Differentia specifica of Legal Principles in Context of Judicial Reasoning
Abstract
The semantic uncertainty of legal texts is most evident in abstract normative formulations of legal principles. In order to determine the correct methodology of principles use, it is necessary to identify objective criteria that allow correctly qualifying the relevant standard as a legal principle, to identify the specifics of the application of legal principles that determine the methods of their use in judicial reasoning. The author considers theoretical discussions concerning the concept of “legal principle” from the point of view of the position of normative dualism and distinguishing principles from the related category of legal rules, as well as taking into account the differentiation of principles into types, including the isolation of the category of legal postulates mainly based on the argumentative approach to law. The author concludes that the position of “weak” distinction, which considers principles along with rules as a type of legal norms, is more reasonable. At the same time, abstractness and semantic uncertainty as a property of legal principles themselves should be specified, since they are characteristic of any legal propositions. Legal principles initially represent open statements, which is associated with greater discretion of the law enforcer. The process of argumentation is also affected by the specificity of different types of legal principles, including their division into principles stricto sensu, expressing the highest values of the legal order, and principles — program norms, providing for the obligation to achieve certain goals, which implies the possibility of being implemented to a certain extent. The presence or absence of an explicit positivisation of the principle in legal texts should also be taken into account, as it affects the binding force of the principle. An important addition to the dichotomy “legal principles — legal rules” is the category of normative postulates or methodological principles, which are addressed directly to the subjects of interpretation and determine the application of other legal norms, stands out, as it highlights methodological differences in the application of legal principles as legal norms — grounds for dispute resolution — and as legal postulates determining the specifics of the application of other legal norms.
References
Aarnio A. (2011) Essays on the doctrinal study of law. Dordrecht: Springer, 222 p. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1655-1
Alexy R. (2010) Weigh formula. Rossiyskiy ezhegodnik teorii prava=Russian Yearbook of Legal Theory, vol. 3, pp. 208-229 (in Russ.)
Alexy R. (2011) Concept and validity of law: a reply to legal positivism. Moscow: Infotropik Media, 192 p. (in Russ.)
Antonov M.V. (2010) Exclusive positivism and argumentative theory of law: to a polemic between E.V. Bulygin and M. Atienza. Pravovedenie=Jurisprudence, no. 1, pp. 224-235 (in Russ.)
Atienza M., Manero J. (1998) A theory of legal sentences. Dordrecht: Springer Science+Business Media, 192 p. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0848-8
Avila H. (2007) Theory of legal principles. Dordrecht: Springer, 365 p. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-5879-0
Belov S.A. (2014) Can rational discourse justify values choice in law? Pravove-denie=Jurisprudence, no. 5, pp. 224-236 (in Russ.)
Belov S.A. (2016) Rationality of judicial balancing of constitutional values using the proportionality test. Sankt-Peterburgskiy yurist=Saint Petersburg Lawyer, no. 1, pp. 63-75 (in Russ.)
Bertea S. (2020) An expansionist model of legal reasoning. In: Defeasibility in law. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 1-29. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3719917
Blinova O.V., Belov S.A. (2020) Linguistic ambiguity and vagueness in Russian legal texts. Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo universiteta. Pravo=Bulletin of Saint Petersburg University. Law, no. 4, pp. 774-812 (in Russ.) DOI: https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu14.2020.401
Dolzhikov A.V. (2022) Proportionality as a general principle of law in constitutional adjudication in Russia (with reference to the fundamental social rights). Doctor of Juridical Sciences Thesis. Saint Petersburg, 1112 p. (in Russ.)
Dworkin R. (2004) Taking rights seriously. Moscow: ROSSPEN, 392 p. (in Russ.)
Hart H. (2007) The concept of law. Saint Petersburg: University, 302 p. (in Russ.)
