Legal Heuristics and the Positivisation of Law in Dogmatic Discourse

Jerzy Leszczyński

doi:10.18778/0208-6069.100.07

Authors

Jerzy Leszczyński University of Lodz, Faculty of Law and Administration https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7588-7705

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18778/0208-6069.100.07

Keywords:

legal heuristics, legal dogmatics, positivisation of law, legal argumentation

Abstract

The general opinion that the text of the law does not imply its use leads to an understanding of the role that legal dogmatics and legal practice can play in solving this problem. Common thematic field of both those lawyers’ activities allows us to distinguish a dogmatic discourse, by which and in which the law is positivised by consolidating applicable (operative) patterns of solving legal problems. These patterns are created by referring to the aspects of text, language, and system of law, but also to the history of the discourse. The positivisation of law is the result of specific legal heuristics, consisting in combining meanings, expectations, values, and existing practices in solving legal problems. Legal heuristics does not boil down to a method, but, rather, is a framework, a context, and a set of conditions for cognition aimed at solving practical problems.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Aarnio, Aulis. 1984. “Paradigms in Legal Dogmatics.” In Theory of Legal Science. Edited by Aleksander Peczenik et al. 25–38. Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-6481-5_4
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-6481-5_4

Alexy, Robert. 1993. “Justification and Application of Norms.” Ratio Juris 6(2): 157–170. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9337.1993.tb00144.x
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9337.1993.tb00144.x

Atienza, Manuel. Juan Ruiz Manero. 1998. A Theory of Legal Sentences. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publisher. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0848-8
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0848-8

Broekman, Jan M. 1985. “The Minimum Content of Positivism. Positivism in the Law and in Legal Theory.” Rechtstheorie 16(4): 349–366.
Google Scholar

Gadamer, Hans-Georg. 2004. Truth and Method. London: Continuum.
Google Scholar

Günther, Klaus. 1989. “A Normative Conception of Coherence for a Discursive Theory of Legal Justification.” Ratio Juris 2(2): 155–166. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9337.1989.tb00034.x
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9337.1989.tb00034.x

Hartman, Jan. 2011. Heurystyka filozoficzna. [Philosophical Heuristics]. Toruń: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu Mikołaja Kopernika.
Google Scholar

Leszczyński, Jerzy. 2010. Pozytywizacja prawa w dyskursie dogmatycznym. [Positivisation of Law in Legal Dogmatic Discourse]. Kraków: Towarzystwo Autorów i Wydawców Prac Naukowych Universitas.
Google Scholar

Peczenik, Aleksander. 2005. Scientia Iuris. Legal Doctrine as Knowledge of Law and as a Source of Law. Dordrecht: Springer.
Google Scholar

Smits, Jan M. 2015. “What is Legal Doctrine? On the Aims nad Methods of Legal-Dogmatic Research.” Maastricht European Private Law Institute Working Papers 06: 207–228. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316442906.006
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316442906.006

Tuori, Kaarlo. 2016. Critical Legal Positivism. New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315258867
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315258867

Ziembiński, Zygmunt. 1980. Podstawowe problemy prawoznawstwa. [Basic Problems of Jurisprudence]. Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.
Google Scholar

Zirk-Sadowski, Marek. 1998. Prawo a uczestniczenie w kulturze. [Law and Participation in Culture]. Łódź: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego.
Google Scholar