Postmodernity in Russian Private Law: Interaction of Legal and Judicial Doctrine

The presented paper aims at revealing the essence of legal and judicial doctrine in Russian private law. The paper criticizes the position that the legal doctrine is an authoritative opinion of scientists expressed in the form of principles, theories, and concepts. This approach to legal doctrine is amorphous. Legal doctrine is a unified concept based on specific methodological foundations and developing conclusions that are in systemic unity. The legal doctrine toolkit is the alpha and omega of law. An interdisciplinary approach to the study of legal phenomena should be based on the categorical apparatus of legal doctrine, on the general doctrine of the essence and purpose of law. The result of an interdisciplinary study should be a rethinking and filling with new content of the tools already developed by the legal doctrine. The work scrutinizes the functions of legal doctrine: description of existing law (de lege lata); development of proposals for its improvement (de lege ferenda); justification and legitimization of novels. The paper concludes that the modern civil doctrine can be revealed through the postmodern concept of the rhizome, since the doctrine is becoming more international, interdisciplinary and creative. The author investigates the triad of functions of judicial doctrine, namely interpretation, addition and correction of law. It is proved that social and technological challenges predetermine the emergence of judicial doctrines aimed at rethinking and interpreting positive law, its addition and correction. The author concludes that the evolution of private law is based on the dialectical unity of legal and judicial doctrine, each of which implements its functional triad.

1. Aleksi R. Ponyatie i deystvitelnost prava (otvet yuridicheskomu pozitivizmu) [The concept and validity of law (response to legal positivism)]. Moscow: Infotropik Media; 2011. (In Russ.)

2. Antonov MV. Put i perspektivy pravovogo ucheniya Oygena Erlikha [The path and prospects of Eugen Ehrlich's legal teaching]. Pravo. Zhurnal Vysshey shkoly ekonomiki [Law. Journal of the Higher School of Economics]. 2012;4:39-50. (In Russ.)

3. Bogdanov EV. Vliyanie nauchnykh vzglyadov Leona Dyugi na razvitie grazhdanskogo prava [The influence of Leon Dugi's scientific views on the development of civil law]. Zhurnal Rossiyskogo Prava [Journal of Russian Law]. 2008;6:32-38. (In Russ.)

4. Bondar NS. Sudebnyy konstitutsionalizm v Rossii v svete konstitutsionnogo pravosudiya [Judicial constitutionalism in Russia in the light of constitutional justice]. Moscow: Norma: Infra-M; 2011. (In Russ.)

5. Burkhanov RA. Veshch v sebe i yavlenie, noumen i fenomen, transtsendentalnoe, immanentnoe i transtsendentnoe v teoreticheskoy filosofii Immanuila Kanta. [Thing-in-itself and event, noumenon and phenomenon, transcendental, immanent and transcendent in the theoretical philosophy of Immanuel Kant]. Manuscript [The manuscript]. 2016;3-2:34-36. (In Russ.)

6. Volkov VN. Postmodern i ego osnovnye kharakteristiki [Postmodern and its main characteristics]. Kulturnoe nasledie Rossii [Cultural heritage of Russia]. 2014;2:3-8. (In Russ.)

7. Gadzhiev HI. Sudebnye doktriny i effektivnost pravoprimeneniya [Judicial doctrines and the effectiveness of law enforcement]. Zhurnal Rossiyskogo Prava [Journal of Russian Law]. 2019;6:14-27. (In Russ.)

8. Deleuze G, Guattari F. Kapitalizm i shizofreniya. Tysyacha plato [Capitalism and schizophrenia. A thousand plateaus]. Ekaterinburg; 2010. (In Russ.)

9. Zhilin VI. Dialekticheskiy zakon otritsaniya otritsaniya: «snyatie» po Gegelyu [Dialectical law of negation of negation: "Withdrawal" according to Hegel]. Gumanitarniy vektor [Humanitarian Vector]. 2017;1:100-105. (In Russ.)

10. Zaytcev OV. Problemnye voprosy doktriny grazhdanskogo prava [Problematic issues of the doctrine of civil law]. Vestnik Permskogo universiteta. Yuridicheskie nauki [Perm University Herald. Juridical Sciences]. 2014;1:111-117. (In Russ.)

11. Zorkin VD. Tsennostnyy podkhod v konstitutsionnom regulirovanii prav i svobod [The value approach in the constitutional regulation of rights and freedoms]. Zhurnal Rossiyskogo Prava [Journal of Russian Law]. 2008;12:3-14. (In Russ.)