Kasatkin S.N. (2018) Doctrine of legal principles and critique of positivism in works of “early” R. Dworkin. Vestnik Samarskoy humanitarnoy akademii= Bulletin of Samara Academy of Humanities, no. 1, pp. 3-22 (in Russ.)
Kerimov D.A. (2000) Methodology of law. Subject, functions, issues of the philosophy of law. Moscow: Modern Humanitarian Academy, 559 p. (in Russ.)
Konovalov A.V. (2018) The concept of principles of law in common law doctrine. Vestnik grazhdanskogo prava=Civil Law Review, no. 3, pp. 238-260 (in Russ.) DOI: https://doi.org/10.24031/1992-2043-2018-18-3-238-260
Konovalov A.V. (2019) Principles of civil law: methodological and practical aspects of research. Doctor of Juridical Sciences Thesis. Moscow, 1161 p. (in Russ.)
Konovalov A.V. (2024) Principles of law. Moscow: Norma, 792 p. (in Russ.)
Peczenik A. (2009) On law and reason. Dordrecht: Springer, 376 p. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8730-1
Poscher R. (2015) Theory of a phantom: the principles theory's futile quest for its object. Pravovedenie=Jurisprudence, no. 5, pp. 134-157 (in Russ.)
Saunders I. (2021) General Principles as a Source of International Law: Art. 38 (1) (c) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice. Oxford: Hart Publishing, 285 p. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5040/9781509936090
Schlink B. (2012) Proportionality. On balancing fundamental rights and public goals. Sravnitenoe konstitutcionnoe obozrenie=Comparative Constitutional Review, no. 2, pp. 56-76 (in Russ.)
Sivitsky V.A. (2021) Principles of legal regulation in the structure of the federal law. Moscow: Yustitsinform, 232 p. (in Russ.)
Skurko E.V. (2006) Legal principles in the legal system, system of law and system of legislation. Pravovedenie=Jurisprudence, no. 2, pp. 55-61 (in Russ.)
Soboleva A.K. (2001) Topical jurisprudence. Moscow: Dobrosvet, 225 p. (in Russ.)
Stelmach J., Brozek B. (2006) Methods of legal reasoning. Dordrecht: Springer, 242 p.
Stoilov Y. (2023) Principles of law: concept and application. Moscow: Prospect, 312 p. (in Russ.)
Timoshina E.V. (2017) Norms-rules and norms-principles: consequences of normative dualism for methodology of judicial interpretation. Modern approaches to understanding of law and its influence on development of law branches, legislation and law-enforcement: collection of papers. Minsk: Ministry of Internal, pp. 253-259 (in Russ.)
Timoshina E.V., Kraevsky A.A., Salmin D.N. (2015) Axiology of judicial interpretation: means of weighing in the situation of human rights competition. Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo universiteta. Pravo=Bulletin of Saint Petersburg University. Law, no. 3, pp. 4-34 (in Russ.)
Troitskaya A.A. (2015) Limits of rights and absolute rights: beyond the principle of proportionality? Theoretical issues and practice of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation. Sravnitelnoe konstitutcionnoe obozrenie=Comparative Constitutional Review, no. 2, pp. 45-69 (in Russ.)
Van Hoecke M. (2012) Law as communication. Saint Petersburg: University, 288 p. (in Russ.)
Varlamova N.V. (2023) Human rights as principles of law. Sravnitelnoe konstitcionnoe obozrenie=Comparative Constitutional Review, no. 6, pp. 146-171 (in Russ.)
Vaskovsky E.V. (2016) Theory of interpretation of civil law. Sketch of the methodology of civilian dogma. Moscow: Statut, pp. 236-517 (in Russ.)
Vlasenko N.A. (2018) Methodological effectiveness of the study of certainty of law. Certainty and uncertainty of law as paired categories: problems of theory and practice. Papers of international conference. Moscow: Russian State University of Justice, pp. 51-62 (in Russ.)
Copyright (c) 2025 Fatalieva D.A.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
