Semiotic models of legal argumentation
Date
2014-03-10
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Abstract
Käesolev dissertatsioon kujutab endast katset käsitleda kaasaegset juriidilise tõlgendamise teooriat võrdleva kriitilise meetodi abil. Selle projekti käigus oleme analüüsinud erinevaid juriidilise argumentatsiooni teooriaid; neid teooriad kõrvutades oleme püüdnud välja selgitada, kas teoreetiline diskursus tänapäevases õigussemiootikas loob piisavad eeldused selleks, et visandada teoreetiline raamistik, mis aitaks kaasa juriidilise argumentatsiooni semiootilise teooria loomisele. Huvi juriidilise semiootika (ehk õigussemiootika) vastu tulenes peamiselt sügavast rahulolematusest olukorraga kaasaegses teoreetilises jurisprudentsis (eriti selles osas, mis on otseselt seotud juriidilise argumentatsiooni probleemistikuga). Käesoleva dissertatsiooni eesmärgiks on analüüsida juriidilise tõlgendamise olemust semiootilisest vaatenurgast. Juriidilise argumentatsiooni ehk õigusliku tõlgendamise analüüsi käigus on püütud astuda mõned sammud loodetava õiguse tõlgendamise teooriate sünteesi poole. Nagu teada, on tõlgendamise peamiseks eesmärgiks välja selgitada seaduse mõte (lad. ratio legis) ehk teha kindlaks tõlgendatavas sättes väljendatud reegli, põhimõtte või mõiste sisu. Seega kujutab kohtumõistmine endast loovat, õigust edasi arendavat tegevust, ja sellest lähtuvalt on käesolevas dissertatsioonis pandud põhirõhk just seaduse rakendamisele ehk kohtupidamise käigus toimuvale tõlgendamisele. Taoline rõhuasetus on täiesti arusaadav: iga seadus peab toimima, kuid see juhtub ainult siis, kui seaduse rakendamisel saadakse seadusest mõistuspäraselt aru.
Kõrvuti analüüsiga õiguse tõlgendamise olemusest võime dissertatsiooni eesmärgid lühidalt sõnastada järgmiselt:
1) arendada kontseptuaalne raamistik juriidilise argumentatsiooni erinevatel etappidel tekkivate probleemide käsitlemiseks.
2) arutleda küsimuste üle, mis ilmnevad seoses juriidilise argumentatsiooni üldlevinud meetodite mittetäieliku ühilduvusega pakutud semiootilise mudeliga.
3) vaadelda, kuidas ühendada omavahel erinevaid õiguse tõlgendamise teooriaid ja semiootilist meetodit praktikas.
The present doctoral dissertation is an exercise in exposition, comparison, criticism and construction, and this is the result of a project conceived ten years ago. We have taken different traditions of legal reasoning, and by juxtaposing them have sought to clarify and assess semiotic presuppositions, in order to outline a theoretical framework of legal semiotics that would help to lay the foundations for semiotic theory of legal argumentation. These semiotic presuppositions have been the object of our study at the University of Tartu since our bachelor’s thesis (defended in 2001) and master’s thesis (defended in 2006). Our interest in legal semiotics was motivated by a very strong sense of dissatisfaction with the traditional methods and paradigms of contemporary jurisprudence, especially with those ones of legal argumentation. Traditional jurisprudence committed to a model of legal unity, does not for the most part seeks to describe how the views of legal actors interact with the views of other legal actors/participants of legal discourse in real situations of legal communication. Thus, it was the consideration of legal communication as a semiotic activity that caused us to doubt that law could be conceived in terms of traditional legal concepts. Legal semiotics can be regarded as a major advance because it debunks the prevailing assumptions about the nature of legal reasoning and replaces them with what seems a far superior explanation. The main scientific objectives of this dissertation can be briefly formulated as follows: 1) to develop a conceptual framework for practical handling of complex problems of legal argumentation as they occur in the stages of legal communication; 2) to assess issues of compatibility/conflict between existing methods of legal reasoning and our semiotic model of legal reasoning; 3) to bridge the compatible aspects of different theories/models of legal argumentation to establish a generalizable model of legal argumentation.
The present doctoral dissertation is an exercise in exposition, comparison, criticism and construction, and this is the result of a project conceived ten years ago. We have taken different traditions of legal reasoning, and by juxtaposing them have sought to clarify and assess semiotic presuppositions, in order to outline a theoretical framework of legal semiotics that would help to lay the foundations for semiotic theory of legal argumentation. These semiotic presuppositions have been the object of our study at the University of Tartu since our bachelor’s thesis (defended in 2001) and master’s thesis (defended in 2006). Our interest in legal semiotics was motivated by a very strong sense of dissatisfaction with the traditional methods and paradigms of contemporary jurisprudence, especially with those ones of legal argumentation. Traditional jurisprudence committed to a model of legal unity, does not for the most part seeks to describe how the views of legal actors interact with the views of other legal actors/participants of legal discourse in real situations of legal communication. Thus, it was the consideration of legal communication as a semiotic activity that caused us to doubt that law could be conceived in terms of traditional legal concepts. Legal semiotics can be regarded as a major advance because it debunks the prevailing assumptions about the nature of legal reasoning and replaces them with what seems a far superior explanation. The main scientific objectives of this dissertation can be briefly formulated as follows: 1) to develop a conceptual framework for practical handling of complex problems of legal argumentation as they occur in the stages of legal communication; 2) to assess issues of compatibility/conflict between existing methods of legal reasoning and our semiotic model of legal reasoning; 3) to bridge the compatible aspects of different theories/models of legal argumentation to establish a generalizable model of legal argumentation.
Description
Väitekirja elektrooniline versioon ei sisalda publikatsioone.
Keywords
õigussemiootika, õigusteooria, argumentatsioon, tõlgendamine, legal semiotics, legal theory, argumentation, interpretation