Ograničenje pravnog realizma
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.51204/10.51204/IVRS_24202AKljučne reči:
Formalizam, Tumačenje prava, Pravni realizam, Neodređenost, Pravno pravilo, Odrednice sudskog tumačenja pravaApstrakt
Članak se bavi provokativnom knjigom Bojana Spaića pod naslovom,,Priroda i determinante sudijskog tumačenja prava”. Izražavajući saglasnost sa sveukupnim opovrgavanjem formalizma kao teorije sudijskog odlučivanja, kritički osvrt u radu osporava Spaićevu ekstremnu verziju pravnog skepticizma. Dok su jezičke formulacije pravnih normi nesumnjivo neodređene, ta neodređenost nije toliko prožimajuća kako to Spaić tvrdi. Izvestan stepen određenosti, međutim, ubedljivije objašnjava interpretativnu uniformnost koju Spaić pokušava da objasni oslanjajući se na determinante sudijskog tumačenja prava. Iako ovi faktori mogu donekle baciti svetlo na stvarni proces donošenja presuda, kritika izražava sumnju da li oni mogu garantovati uniformnost do stepena koji tvrdi Spaić.
Reference
Atiyah, Patrick, Robert S. Summers. 2002. Form and Substance in Anglo-American Law: A Comparative Study of Legal Reasoning, Legal Theory, and Legal Institutions. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Barberis, Mauro. 2008. Filosofia del diritto. Un’introduzione teorica. Torino: Giapichelli.
Baude, William, Stephen E. Sachs. 4/2017. The law of interpretation. Harvard Law Review 130: 1079–1147.
Beal, Joseph Henry. 1916. A Treatise on the Conflict of Laws or Private International Law. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Bobbio, Norberto. 1958. Teoria della norma giuridica. Torino: G. Giappichelli editor.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 5/1987. The Force of Law: Toward a Sociology of the Juridical Field. Hastings Law Journal 38: 814–853.
Bradford, C. Steven. 1/1990. Following Dead Precedent: The Supreme Court’s Ill-Ad- vised Rejection of Anticipatory Overruling. Fordham Law Review 59: 39–90.
Burton Stephen J. 1985. An Introduction to Law and Legal Reasoning. Boston. Toronto: Little, Brown and Company.
Chiassoni, Pierluigi. 2007. Tecnica dell’interpretazione giuridica. Bologna: Il Mulino.
Cross, Rupert, James W. Haris. 1991. Precedent in English Law (4th ed.). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Cross, Rupert, James W. Harris. 1991. Precedent in English Law. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Dumas, Rafaële, Benoît Testé. 4/ 2006. The influence of criminal facial stereotypes on juridic judgments. Swiss Journal of Psychology / Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Psychologie / Revue Suisse de Psychologie, 65: 237–244.
Dworkin, Ronald. 1977. Taking Rights Seriously. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Dworkin, Ronald. 1986. Law’s Empire. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
Dworkin, Ronald. 21/1963. Judicial Discretion, Journal of Philosophy 60: 624–638.
Dworkin, Ronald. 3/1982. Law as Interpretation. Texas Law Review 60: 527–550.
Endicott, Timothy A. O. 2003. Vagueness in Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Endicott, Timothy A. O. 4/1996. Linguistic Indeterminacy. Oxford Journal of Legal Stud- ies 16: 667–698.
Fortescue, Francis. [1543?] 1825. De laudibus legum Angliae (trans. A. Amos). London: Joseph Butterworth & Son.
Frank, Jerome. 2/1931–1932. Are Judges Human? Part 2: As Through a Class Darkly. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 80: 233–267.
Frederick Schauer, 1–2/1985. Easy Cases, South California Law Review 58: 399–440.
Fuchs, Ernst. 5/1910. Die soziologische Rechtslehre – Eine Erwiderung. Deutsche Juristen-Zeitung 15: 283–288.
Gardner, John. 3/1988. Concerning Permissive Sources and Gaps. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 8: 457–461.
Greenawalt, Kent. 1/1990. How Law Can be Determinate. UCLA Law Review 38: 1–86.
Guastini, Riccardo. 2004. L’interpretazione dei documenti normativi. Milano: A. Giuffrè editore.
Guastini, Riccardo. 2005. A Skeptical View of Legal Interpretation. Analisi e diritto: 139–144.
Guastini, Riccardo. 2019. An Analytical Foundation of Rule Scepticism. 13–26. Legal Interpretation and Scientific Knowledge, eds. David Duarte, Pedro Moniz Lopes, Jorge Silva Sampaio. Cham: Springer.
