Alfonsas Vaišvila, celebrating his 70th jubilee birthday, was honoured for and most notably landmark work, “Teisės teorija,” (Theory of Law). Alfonsas Vaišvila, Mykolo Romerio universitetas;. Doc. dr. Vigintas Višinskis . Lietuvos ekologinės teisės paskirtį atspindinčių teisinių kategorijų tapatumo paieška teorijoje bei Vaišvila A. Teisės teorija – Vilnius, Kiti šaltiniai. 22 . Teisės teorija: vadovėlis by A Vaišvila(Book) 4 editions published between and in Lithuanian and held by 5 WorldCat member libraries worldwide.
|Published (Last):||16 September 2009|
|PDF File Size:||3.77 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||15.86 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
In fact, it is better to attach consideration of objective intentions telrija the Ideological interpretation, because another name for objective intentions of the legislator could be the aims of the legislator.
Also naming and discussing some methods of legal interpretation seem to be extrinsic because they have nothing to do with the specificity of legal interpretation. However, further on in the text it appears that the importance of the method was mainly its frequent occurrence; the primacy of this method, especially the democratic input under it, is forgotten or at least substantially devalued while other values are raised. On the dynamic legal interpretation see also Part 4 of this article.
The methods of this article are analysis and comparison. Scalia, Matter35 ; here, an attempt is made to temper its undemocratic nature by the requirement to use analogy or general principles of law in the case of a gap in the law, but it is a failure, because, as was already mentioned, we do not know much about analogy, and there may be no general principle of law to apply or any agreement on what it is.
Unfortunately, there was literally no written representation of the academic 4 understanding of legal interpretation in Lithuania for quite a long time. To ask the former question is a good propagandistic move against the doctrine of the separation of powers, because it raises the doctrine of the activist court to the level of the doctrine of the separation of powers or even higher.
However, there is also a problem more inherent to the definition of legal interpretation. Some motives require separate discussion, however. Bakaveckas, Audrius, et al.
Simple theoretical proliferation in relationship to the phenomenon of legal interpretation was the cause of a series of serious conceptual inconsistencies or misleading representations.
The court shall neither become a slave, blindly applying the letter of the statute, nor a rebel, not adhering to the statute. It is a message that is lacking in the academic texts on legal interpretation in Lithuania, where the doctrine of an activist court is raised and propagated.
Aspects of Interpretation and Application of Allfonsaswith the third part devoted to legal interpretation, was published.
Vaišvila, A. (Alfonsas) [WorldCat Identities]
The interpretative debate has been complicated by conflicting ways of distinguishing and naming the divergent interpretive methods. This article tries to answer the questions as to whether administrative or criminal liability should be applied to the legal entities for offences against the environment, and to which liability – criminal or administrative – a legislator should render priority in protecting the environment from illegal actions of the legal entities.
But democracy requires that the doctrine of separation of powers be given higher priority. Devaluation is more dangerous if it is done by means of propaganda and illogical argumentation. Biased theoretical proliferation in relation to the phenomenon of legal interpretation in Lithuanian academic circles was the cause of the undervaluation of the linguistic method of legal interpretation, otherwise called mechanical or formal, and, an over valuation of the doctrine of an active court.
Nevertheless, as a matter of principle, the priority should be of the doctrine of the separation of powers, and there we may also be more or less radical. An analysis of the academic understanding of legal interpretation in Lithuania should begin with the transformations that took place over the last fifteen years in the Soviet and post-Soviet region.
It is important to note that L.
Alfonaas as no judge may even choose between logic and alogic, every lawyer must be taught logic, but not the logical method of legal interpretation. And that is a good start for the doctrine of an active court, This good start however, should not turn into a “rush towards” the unlimited activity of the court, by forgetting what else the doctrine of the separation of powers says: On the latter aspect – the method is usually named an analogy, but scholars raise serious questions about the nature of this method of thinking; the most important of them is what do we know about this mode of thinking, which is so important in this case?
Vaišvila, A. (Alfonsas)
However, at least in Lithuania, to pursue a teisea priority of the doctrine of the separation of powers is hardly possible, because democratically adopted statutes themselves sometimes require legislative intervention by the judiciary for example, in the case of gaps in the law. They come, as we already have seen, from a common conceptual field, but their position in these cases is contradictory.
It cannot be that – real interpretation, as, for example, dynamic or other methods of interpretation. It rather disturbs or misleads the reader, especially if various ideologies are deducted from them.
Three sorts of legal entities’ legal liability can be applied in Lithuania, namely, civil, criminal and administrative liability.
Secondly, caisvila differentiation of methods of legal interpretation should not be a differentiation of what amounts to the application of some general method of thinking in the court process the application of some general principle of the legal system or law in the court process: Usually, the doctrine of the active court in these texts is not only the doctrine of the interpretatively active court, but also, as a consequence, the doctrine of the legislatively active court.
There are different understandings of legal interpretation itself, as also of its methods – their names and contents. The latter, as something separate from the gap of law, is scarcely raised by the main authors discussed in this article; therefore, it will not be separately analyzed here.
Only after taking this step toward improvement, generally speaking, should we think about legislative intervention by a judiciary, accepting a teodija radical principle than that the judiciary shall never legislate.