12. Ibragimova YuE. Rol sudebnykh doktrin v praktike arbitrazhnykh sudov [The role of judicial doctrines in the practice of arbitration courts]. Zhurnal Rossiyskogo Prava [Journal of Russian Law]. 2020;4:172-185. (In Russ.)

13. Ispolinov AS. Evolyutsiya praktiki Suda Evropeyskogo Soyuza v sfere prav cheloveka (1952-2009) [Evolution of the practice of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the field of human rights (1952-2009)]. Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Seriya 11. Pravo. 2013;4:80-91. (In Russ.)

14. Momotov VV. Rol sudebnoy praktiki v pravovoy sisteme: rossiyskiy opyt v mirovom kontekste [The role of judicial practice in the legal system: Russian experience in the global context]. Zhurnal zarubezhnogo zakonodatelstva i sravnitelnogo pravovedeniya [Journal of Foreign Legislation and Comparative Law]. 2017;5(66):40-49. (In Russ.)

15. Lazarev VV. Tolkovanie prava: klassika, modern i postmodern [Interpretation of law: classics, modern and postmodern]. Zhurnal Rossiyskogo Prava [Journal of Russian Law]. 2016;8:15-28. (In Russ.)

16. Lakatos I. Izbrannye proizvedeniya po filosofii i metodologii nauki [Selected works on philosophy and methodology of science]. Translated from English by Veselovskiy IN, Nikiforov AL, Porusa VN. Moscow: Akademicheskiy proekt: Triksta; 2008. (In Russ.)

17. Nersesyants VS. Obshchaya teoriya prava i gosudarstva [General theory of law and the state]. Moscow: Infra-M; 1999. (In Russ.)

18. Nikolyukin SV. K voprosu o primenenii sudami analogii zakona pri rassmotrenii zhilishchnykh sporov [On the issue of the courts' application of the analogy of the law in the consideration of housing disputes]. Semeynoe i zhilishchnoe pravo [Family and housing law]. 2018;6:45-48. (In Russ.)

19. Plakhov AS. Granitsy distsiplinarnogo opisaniya nauki: rizomaticheskiy podkhod [The Boundaries of the Disciplinary Description of Science: A Rhizomatic Approach]. Epistemology & Philosophy of Science. 2014;4(42):143-154. (In Russ.)

20. Pryakhina TM. Konstitutsionnaya doktrina sovremennoy Rossii: dis.... d-ra yurid. nauk [Constitutional doctrine of modern Russia. Dr. Sci. (Law) Dissertation]. Saratov, 2004. (In Russ.)

21. Saltykov KG. Interpretatsionnaya variativnost terminologii rimskogo prava [Interpretative variability of Roman law terminology]. Yuridicheskaya nauka i praktika: Vestnik Nizhegorodskoy akademii MVD Rossii [Legal Science and practice: Bulletin of the Nizhny Novgorod Academy of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia]. 2016;2(34):49-54. (In Russ.)

22. Sinelnikova LN. Rizoma i diskurs intermedialnosti [Rhizome and discourse of intermediary]. Vestnik RUDN. Seriya "Lingvustika" [RUDN Journal. Series "Linguistics"]. 2017;4:805-821. (In Russ.)

23. Taribo EV. Sudebno-konstitutsionnaya doktrina «fakultativnosti nalogovykh lgot»: predely primeneniya [Judicial-constitutional doctrine of «optional tax benefits»: Limits of application]. Zhurnal konstitutsionnogo pravosudiya [Journal of Constitutional Justice]. 2013;2:10-17. (In Russ.)

24. Khabrieva TYa. Doktrinalnoe znachenie rossiyskoy Konstitutsii [The doctrinal significance of the Russian Constitution]. Zhurnal rossiyskogo prava [Journal of Russian Law]. 2009;2. (In Russ.)

25. Chashin AN. Pravovaya doktrina: ipostasi i rizomnost [Legal doctrine: Hypostases and rhizomacy]. Evraziyskaya advokatura [Eurasian Advocacy]. 2019;2(39):92-96. (In Russ.)

26. Yarkova EN. Istoriya i metodologiya yuridicheskoy nauki: ucheb. posobie [History and methodology of legal science: A Study Guide]. Tyumen; 2012. (In Russ.)

27. Arnull AM. Judicial Activism and the Court of Justice: How Should Academics Respond? (January 17, 2012). Maastricht Faculty of Law Working Paper No 2012-3. Available from: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1986817.

28. Bloom LH. Methods of Interpretation: How the Supreme Court Reads the Constitution. Oxford University Press; 2009.

29. Calabresi G. The New Economics Analysis of Law: Scholarship, Sophistry, or Self-indulgence? Proceedings of the British Academy. 1982;68:85-89.