Guastini, Riccardo. Rule-Scepticism Restated. 138–161. Oxford Studies in the Philosophy of Law, Vol. 1, eds. Leslie Green, Brian Leiter. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hart, Herbert L.A. 1994. The Concept of Law (2nd ed.). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Hegel, Georg W. F. 2003. Elements of the Philosophy of Right (trans. H. B. Nisbet). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kelsen, Hans. 1949. General Theory of Law and State. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Kramer, Matthew. 2018. H.L.A Hart. The Nature of Law. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Krawietz, Werner. 1976. Begriffsjurisprudenz. 1–11. Theorie und Technik der Begriffsjurisprudenz, ed. Werner Krawietz. Darmstadt. Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
Kress, Ken. 2/1989. Legal Indeterminacy. California Law Review 77: 283–338.
Langdell, Christopher Columbus. 1871. A Selection of Cases on the Law of Contracts: With References and Citations. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
Leiter, Brian, Jules L. Coleman. 2/1993. Determinacy, Objectivity, and Authority. Uni- versity of Pennsylvania Law Review 142: 549–638.
Leiter, Brian. 4/1995. Legal Indeterminacy. Legal Theory 1: 481–492.
Llewellyn, Karl N. 2008. Bramble Bush. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Llewellyn, Karl N. 3/1950. Remarks on the Theory of Appellate Decision and the Rules or Canons about How Statutes Are to Be Construed. Vanderbilt Law Review 3: 395–406.
Llewellyn, Karl. 8/1931. Some Realism About Realism – Responding to Dean Pound. Harvard Law Review 44: 1222–1264.
Lucretius, Titus Carus. 2001. On the Nature of Things (trans. Martin Ferguson Smith). Indianapolis and Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company.
Lyons, David. 5/1980. Legal Formalism and Instrumentalism – a Pathological Study. Cornell Law Review 66: 949–972.
Marmor, Andrei. 2/1990. No Easy Cases. Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence 3: 61–80.
Marmor, Andrei. Interpretation and Legal Theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Mason, Anthony. 1996 The Judge as Law-maker, James Cook University Law Review 3: 1–15.
Miersch, Matthias. 2000. Der sogenannte référé législatif: eine Untersuchung zum Verhältnis Gesetzgeber, Gesetz und Richteramt seit dem 18. Jahrhundert. Baden-Baden: Nomos.
Miersch, Matthias. 2000. Der sogenannte référé législatif: eine Untersuchung zum Verhältnis Gesetzgeber, Gesetz und Richteramt seit dem 18. Jahrhundert. Baden-Baden: Nomos.
Mill, John Stuart. [1882] 1981. The System of Logic, Ratiocinative and Inductive, Being a Connected View of the Principles of Evidence, and the Methods of Scientific Investiga- tion. Books IV-VI and Appendices (ed. J. M. Robson). Toronto, Buffalo: University of Toronto Press, Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Moench, Dietmar. 1971. Die methodologische Besterbungen der Freirechtsbewegung auf dem Wege zur Methodenlehre der Gegenwart. Frankfurt am Main: AthenäumVerlag.
Montesquieu, baron de; Charles de Secondat. 2001. The Spirit of the Laws (trans. Thom- as Nugent). Kitchener, Ontario: Batoche Books.
Park, Joshua. 2022. Your Honor, AI. https://hir.harvard.edu/your-honor-ai/, last visited 2 August 2022.
Peczenik, Aleksander. 2008. On Law and Reason. Dordrecht: Springer.
Pildes, Richard H. 3/1999. Forms of Formalism. University of Chicago Law Review 66: 607–621.
Pokrovac, Zoran. 2018. Slobodno stvaranje prava. Hermann U. Kantorowicz I slobodnopravni pokret. Zagreb: Naklada Breza.
Poscher, Ralf. 2011. Ambiguity and Vagueness in Legal Interpretation. 128–144. Oxford Handbook on Language and Law, eds. Lawrence Solan, Peter Tiersma. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Radbruch, Gustav. 2/1906. Rechtswissenschaft als Rechtsschöpfung – Ein Beitrag zum juristischen Methodenstreit. Archiv für Sozialwissenschaft und Sozialpolitik 4: 355–370.
Radin, Max. 8/1942. In Defense of Unsystematic Science of Law. Yale Law Journal 51: 1269–1279.
Raz, Joseph. 1985/3. Authority, Law and Morality. The Monist 68: 295–324.
