系起来,但其认识论渊源可能比我们想象的更深刻、更复杂。我们欧洲-大陆的法律文化似乎有些奇特之处。"哦,我们应该遵守的规则?把它写下来,作为法律通过,我就可以考虑它了"。对抽象的、包罗万象的知识体系的持续关注,凸显了对这种形式的法律规范性的高度重视。然而,尽管这种方法具有巨大的功效,但它与完全把握我们的现实之间始终存在着至少一个关键步骤。正如本文评述的最近出版的著作《法官造法》中众多斯洛文尼亚作者令人信服地论证的那样:这一步的特权属于法官。我们的社会秩序日趋复杂,在适用法律方面也面临着各种困境,只有法官才能而且必须介入建立平衡的过程,而这一过程的框架是一方面法律规定不断增多,另一方面有效地解决(法律)争端。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Book review: Aleš Novak and Marijan Pavčnik (eds.), SODNIŠKO PRAVO (eng. Judge-made law), Lexpera, GV Založba, Ljubljana, 2023
The concept of legal normativity is inherently ambiguous. What qualifies as law, and by which criterion do we define it? The ongoing debate has for a long time revolved around its typologies. Yet, delving into the intricacies of the various players, their roles, and content creation within the legal game remains a formidable undertaking. Despite the consideration of various perspectives by the contemporary legal theory, the discourse sometimes remains superficial. Why does a segment of legal scholarship continue to assert that laws enacted by the legislature are the only convincingly viable source of legal norms? This paradigm, which one could connect with the allure of legal sentences as general and abstract norms contained within a legal code, may have a deeper and more complex epistemic origin than we imagine. There is something peculiar about our European-Continental legal culture, it seems. “Oh, a rule we shall follow? Write it down, pass it as law and I might consider it.” The persistent preoccupation with an abstract, all-encompassing system of knowledge highlights the serious attention given to this form of legal normativity. Despite the vast efficacy of such an approach, however, there will always be at least one critical step separating it from completely seizing our reality. As the numerous Slovenian authors of the here reviewed and recently published work Judge-made law have convincingly argued: It is none other than the judge whom the privilege of this very step belongs to. With the arising complexity of our social orders and various predicaments regarding applicable law, only the judge both can and must intervene in the equilibrium-establishing process, framed by the ever so persistent proliferation of legal regulation on one front while effectively resolving a (legal) dispute on the other.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
54
审稿时长
10 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:481959085
Book学术官方微信