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

Results found: 14

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
W artykule konfrontuję współczesną dogmatykę prawa z wyzwaniami, jakie niesie za sobą polityczność prawa i praktyki orzeczniczej. Prawoznawstwo – zdominowane w tradycji kontynentalnej przez nurt dogmatyczny – a w ślad za nim orzecznictwo sądowe sytuowane są jako działania politycznie niezaangażowane. W tekście niniejszym próbuję to dość powszechne przekonanie poddać ostrożnej weryfikacji. Korzystając z poglądów H. Bermana (Prawo i rewolucja. Kształtowanie się zachodniej tradycji prawnej), przyjmuję, że obecny kształt prawoznawstwa oraz wsparta na niej praktyka decyzyjna sądów ukształtowały się w wyniku konfliktów politycznych oraz że dogmatyka prawa właśnie dzięki temu posiada potencjał do neutralizowania i rozwiązywania również współczesnych konfliktów politycznych. Jest zatem aktywnością zarówno polityczną, jak i apolityczną. Paradoks ten jest jednak tylko pozorny. Dbając o zachowanie swojego paradygmatu, dogmatyka powinna elastycznie reagować na wyzwania politycznego otoczenia. Może – i powinna – modyfikować „pas ochronny” teorii, na której jest zbudowana właśnie po to, aby zachować swój rdzeń (I. Lakatos). W artykule próbuję odpowiedzieć na pytanie o granice możliwej adaptacji prawoznawstwa i decyzyjnej praktyki sądów wobec roszczeń płynących ze strony politycznego otoczenia – roszczeń najmocniej współcześnie artykułowanych przez tzw. krytyczne teorie (filozofie) orzekania. W końcowych fragmentach artykułu próbuję – na przykładzie tez sformułowanych w niedawno wydanej monografii R. Mańki W stronę krytycznej filozofii orzekania – zarysować te granice.
EN
In the article, I contrast the contemporary legal dogma with the challenges underlying the political nature of law and judicial practice. Both the Continental jurisprudence and the judicial decisions issued by European courts are dominated by the dogmatic current – and treated as politically neutral acts. My intention is to carefully verify this quite common belief in this paper. Making use of H. Berman’s views, I assume that the present shape of jurisprudence and the judicial practice based thereon have been established as a result of political conflicts and that the legal dogma is capable of neutralising and solving modern-day political conflicts precisely because of the qualities of the said shape. It is therefore both a political and an apolitical activity. But this paradox is only apparent. In its strive to keep its paradigm alive, the dogma should be flexible in reacting to the challenges occurring in its political environment. It can – and should – modify the “buffer” of the theory upon which it is set in order to retain its core. In the article, I try to answer the question about the boundaries of the possible adaptation of jurisprudence and juridical practice with respect to claims raised by the domain of politics – claims currently articulated as the strongest by the so-called critical theories of adjudication. The final part of the paper is an attempt – based on the example of theses formulated in monographby R. Mańko, W stronę krytycznej filozofii orzekania – to outline the said boundaries.
PL
The paper analyses the sources of diversity in opinions about the acceptability of direct application of constitution by courts in the so-called confrontational version (a judicial review: the refusal of application of the parliamentary act which is incoherent with a constitution). I claim that such differences result from diverging assumptions accepted within analytic jurisprudence. More precisely speaking, the above differences stem from the three alternative approaches within analytic legal theory: a traditional, a modern, and a postmodern (postanalytic) one. Polish legal thought is dominated by the modern approach, what influence also a debate on the direct applicability of constitution. The modern approach hardly accepts a situation in which a legal professional (a judge) needs to face new social and political challenges. The more adequate in this respect seems to be the postanalytic approach. Thus, arguments which refuse the judge’s right to directly and autonomously apply the constitution against the parliamentary law (which are put forth by some representatives of both legal doctrine and judiciary), are based mainly upon the modern version of the analytic legal theory. Alternatively, the postanalytic perspective offers theoretical foundations for the acceptability of direct and autonomous judicial application of the constitution. As for the traditional version of analytic theory, it possesses some explanatory force towards Polish political practice of the day. Since it supports claims which question any form of judicial activism. This approach seems to undermine any reasons for the existence of independent constitutional judiciary, the direct application of constitution by ordinary courts included.