Raz, Joseph. 1997. The Concept of a Legal System. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Raz, Joseph. 1999. Practical Reason and Norms. 2nd. ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Reid, John (lord). 1/1972. The Judgeas Lawmaker. Journal of the Society of Public Teachers of Law 12: 22–29.
Rice, Hannah, Carol Murphy, Conor Nolan, Michelle Kelly. 3/2020. Measuring implicit attractiveness bias in the context of innocence and guilt evaluations. International Journal of Psychology and Psychological Therapy 20: 273–285.
Savigny, Friedrich Carl von. 1814. Vom Beruf unserer Zeit für Gesetzgebung und Re- chtswissenschaft. Heidelberg: Den Mohr und Zimmer.
Scalia, Antonin, Bryan A. Gardner. 2012. Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Text. St. Paul, MN: Thompson / West.
Schauer, Frederick. 2002. Playing by the Rules. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Schmitt, Carl. [1928] 2008. Constitutional Theory (trans. J. Seitzer). Durham and London: Duke University Press.
Seneca, Lucius Annaeus. 1925. Ad Lucillium epistulae morales with English translation by Richard M. Gummere. London: William Heinemann, New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons.
Siddique, Haroon. 2022. Dramatic fall in successful high court challenges to government policy. https://www.theguardian.com/law/2022/jun/23/dramatic-fall-in-successful-high-court-challenges-to-government-policy, last visited 2 August 2022.
Spaić, Bojan. 1/2021. Interpretacija i konstrukcija: Prilog razmatranju razlike između primjene prava I stvarjanja prava. Pravni zapisi 12: 29–61.
Spaić, Bojan. 2016. Aron Barak: doktrinarni intencionalista između neoskepticizma i neoformalizma. 75–95. eds. Budimir Košutić, Jasminka Hasanbegović, Marija Karanikić Mirić, Tanasije Marinković, Bojan Spaić, Nina Kršljanin, Miloš Vukotić, Vanja Eror. Aron Barak: Sudija i teoretičar prava. Belgrade: IVR Serbia / Dosije Studio.
Spaić, Bojan. 2018. Normativity of Basic Rules of Legal Interpretation. 157–175. Unpacking Normativity, eds. Kenneth Einar Himma, Miodrag Jovanović, Bojan Spaić. Ox- ford: Hart Publishing.
Spaić, Bojan. 2019. Institutional Turn(s) in Theories of Legal Interpretation. 187–209. Legal Interpretation and Scientific Knowledge, eds. David Duarte, Pedro Moniz Lopes, Jorge Silva Sampaio. Cham: Springer.
Spaić, Bojan. 2020. Priroda i determinante sudijskog tumačenja prava. Beograd: Univerzitet u Beogradu – Pravni fakultet.
Spaić, Bojan. 4/2018. Justified Epistemic Authority (in Legal Interpretation). Annals FLB – Belgrade Law Review 66: 143–155.
Štajnpihler, Tilen. 2012. Precedenčni učinek sodnih odločb pri pravnem utemeljevanju. Ljubljana: GV Založba.
Tamanaha, Brian. 2010. Beyond the Formalist – Realist Divide. The Role of Politics in Judging. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.
Tarar, Aditya. 2021. China made the world’s first artificial intelligence-equipped judge, gives 97 percent of the decisions right. https://hindustannewshub.com/world-news/china-made-the-worlds-first-artificial-intelligence-equipped-judge-gives-97-percent- of-the-decisions-right/, last visited 2 August 2022.
Terdiman, Richard. 5/1987. Translator’s Introduction to The Force of Law: Toward a Sociology of the Juridical Field by Pierre Bourdieu. Hastings Law Journal 38: 805–813.
Wade, Henry William Rawson. 3/1941. The Concept of Legal Certainty. A Preliminary Skirmish. The Modern Law Review 4: 183–199.
Waldron, Jeremy. 1994. Vagueness in Law and Language: Some Philosophical Issues. California Law Review 82: 509–540.
Wieacker, Franz. 1996. Privatrechtsgeschichte der Neuzeit unter besonderer Berücksichti- gung der deutschen Entwicklung. Göttingen, Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht.
Wilkins, David B. 2/1990. Legal Realism for Lawyers. Harvard Law Review 104: 468–524.
Yntema, Hessel E. 4/1928. The Hornbook Method and the Conflict of Laws. Yale Law Journal 37: 468–483.
Žgur, Matija. 2020. Legality on the Frontlines of Administrative Decision-Making, Ana- lisi e diritto 83–110.
