- PII
- S27130398S1026945225060056-1
- DOI
- 10.7868/S2713039825060056
- Publication type
- Article
- Status
- Published
- Authors
- Volume/ Edition
- Volume / Issue number 6
- Pages
- 56-65
- Abstract
- In order to make a reasoned constitutional decision, it is essential not only to accurately interpret the provisions of the Constitution but also to properly determine the parameters of current legal regulations. Without this, it would be impossible to provide an objective assessment of challenged legal norms in terms of their constitutionality. This article examines the disagreements that arise during the process of evaluating the characteristics of reviewed normative provisions. The author analyzes the practice of constitutional review organs and identi es the most common lines of reasoning regarding the quality of regulation. The article focuses on disputes about the regulatory effects, where one party seeks to demonstrate all possible legal restrictions, while the other argues for the benefits and mechanisms that offset these restrictions. In addition, within the context of constitutional discourse, there are often disagreements regarding the true purpose of a challenged regulation and the appropriate methods for determining this purpose. The author discusses whether it is necessary to solely rely on the normative text or to take into account the real motives and circumstances that led to the adoption of the challenged statute, but were not directly related to the lawmaking process. Another question is whether it is necessary to focus exclusively on the consequences of applying the statute’s provisions. The article also examines how inconsistencies in lawmaking affect the constitutionality of regulatory provisions. Furthermore, the author addresses disputes about the nature of a particular normative phenomenon, by which a court can justify the inapplicability of certain constitutional requirements. The article also discusses disagreements regarding the assessment of the legislator’s compliance with the requirements for legal certainty. Finally, the author concludes that these identified disagreements are typical and are associated with common defects in legal regulations.
- Keywords
- конституционно-судебная аргументация конституционный нормоконтроль конституционное правосудие рассуждения действительность нормы конституционность
- Date of publication
- 01.06.2025
- Year of publication
- 2025
- Number of purchasers
- 0
- Views
- 10
References
- 1. Баранов В.М. «Квалифицированное молчание законодателя» как общеправовой феномен (к вопросу о сущности и сфере функционирования пробелов вправе) // Пробелы в росс. законодательстве. 2008. № 1. С. 75-79.
- 2. Чирнинов А.М. В поисках релевантных аргументов: структура конституционно-судебной аргументации // Сравнительное конституционное обозрение. 2022. № 3 (148).С. 33-61.
- 3. Engle E. Third Party Effect of Fundamental Rights(Drittwirkung)//Hanse Law Review. 2009. No.2.Vol.5.Pp.165-173.
- 4. Kay R.S. The State Action Doctrine, the Public-Private Distinction, and the Independence of Constitutional Law // Constitutional Commentary. 1993. Vol. 10. No. 2.Pp.329-360.
- 5. Mac Cormick N. Legal Reasoning and Legal Theory. Oxford,1978. P. 196.
- 6. Nelson C. Judicial Review of Legislative Purpose // NewYork University Law Review. 2008. Vol. 83. No. 6.Pp.1784-1882,1854).
- 7. Shaman J.M. Constitutional Interpretation: Illusion and Reality. Westport, Connecticut, London, 2001. P. 5.