EN
The essay elucidates an opposition (resp. critical continuation of a kind) between analytic philosophy which refers to traditional, naturalistic model of scientific research, and an approach that is currently labeled postanalytic philosophy. The latter approach is distinguished by a much more tolerant attitude towards the autonomy of humanities, as compared with natural sciences, as well as by its receptivity to other domains of both scientific and nonscientific human practices. As for the Polish legal science in the second half of the 20th century, it was strongly influenced by the traditional analytic philosophy, among others by the oeuvre of the so-called Warsaw-Lvov School. This influence is most conspicuous when contributions of Polish legal scholars to the theory of interpretation of legal texts are considered. The objective of the essay is to expose possible shifts in research interests of general legal science, resulting from the adoption of research program recommended by postanalytic philosophy. The research program is built on rejection (modification) of such basic assumptions of analytic philosophy as: primacy of scientific methodology over substantive research; strong commitment to systemic nature of knowledge, requirement of an external integration with natural science, ahistorical and acultural status of scientific claims, and separation of propositions (descriptions of facts) from evaluative or normative statements. The essay concludes with an assessment of potential social consequences of application of such program: both for those conceived of as positive (deformalizing of legal practices, humanizing of legal education), as well as for some possible threats (politicizing of legal science and attenuating of its institutional respect).
EN
The essay presents two theoretical concepts of a legal norm, termed as a non-linguistic and an expressive one. Both have in common an attempt to separate specifically legal issues related to norms from traditionally distinguished research areas of linguistics, i.e. semantics and syntax. The aim of both concepts was to solve one of the most troubling problems of analytical legal philosophy in the 20th century, which was a question concerning the applicability of a classical logic (a propositional logic) to linguistic utterances taking a form of norms. The authors of the analyzed conceptions — some minor differences between them notwithstanding — were by principle offering a similar solution to this problem: they located norms in a domain of facts (deeds, regulatory acts) and attributed to the language a role of communicating those facts. This solution was supposed to correspond with an employment of deontic logics to analyses of legal texts (acts of communicating norms). The article indicates that these theoretical concepts are significant for the so called external integration of legal science — the integration with broadly conceived logic, including (owing to some internal distinctions introduced) a pragmatic branch of logic. Nevertheless, for a legal scholarship itself such theoretical proposals may have some negative implications as well. Namely, they may disintegrate the linguistic and methodological consistency of research problems of legal science; and in a sphere of professional legal practice they may counteract a coherence both in solving legal questions and justifying such solutions. This leads to a more generalized thesis: the external integration of legal scholarship, when too far-reaching, when exceeding a conventional dimension of a language of science, is usually done at the expense of the internal integration (the autonomy) of this scholarship. Yet for the legal scholarship and professional legal practice, because of the unique social roles they play, the internal integration is of a special importance. Cautiousness of legal science in the external integration with a scientific surroundings is highly recommended not only when regarding potential links with a classical logic. A similar risk is connected to alternative directions of external integration, for instance to the studies of law inspired by findings of contemporary humanities, which is proposed by so called postanalytic account to legal scienceporary humanities proposed within the framework of the so-called “postanalytical” approach.
PL
Koncepcja racjonalnego prawodawcy uznawana jest za jedno z największych osiągnięć polskiej doktryny prawniczej, a założenie racjonalności autora tekstu prawnego — za specyficzną cechę polskiej kultury prawnej. Koncepcja ta bywa jednak również krytykowana za scjentyzm i formalizm, na którym opiera swoją argumentację, a współcześnie dodatkowo za zacieranie granic władzy między polityczną legislatywą (realny prawodawca) a niezależną, apolityczną judykaturą (sędzia korzystający z założenia racjonalnego prawodawcy). Dodatkowego politycznego impetu tej dyskusji nadają obecnie polskie spory wokół reformy sądownictwa. W niniejszym tekście przywołuję historyczną dyskusję naukową, którą wywołało ukazanie się w 1973 roku pracy poznańskiego prawnika, filozofa i metodologa nauki L. Nowaka pod tytułem "Interpretacja prawnicza. Studium z metodologii prawoznawstwa". W tezach tej pracy oraz w krytyce, jaką ówcześnie wywołała, dostrzegam przesłanki argumentacji — ukrytej za językiem teoretycznoprawnej debaty — która jest obecna również w aktualnych polskich sporach politycznych o kształt sądownictwa. Uprawdopodabnia to pogląd, że spory o niezawisłość sędziów i niezależność sądownictwa są sporami sięgającymi centrum polskiej kultury prawnej, jej specyfiki wyrażanej przez założenie racjonalności prawodawcy.