30. Denning BP, Kent MB. Judicial Doctrine as Risk Regulation. Tennessee Law Abstract. 2015;8:2. Available from: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2401704.

31. Ehrlich E. Fundamental Principles of the Sociology of Law. Routledge; 2002.

32. Englard I. Corrective and Distributive Justice: From Aristotle to Modern Times. Oxford University Press; 2009.

33. Goldberg JCP. Introduction: Pragmatism and Private Law. Harvard Law Abstract. 2012;125:1640-1650.

34. Gordley J. Foundations of Private Law. Property, Tort, Contract, Unjust Enrichment. Oxford University Press; 2006.

35. Grechenig K, Gelter M. The transatlantic divergence in legal thought: American Law and Economics vs. German Doctrinalism. Hastings International & Comparative Law Abstract. 2008;31(1):295-360.

36. Hartkamp AS. The effect of the EC Treaty in Private law: On direct and indirect horizontal effect of Primary Community Law. European Review of Private Law. 2010;18:527-548.

37. Hesselink MW. The General Principles of Civil Law: Their Nature, Roles and Legitimacy. Centre for the Study of European Contract Law Working Paper Series № 2011-14. Available from: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1932146.

38. Hesselink MW. The Concept of Good Faith (December 10, 2010). Towards a European civil code. 4th rev. and exp. ed. Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International; 2011.

39. Hesselink MW. Post-Private Law? In: Purnhagen KP, Rott P (eds.). Varieties of European Economic Law and Regulation, Liber Amicorum for Hans Micklitz. Centre for the Study of European Contract Law Working Paper Series No 2014-09, Amsterdam Law School Research Paper No 2014-48. P. 31-43. Available from: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2491525. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-04903-8_2.

40. Farber DA. The Rule of Law and the Law of Precedents. Minnesota Law Abstract. 2006;90:1173-1179.

41. Fisch JE. The Implications of Transition Theory for Stare Decisis. Journal of Contemporary Legal Issues. 2003;13:93-122.

42. Kmiec K. The Origin and Current Meanings of «Judicial Activism». California Law Abstract. 2004;92:1441-1451.

43. Kozel RJ. Stare Decisis as Judicial Doctrine. Washington & Lee Law Abstract. 2010;67;411. Available from: https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/law_faculty_scholarship/374.

44. Lamond G. Analogical Reasoning in the Common Law. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies. 2014;4:567-581.

45. McCrudden Ch. Legal Research and the Social Sciences. Law Quarterly Abstract. 2006;122.

46. Posner RA. Utilitarianism, Economics and Legal Theory. Journal of Legal Studies. 1979;8.

47. Poscher R. The Hermeneutical Character of Legal Construction. In: Glanert S, Girard F (eds.). Law's Hermeneutics: Other Investigations. London: Routledge; 2017. Available from: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2696486/.

48. Smits JM. What is Legal Doctrine? On the Aims and Methods of Legal-Dogmatic Research. In: Gestel R van, Micklitz H-W, Rubin EL (eds.). Rethinking Legal Scholarship: A Transatlantic Dialogue. Cambridge University Press; 2017. P. 207-228.

49. Schwartz E, Silverman C, Goldberg P. Toward Neutral Principles of Stare Decisions in Tort Law. South Carolina Law Abstract. 2006;58(2). Available from: https://scholarcommons.sc.edU/sclr/vol58/iss2/4.

50. Smith HE. Equity as Meta-Law. Yale Law Journal, Forthcoming, Harvard Public Law Working Paper No 20-33. (October 15, 2020). Available from: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3734662.

51. Stephens PJ. The New Retroactivity Doctrine: Equality, Reliance and Stare Decisis. Syracuse Law Abstract. 1998;48. Available from: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1349982.

52. Tiller EH, Cross FB. What is legal doctrine? Northwestern University Law Abstract. 2006;100:517-533.

53. Weinrib EJ. The Idea of Private Law, Cambridge Mass. Harvard University Press; 1995.

54. Weinrib EJ. Legal formalism. In: Patterson D. (ed.). A Companion to Philosophy of Law and Legal Theory. 2nd ed. Oxford; 2010. P. 327-335.

55. Westerman PC. Open or Autonomous? In: Van Hoecke M (ed.). Which Kind of Method for What Kind of Discipline? Oxford: Hart; 2011.

56. Zimmerman R. Roman Law, Contemporary Law, European Law. The Civilian Tradition Today. Oxford University Press; 2011.