Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 2

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
PL
Obowiązek uzasadniania twierdzeń jest w nauce realizacją postulatu krytycyzmu. Rozstrzygnięcia interpretacji prawniczej (niezależnie od tego, czy są formułowane w procesie stosowania prawa czy poza nim) mają postać twierdzeń o obowiązywaniu normy prawnej o określonej treści. Uprawomocnienie tych twierdzeń wymaga, podobnie jak w nauce, uzasadnienia. A w nauce twierdzenie jest hipotetyczne, dopóty dopóki ktoś nie przedstawi jego intersubiektywnie weryfikowalnego uzasadnienie. Zadaniem artykułu jest właśnie wykazanie konieczności uzasadniania twierdzeń interpretacyjnych (zarówno cząstkowych jak i finalnych) w procesie wykładni. Jako punkt wyjścia dla wykazania obowiązku formułowania takiego uzasadnienia, wybieramy derywacyjną koncepcję wykładni prawa, w której taki obowiązek przewidziano ze względów metodologicznych (i który jest wpisany w treść dyrektyw interpretacyjnych w tej koncepcji co najmniej implicite). Przedstawiamy i omawiamy typy uzasadnień twierdzeń interpretacyjnych oraz ich wersje (słabą i mocną). Ponadto różnice między uzasadnieniem zwykłego twierdzenia a uzasadnieniem twierdzenia interpretacyjnego. Wskazujemy także na konsekwencje braku takich uzasadnień.
EN
The duty to provide justification for claims is the realization of the postulate of criticism in the academia. Decisions regarding legal interpretation (regardless of whether they are formulated in the process of applying the law or outside this process) are made in the form of claims about a binding legal norm with a certain content. Validation of such claims requires their justification, just like in the academia. And in the academia, a claim remains theoretical until someone presents an inter-subjectively verified justification for it. The aim of this article is precisely that: to indicate the necessity to justify interpretive claims (both partial and final) in the process of interpretation. As a starting point in the process of demonstrating the need to formulate such a justification, we choose the derivative conception of legal interpretation, which provides for the duty to justify interpretive claims for methodological reasons (and which is an intrinsic element of the content of legal directives in this conception, at least implicitly). We present and discuss the types of justifications for interpretive claims and their variants (weak and strong). Furthermore, we analyse the difference between justifying ordinary and interpretive claims. Finally, we also identify the consequences of failure to provide such justifications.
EN
The European Union wants to play an important role in the world in the face of changes underway on the international scene. The aim of the article is to try to define the EU’s position on the international stage compared to the countries of greatest global importance. The research problem is therefore the assessment of the EU’s importance and position as a global partner in relation to the current world powers in the context of territorial, socio-economic and military criteria. The authors of the article put forward the thesis that the current power structure in the world and the challenges it involves position the European Union as a major global partner. The main method used in the article is analysis of the literature of the subject, supplemented by review of the available state of knowledge and research. The use of these methods allowed to distinguish a set of criteria necessary for the assessment of the EU’s global position. In addition, the authors use comparative analysis, collating the collected data, which made it possible to present the EU against the background of countries with a well-established global position in each of these criteria. According to the authors, it can be concluded that, taking into account socio-economic criteria, the EU’s position in the world is very strong in these areas and supplies grounds for the perception of the EU as a global partner. However, other criteria, such as the functioning of the overarching power, the ability to pursue a coherent foreign policy and the capacity to defend borders remain areas that require a much greater integration commitment in order for the EU to be called a real global partner.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.