EN
The concept of the rational legislator is considered one of the greatest achievements of Polish legal doctrine, and the assumption of rationality of the author of a legal text — as a specific feature of Polish legal culture. However, this concept is sometimes criticised for scientism and formalism, on which it bases its argumentation, and today — additionally — for blurring the boundaries of power between the political legislature (real legislator) and independent, apolitical judiciary (judge using the assumption of rational legislator). An additional political impetus for this discussion is currently being given by Polish disputes over judicial reform. In this text, I recall a historical discussion in jurisprudence that was provoked in 1973 by the work of a Poznań lawyer, philosopher and methodologist of science Leszek Nowak entitled “Legal Interpretation. Study of the methodology of jurisprudence.” In the theses of this work and the criticism it provoked at the time, I can see reasons for the argument — hidden behind the language of jurisprudential debate — which is also present in current Polish political disputes about the shape of the judiciary. This justifies the view that disputes over the independence of judges and the judiciary are disputes reaching the centre of Polish legal culture, its specificity expressed by the assumption of the legislator’s rationality.
EN
In the paper, the author attempts to “disenchant” the negative image of the instrumentalization of law that has been formed in the theoretical and legal literature. Polish jurisprudence, due to the experience of the so-called ‘real socialism’, had particular reasons to be prejudiced against this issue. The text makes use of theoretical inspirations coming from outside of jurisprudence (John Dewey’s philosophy of pragmatic instrumentalism, Max Weber’s concept of politics, Chantal Mouffe’s concept of the political) and strictly legal theories of instrumentalisation (Sanne Taekema’s pluralistic-responsive variant, Wiesław Lang’s reconstructionist approach). The main aim of the paper is to change the approach to the instrumentalization of law: to replace the traditional question about the limits of instrumentalization of the law made by the state with a question about how the law – without risking the loss of its fundamental values and functions – can cooperate with the natural tendency of people to instrumentalize their behaviour in the conditions of a democratic, pluralistic society. The theses of the paper are set in the liberal vision of social order, however with a significant correction consisting in referring to the assumptions of pragmatism and post-structuralism. In the conclusion, I also point out the problems that can be caused in jurisprudence by the application of certain concepts from the area of political theory based on post-structuralist assumptions.
PL
W artykule autor próbuje „odczarować” negatywny obraz instrumentalizacji prawa, jaki został ukształtowany w literaturze teoretycznoprawnej. Polskie prawoznawstwo za sprawą doświadczeń tzw. realnego socjalizmu miało szczególne powody do uprzedzeń względem tej problematyki. W tekście wykorzystywane są teoretyczne inspiracje pochodzące spoza nauk prawnych (filozofia pragmatycznego instrumentalizmu Johna Deweya, koncepcja polityki Maxa Webera, koncepcja polityczności Chantal Mouffe) oraz stricte prawnicze teorie instrumentalizacji (Sanne Taekemy wariant pluralistyczno-responsywny, Wiesława Langa ujęcie rekonstrukcjonistyczne). Głównym przesłaniem opracowania jest zmiana problemowego podejścia do instrumentalizacji prawa: zastąpienie tradycyjnego pytania o granice instrumentalizacji prawa stanowionego przez państwo pytaniem, jak prawo – nie ryzykując utraty swoich zasadniczych wartości i funkcji – może kooperować z naturalną skłonnością ludzi do instrumentalizowania swojego zachowania w warunkach demokratycznego, pluralistycznego społeczeństwa. Tezy artykułu osadzone są w liberalnej wizji porządku społecznego, jednak z istotną korektą polegającą na odwołaniu się do założeń pragmatyzmu i poststrukturalizmu. W zakończeniu autor wskazuje również na perturbacje, jakie może powodować w prawoznawstwie aplikowanie niektórych twierdzeń z obszaru teorii polityki opartych na poststrukturalistycznych założeniach.
