TFL Vsebine / Zbornik znanstvenih razprav

Teorija razlage in argumentacije v pravu na svoj način osmišlja in tudi dopolnjuje Viskovićevo integralno razumevanje prava. Teza, da so družbena razmerja, pravne vrednote in pravne norme same po sebi predmet pravnikovega izkustva, dobiva novo razsežnost: naštete prvine terjajo, da jih povežemo, da jih razumemo v njihovi povezanosti in da v igro vključimo tudi človeka kot nosilca pravnega odločanja. Posebna dilema je, ali imajo vse tri prvine res enako težo. Teorija razlage ve povedati, da gre za ustvarjalno in soustvarjalno delovanje, teorija argumentacije pa priskoči na pomoč z razlogi, zakaj smo krenili v to, in ne v drugo smer ter kateri so poglavitni razlogi, ki utemeljujejo našo odločitev. Prvina norme (najstva, nem. Sollen) je na svoj način močnejša, kot sta prvini družbenega razmerja in pravne vrednote. Prehod iz danega v zadano, iz biti v najstvo, ki naj se naposled uresniči v družbenem razmerju, je na strani normativnega pripisovanja: ono je tisto, ki je gibalo (agens) odločanja.

The theory of interpretation and argumentation in law, in its own way, gives meaning to and supplements Visković’s integral understanding of law. The thesis that social relations, legal values, and legal norms are per se a subject of the lawyer’s experience receives a new dimension: the mentioned elements require that they are mutually connected and understood in their mutual connection as well as that man as the decision-maker is included in the process. A special dilemma is whether all three elements really carry the same weight. The theory of interpretation states that decision-making is a creative and co-creative action, the theory of argumentation adds the arguments for going in a certain direction and not in another one, as well as the main arguments justifying the decision made. In a certain manner, the element of the norm (the »ought«, Germ. Sollen) is stronger than the elements of the social relationship and legal value. The transition from the given to the set, from is to ought, that should eventually be put into effect in a social relationship is on the side of the normative imputation, which is the agent of decision-making.