from 01.01.2021 to 01.01.2022
Sankt-Peterburg, Russian Federation
UDC 340.1
Introduction. The theory of law interpretation is complex and multidimensional. Some believe that legal reasoning is more of an art than a science, while remaining central to enforcement and legal practice. Not limited only to dealing with legal texts, it includes the possibility of interpretation, understanding the meaning of texts through formal legal analysis, and the possibility of going beyond positive law when necessary. Methods. The methodological basis of the research combines general scientific and specific scientific methods, providing theoretical and empirical depth to the analysis of judicial interpretation styles and A. Ross’s theory of judicial method, as well as the possibilities for their application in the Russian judicial system. Results. The theoretical and empirical analysis provided a number of results revealing the specifics of judicial interpretation in Russia and the degree of applicability of A. Ross's judicial method in the modern Russian legal system. The author concludes that A. Ross’s doctrine of general judicial method is not an adequate descriptive tool for identifying actual judicial interpretation in Russia. The prospects for the further development of Russian judicial methodology consist in improving Russia’s own legal dogmatics, contributing to the theoretical conceptualisation and optimisation of the existing judicial procedure algorithm.
styles of judicial interpretation, legal styles, judicial method, Alf Ross, judicial discretion, Russian judicial practice, formal-dogmatic approach, theory of law, interpretation of law, judicial argumentation, judicial interpretation
1. Cvaygert K., Ketc H. Sravnitel'noe chastnoe pravo : v 2 t. / per. s nem. Yu. M. Yumasheva. Moskva : Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya, 2011. 726 s.
2. Valcke C. Comparing Legal Styles // International Journal of Law in Context. 2019. Vol. 15, № 3. P. 274–296. https://doi. org/10.1017/S1744552319000284
3. Ross A. On Law and Justice. Berkeley, Los Angeles : University of California, 1959. 383 p.
4. Timoshina E. V. Strategii sudebnogo tolkovaniya i kul'turnaya missiya yurisprudencii // Tolkovanie prava: klassika i postklassika : kollektivnaya monografiya / pod red. E. N. Tonkova, I. L. Chestnova. Sankt-Peterburg : Alateyya, 2024. S. 28–61.
5. Antonov M. V. Sovremennaya teoriya prava vo Francii: realisticheskiy podhod k pravu v koncepcii Mishelya Tropera i spor o neorealizme v tolkovanii // Rossiyskiy ezhegodnik teorii prava. 2011. № 4. S. 321–345.
6. Timoshina E. V., Vasil'eva N. S. Obschaya teoriya sudebnogo metoda i stili sudebnoy interpretacii v pravovoy koncepcii A. Rossa // Trudy Instituta gosudarstva i prava Rossiyskoy akademii nauk. 2016. № 4 (56). S. 113–128.
7. Slezhenkov V. V. Teoreticheskaya model' sudebnogo pravotvorchestva v kontekste sovremennogo francuzskogo pravovogo realizma // Vestnik Volgogradskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. 2014. № 1 (22). S. 130–134.
8. Tonkov E. N. Yuridicheskaya germenevtika i prakticheskie podhody k tolkovaniyu prava // Yuridicheskaya germenevtika v XXI veke / pod obsch. red. E. N. Tonkova, Yu. Yu. Vetyutneva. Sankt-Peterburg : Aleteĭya, 2016. S. 11–39.
9. Tonkov D. E. Detskaya illyuziya pravovoy opredelennosti v psihologii prava Dzheroma Frenka // Istoriya gosudarstva i prava. 2021. № 3. S. 38–44. https://doi.org/10.18572/1812-3805-2021-3-38-44
10. Karapetov A. G. Bor'ba za priznanie sudebnogo pravotvorchestva v evropeyskom i amerikanskom prave. Moskva, 2011. 308 c.
11. Tonkov E. N., Tonkov D. E. Pravovoy realizm : monografiya / E. N. Tonkov, D. E. Tonkov. Sankt-Peterburg : Aleteyya, 2022. 464 c.
12. Kraevskiy A. A. Chistoe uchenie o prave i sovremennyy yuridicheskiy pozitivizm // Izvestiya vysshih uchebnyh zavedeniy. Pravovedenie. 2015. № 2. S. 88–125.
13. Ross A. Validnost' i konflikt mezhdu pravovym pozitivizmom i estestvennym pravom // Rossiyskiy ezhegodnik teorii prava. / redkol.: A. V. Polyakov (gl. red.) [i dr.]. Sankt-Peterburg : Yuridicheskaya kniga, 2009. № 2. C. 458–473.
14. Ross A. Le 25e anniversaire de la thѐorie pure du droit. Compte rendu de Hans Kelsen, Reine Rechtslehre (1934) = The 25th Anniversary of Pure Theory of Law / per. s angl. A. King, L. Petersell // Revus. Journal for Constitutional Theory and Philosophy of Law. 2018. № 37. S. 9–33. https://doi.org/10.4000/revus.2998
15. Bulygin E. V. Deystvitel'noe pravo i pravo deystvuyuschee // Izbrannye raboty po teorii i filosofii prava / nauch. red. M. V. Antonov, E. N. Lisanyuk, S. I. Maksimov. Sankt-Peterburg : Alef-Press, 2016. S. 209–221.
16. Eng S. Lost in the System or Lost in Translation? The Exchanges between Hart and Ross // Ratio Juris. 2011. Vol. 24, № 2. P. 194–246. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9337.2011.00482.x
17. Guastini R. Les juges crѐent-ils du droit? Les idées de Alf Ross = Do Judges Create Law? The Ideas of Alf Ross // Revus. Journal for Constitutional Theory and Philosophy of Law. 2018. № 37. S. 99–113. https://doi.org/10.4000/revus.3027
18. Savel'eva M. V. Interpretacionnye strategii razresheniya kolliziy pravovyh principov // Pravo i politika. 2025. № 10. S. 99–112. https://doi.org/10.7256/2454-0706.2025.10.76452
19. Gabrelyan E. V. Konstituciya i modernizaciya // Rossiyskaya yusticiya. 2010. № 4. S. 48–50.
20. Zor'kin V. D. Precedentnyy harakter resheniĭ Konstitucionnogo Suda Rossiyskoy Federacii // Zhurnal rossiyskogo prava. 2004. № 12. S. 3–9.