8
Content available remote

Systemowość prawa wobec konfliktów społecznych

100%
EN
The starting point for the presented text is the general belief in the culture of statutory law (assumption made in the study of legal texts), that the law is systemic in character. This view has strongly influenced so far the arguments used in legal disputes. The fundamental question put here is the question whether meta-rules, being a consequence of the thesis on the systemic character of law, may be reasonably (in a manner acceptable to the parties) applied to such legal disputes, which may be qualified also as political conflicts. The answer is positive, yet under certain condition: “systemic character” trait, raised by analytical theories of law, should be used only in so-called “easy cases”, as “hard cases” inevitably belong to a competitive domain of so-termed “political philosophy”. This could imply a significant narrowing of the scope of application of some theorems belonging to these trends in the field of analytical legal theory, which have been dominant in the Polish legal thought. This includes mainly claims connected with the so-called “deep structure of legal science”, eg. a theorem of rationality of the lawgiver.
EN
In this paper I try to identify the “common areas” that connect jurisprudence with economic theory. The present text can therefore be considered apart of the scientific program of the so-called “external integration of legal sciences”. The proposed considerations are based on two important assumptions, limiting the scope of the paper. Firstly, the adopted perspective is first and foremost the legal point of view — let us add that Imean legal sciences based on the achievements of selected parts of analytical jurisprudence. References to economic theory have only an indicative character. And secondly, in this paper I refer to aquite specific — probably not shared by the whole legal community — concept of “management” as atype of “attitude toward the law”. This concept refers to the basic assumptions of modern pragmalinguistics — adirection in the study of language which seems to favour the integration of linguistics (and analytical jurisprudence, which is based thereon) with the outside, including the economic environment. In this paper I extract six components that make up the “management attitude” and then present theoretical and legal issues associated with each of them, and the similar problems of the theory of economics.
EN
The study is an essay on Beata Polanowska-Sygulska’s book Harmonia i dysonans. Wokół rozmów z filozofami oksfordzkimi [Harmony and Dissonance. Around Conversations with Oxford Philosophers]. The essay contains comments on the social and political context in which the various sections of the book were written, on Polanowska-Sygulska’s distinctive writing style, and on the unique nature of sources from which she drew her knowledge about the Oxford philosophers. Of the philosophers presented in the book, here I choose to focus my attention only on selected figures: I. Berlin, L. Kołakowski, and J. Gray. The choice of the first two was determined by the phenomenon of convergence of the two philosophers’ topics of interest. It is the ethical dilemmas taken up by Berlin and Kołakowski that became the guiding idea of the entire book, and, moreover, a challenge whose topicality is felt in a unique way today (e.g., the context of the war in Ukraine). In the essay, I also formulate some critical remarks about the author’s assessment of the theoretical grounding of L. Kołakowski’s philosophy. In the passages devoted to J. Gray and his Feline Philosophy – while agreeing with the author’s critical assessment of the philosophical and social stance outlined there – I additionally attempt to point out its destructive influence on the philosophy of law. A reasonable alternative to Gray’s ethical and legal nihilism may be precisely the Berlin-Kołakowski movement of value pluralism and the possibility of a ‘pragmatic balance’ perceived by both philosophers, which can be exemplified by the Comprehensive Law Movement.
