UDK 34 Право. Юридические науки
GRNTI 10.11 История политических и правовых учений
OKSO 40.03.01 Юриспруденция
OKSO 40.04.01 Юриспруденция
BBK 67 Право. Юридические науки
BBK 670 Общая теория права
TBK 75 Право. Юридические науки
TBK 750 Общие вопросы
TBK 7502 Философия и социология права
TBK 751 Теория и история права
TBK 7510 Теория права. Правоведение
TBK 7511 Основы государства и права
TBK 7512 История правовых и политических учений
The subject of the study is the ideas of classical institutionalists (M. Hauriou and S. Romano) on the role of court and the nature of justice. The methodological basis of the work is the method of interpretation, which is the main one for the study of the legal theories history, and also the method of problem-theoretical reconstruction, as well as general scientific methods of analysis, synthesis, etc. The relevnce of the conducted research is to identify the key elements of Maurice Hauriou and Santi Romano’s ideas on the role and content of justice and their interpretation, taking into account the achievements of modern legal science regarding the different styles (strategies) of judicial interpretation. Maurice Hauriou believes that the basis of the court powers is not the political power, but the sovereignty of the constitutional statute. This makes it possible for courts to perform the function of deterrence (restriction) of other state bodies, the source of power of which is a political sovereignty. For this reason, the French jurist pushes the boundaries of justice wide enough to allow judicial rule-making, which is competitive with the parliament. To a certain extent, this position of Maurice Hauriou may be at the heart of his world view. For example, he puts an «idea» in the foundation of the institution, which eventually becomes the guardian of justice. Santi Romano, on the other hand, seeks to avoid any idealism by remaining in positions close to sociological positivism. Unlike Maurice Hauriou, he creates not a public law theory, but a general legal theory. For this reason, he focuses much more on the content of interpretation as a specific judicial activity than his French teacher. He considers it as a formal logical and essentially cognitive procedure. However, the general context of the pluralistic teaching of Italian jurisprudence makes it possible to take a broader view of the judiciary than that of Maurice Hauriou. Santi Romano also allows the court to have normative competence, but does not consider it part of justice. Despite the fundamental assumption that it is possible for the courts to create norms, neither Santi Romano nor Maurice Hauriou can be considered forerunners or supporters of radical judicial realism, according to which the judge is the only true creator of law, who makes norms in a sovereign and spontaneous manner without looking back at the existing legal order.
institutionalism, Maurice Hauriou, Santi Romano, court, justice, legal order, constitutional justice, legal interpretation
1. Auburtin A. Amerikanisches Rechtsauffassung und die neueren amerikanischen Theorien der Rechtssoziologie und des Rechtsrealismus // Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht. – 1933. – № 3. – S. 529–567.
2. Croce M., Salvatore A. The Legal Theory of Carl Schmitt. – Abingdon: Routledge, 2013. – 213 p.
3. Faralli C. Chapter 11 Legal Philosophy in Italy in the 20th Century // A Treatise of Legal Philosophy and General Jurisprudence / ed. E. Pattaro, Roversi – Dordrecht: Springer, 2016. – P. 369–410.
4. Fontanelli F. Santi Romano and L’ordinamento giuridico: The Relevance of a Forgotten Masterpiece for Contemporary International, Transnational and Global Legal Relations // Transnational Legal Theory. – 2011. – Vol. 2. – Iss. 1. – P. 67–117.
5. Hauriou M. The Theory of the Institution and the Foundation: A Study in Social Vitalism / Transl. from French by M. Welling / The French Institutionalists: Maurice Hauriou, Georges Renard, Joseph T. Delos / Ed. by A. Broderick. – Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1970. – P. 93–124
6. Jennings W. I. The Institutional Theory / Modern Theories of Law / Ed. by W.I. Jennings. – London: Oxford University Press, 1933. – P. 68–85.
7. Kahn P. W. Origins of Order. Project and System in the American Legal Imagination. – New Heaven, London: Yale University Press, 2019. – 344 p.
8. Pedrini F. Santi Romano e l’interpretazione giuridica. Appunti per una riflessione sul “metodo”nel diritto pubblico // Jura Gentium. – 2018. – Vol. XV. – № 21. – P. 79–113.
9. Romano S. Frammenti di un dizionario giuridico. – Milano: A. Giuffre, 1947. – 251 p.
10. Romano S. Principii di diritto costituzionale generale. – Milano: A. Giuffre, 1946. – 335 p.
11. Romano S. The Legal Order. – London: Routledge, 2017. – 179 p.
12. Kondurov V. E., Kraevskiy A. A. Pravovye instituty i normy: problema deystvitel'nosti i deystvennosti prava v yuridicheskom institucionalizme // Trudy Instituta gosudarstva i prava RAN / Proceedings of the Institute of State and Law of the RAS. – 2019. – T. 14. – № 6. – S. 95–144.
13. Oriu M. Osnovy publichnogo prava / per. s fr. E. Pashukanisa, N. Chelyapovoy. – Moskva: Infra-M, 2013. – 572 s.
14. Timoshina E. V. Metodologiya sudebnogo tolkovaniya: genezis i evolyuciya realisticheskogo podhoda // Pravo i politika. – 2017. – № 12. – S. 1–13.
15. Timoshina E. V. Metodologiya sudebnogo tolkovaniya: kriticheskiy analiz realisticheskogo podhoda // Trudy Instituta gosudarstva i prava RAN / Proceedings of the Institute of State and Law of the RAS. – 2018. – Tom. 13. – № 1. – S. 73–102.
16. Timoshina E. V. Sud'ya kak novyy suveren: volyuntaristskaya teoriya tolkovaniya Mishelya Tropera // Vestnik Rossiyskogo universiteta druzhby narodov. Seriya «Yuridicheskie nauki». – 2016. – № 2. – S. 50–61.
17. 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 RAN / Proceedings of the Institute of State and Law of the RAS. – 2016. – № 4. – S. 113–128.
18. Tumanov V. A. Burzhuaznaya pravovaya ideologiya. K kritike ucheniy o prave. – Moskva: Nauka, 1971. – 381 s.
19. Chechot D. M. Izbrannye trudy po grazhdanskomu processu. – Sankt-Peterburg: Izdatel'skiy dom Sankt-Peterburgskogo universiteta, Izdatel'stvo yuridicheskogo fakul'teta Sankt-Peterburgskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, 2005. – 616 s.
20. Shmitt K. Garant Konstitucii // Shmitt K. Gosudarstvo: Pravo i politika / per. s nem. i vstup. st. O.V. Kil'dyushova. – Moskva: Izdatel'skiy dom «Territoriya buduschego», 2013. – S. 27–220.
21. Shtollyays M. Oko zakona. Istoriya odnoy metafory / per. s nem. A. V. Doronin. – Moskva: Rossiyskaya politicheskaya enciklopediya, 2012. – 88 s.