PL
Tekst jest esejem o książce Beaty Polanowskiej-Sygulskiej Harmonia i dysonans. Wokół rozmów z filozofami oksfordzkimi. Esej zawiera uwagi o kontekście społecznym i politycznym w którym powstawały poszczególne fragmenty książki, o specyfice stylu pisarskiego autorki oraz wyjątkowym charakterze źródeł z których autorka pozyskiwała swoją wiedzę o oksfordzkich filozofach. Z prezentowanych w książce filozofów w tekście niniejszym postanowiłem skupić swoją uwagę tylko na wybranych postaciach: I. Berlinie, L. Kołakowskim oraz J. Grayu. O wyborze dwóch pierwszych zdecydował fenomen problemowej zbieżności zainteresowań obu filozofów. To właśnie podejmowane przez Berlina i Kołakowskiego dylematy etyczne stały się wiodącą ideą całej książki, a nadto wyzwaniem, którego aktualność współcześnie odczuwamy w sposób wyjątkowy (np. kontekst wojny w Ukrainie). W eseju formułuję również pewne krytyczne uwagi gdy chodzi o ocenę autorki teoretycznego ugruntowania filozofii L. Kołakowskiego. We fragmentach poświęconych J. Grayowi i jego Kociej filozofii – zgadzając się krytyczną oceną autorki zarysowanej tam postawy filozoficznej i społecznej – próbuję dodatkowo wskazać na jej destrukcyjny wpływ na filozofię prawa. Rozsądną alternatywą dla etycznego i prawniczego nihilizmu Graya może być właśnie nurt pluralizmu wartości Berlina-Kołakowskiego oraz dostrzegana przez obu filozofów możliwość „pragmatycznej równowagi”, której przykładów dostarczać może nurt Comprehesive Law Movement.
PL
W artykule przedstawiam koncepcję prawnej normy postępowania Zygmunta Ziembińskiego, ukazując ją w kontekście strukturalistycznej postawy badawczej – podejścia metodologicznego dominującego w polskiej teorii prawa w okresie, w którym powstawał i kształtował się ten jeden z najważniejszych elementów teorii prawa Ziembińskiego (lata siedemdziesiąte i osiemdziesiąte XX w.). Poszczególne fragmenty prezentowanej koncepcji obrazuję wybranymi cytatami, reprezentatywnymi dla strukturalistycznego podejścia badawczego. W mojej ocenie strukturalizm pozwala zarówno zrozumieć przemożny wpływ koncepcji normy Ziembińskiego na polską teorię prawa drugiej połowy XX w., jak i wyjaśnić przyczyny kontrowersji, które koncepcja ta wywoływała u niektórych przedstawicieli polskiego prawoznawstwa. W artykule zwracam również uwagę na ewolucję omawianej koncepcji, w tym na osłabienie jej strukturalistycznego wydźwięku w ostatnich latach twórczości naukowej Profesora. Przykładem, na tle którego egzemplifikuję tę tendencję, jest pojęcie normy kompetencyjnej.
EN
In the article I present the concept of the legal norm of conduct proposed by Zygmunt Ziembiński, situating it in the context of the structuralist research attitude – a  methodological approach dominant in the Polish theory of law in the period when this key element of Ziembiński’s theory of law was created and shaped (the 1970s and 1980s). I illustrate individual fragments of the presented concept with selected quotations that are representative of the structuralist research approach. In my view, structuralism makes it possible to understand both the overwhelming influence ofZiembiński’s concept of the norm on the Polish legal theory of the second half of the twentieth century, as well as to explain the causes of the controversies that this concept provoked in some representatives of Polish jurisprudence. I also draw attention to the evolution of the concept in question, including the weakening of its structuralist overtones in the last years of the Professor’s scientific work. An example that exemplifies this tendency is the concept of competence norm.
EN
This article has originated from observations of the current Polish political and legal disputes over the Constitution. In pursuing the reasons for the different lines of the argumentation presented, we have brought the issue of education in constitutional law to attention. We have covered the issue in two stages. The first stage involves a discussion of education models as expounded in social theory. Our starting point was the structural-functional model and its criticism along the lines of conflict, interpretative, and critical theories. This is followed by a presentation of the evolution of administrative-law institutions in the light of the conflict between the expected openness to ethical and political dimensions and the claims for integrity and coherence. To this end, we followed the proposals of Nonet and Selznick. The second stage includes a review of three conceptions of the constitution and constitutionalism. The views of Kelsen, Schmitt as well as the American judicial review doctrine served as model examples. These proposals can be presented as the cornerstones of three visions of constitutional-law education. We did not content ourselves with presenting a set of models of education and covering a reconstruction of the vision of constitutional education. We have also attempted to demonstrate, bearing in mind the nature of the Polish debate over the Constitution, that the judicial review doctrine opens up a promising sphere for a revaluation of both the theory and practice of constitutional law.
EN
This article has arisen from the observations of the current Polish political and legal disputes over the Constitution. In pursuing the reasons for the different lines of argument presented, we have brought to attention the issue of education in constitutional law. We have presented the task set over two stages. In the first stage we discussed the educational models as expounded in the social theory. As a starting point, we adopted the structural-functional model and its criticism along the lines of the conflict-theory, interpretative and critical theories. Subsequently, the evolu tion was presented of administrative-law institutions in the light of the conflict between the expected openness to the ethical and political dimensions and the integrity and coherence claims. To this end, we followed the proposals of Philippe Nonet and Philip Selznick. In the second stage, we reviewed three conceptions of the constitution and constitutionalism. The views of Hans Kelsen, Carl Schmitt as well as the American judicial review doctrine served as model examples. These proposals, as we have tried to demonstrate, can be presented as the cornerstones of the three visions of constitutional-law education. In this article, we did not satisfy ourselves in presenting the educational models and reconstructing the vision of constitutional education. We have also attempted to demonstrate, bearing in mind the experiences of the Polish debate over the Constitution, that the judicial review doctrine opens up a promising sphere for a revaluation of both the theory and practice (and hence, the didactics) of constitutional law.
PL
Prezentowany artykułu powstał na tle obserwacji bieżących polskich sporów polityczno-prawnych wokół Konstytucji. Poszukując przyczyn różnic w pojawiającej się argumentacji, zwróciliśmy uwagę na zagadnienie edukacji konstytucyjnoprawnej. Postawione zadanie przedstawiliśmy w dwóch etapach. W pierwszym omówiliśmy wyróżniane w teorii społecznej modele edukacji. Punktem wyjścia uczyniliśmy model strukturalno-funkcjonalny oraz jego krytykę z perspektywy teorii konfliktowych, interpretatywnych i krytycznych. Następnie zaprezentowana została ewolucja instytucji prawno-administracyjnych w świetle konfliktu między oczekiwaniem ich otwartości na wymiar etyczny i polityczny a roszczeniem integralności i spójności. W tym celu skorzystaliśmy z propozycji Philippe Noneta i Philipa Selznicka. W drugim etapie przybliżyliśmy trzy koncepcje konstytucji i konstytucjonalizmu. Za modelowe przykłady posłużyły nam poglądy Hansa Kelsena, Carla Schmitta oraz amerykańska doktryna judicial review. Propozycje te, jak staraliśmy się wykazać, można przedstawić jako punkty oparcia dla trzech wizji edukacji konstytucyjnoprawnej. W artykule nie poprzestaliśmy tylko na prezentacji modeli edukacji i rekonstrukcji wizji edukacji konstytucyjnej. Usiłowaliśmy również, mając na uwadze doświadczenia polskiej debaty wokół Konstytucji, wykazać, że doktryna judicial review otwiera obiecującą przestrzeń dla rewaluacji nauki i praktyki (a więc i dydaktyki) konstytucyjnoprawnej.
14
Content available remote

Historia Katedry Teorii i Filozofii Prawa

51%
EN
In this article the history of the Department of the Theory and Philosophy of Law is presented. The Department of Theory and Philosophy of Law is an organizational unit of the Faculty of Law, Administration and Economics of the Wrocław University, headed since 2005 by Prof. Andrzej Bator. The tradition of the Department dates back to the times of Prof. Stanisław Hubert (1905–1983) who, thanks to his great knowledge and the ability to win over pupils and partners, as well as his openness to new research fields, initiated the development of the theory of state and law at the Wrocław centre. Teaching and organizational scientific activities have been included in the work of the Department from the moment of its establishment until today. The article presents the profiles of employees of the Department and their individual contributions to its development. It concentrates on the analysis of individual research plains (e.g. European legal culture, external and internal integration of jurisprudence, the rule of law and the European legal culture).
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.