| Annotation: |
Introduction: the article discusses the formation of behavioral standards, ways of their implementation, and their effect on the structure of legal relations. Behavior, inextricably linked with a legal relationship participant’s psycho-emotional component, becomes the basis for the external and internal differentiation of legal relations, in which the behavioral factor is subject to legal characterization in various aspects. In the consideration of private law disputes, characterization of behavior often predetermines the emergence of special legal principles, including reasonableness, prudence, due care. Purpose: to identify the influence of behavior and subjective perception of participants in legal relations on the differentiation of legal relations as well as on their relationship with the principles of private law, to determine the points of interdependence. Methods: deduction and induction; empirical methods of comparison, interpretation, and other general scientific methods; special scientific methods: historical, comparative legal methods, system analysis. Results: the analysis of judicial practice and scientific research works showed the need to determine the nature the behavior of the participants in a legal relationship through the prism of identifying and characterizing the elements of the subjective factor. Chaotic approaches, indicating the absence of a generally recognized understanding of the priority of the principles of law, methods of assessment and a mechanism for taking into account the behavioral component as well as the forms of their influence on civil legal relations, hinder the formation of uniform judicial positions, which, in turn, significantly reduces the effectiveness of the protection of violated and contested rights of individuals and legal entities and negatively affects the stability and development of civil circulation. Conclusions: the article proposes a new approach to determining the nature of the actions of participants in civil legal relations through the prism of standards of conduct that embody the concept of ‘behavior of the good party’ (‘correct behavior’), according to which a legal rule, with the use of various methods of legal technique, forms a certain ‘correct’ (‘ideal’) model of behavior, deviation from which is considered to be a potential ground for bringing the person to responsibility. The paper shows the influence of behavioral standards on the differentiation of legal relations, identifies essential interrelations with legal principles.
|
| References: |
1. Dmitrieva G. K. Stanovlenie rossiyskoy kontseptsii pravovoy reglamentatsii transgranichnykh vnedogovornykh obyazatel'stv [Formation of the Russian Concept of Legal Regulation of Cross-Border Non-Contractual Obligations]. Vestnik Universiteta imeni O. E. Kutafina (MGYuA) – Courier of Kutafin Moscow State Law University (MSAL). 2016. Issue 12 (28). Pp. 6–19. (In Russ.).
2. Dorokhin S. V. Delenie prava na publichnoe i chastnoe: konstitutsionno-pravovoy aspekt [Division of Law into Public and Private: Constitutional Law Aspect]. Moscow, 2008. 136 p. (In Russ.).
3. Kartashov V. N. Printsipy prava: ponyatie, struktury, funktsii [The Principles of Law: Concept, Structures, Functions]. Yuridicheskie zapiski Yaroslavskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta imeni P. G. Demidova – [Legal Notes of P. G. Demidov Yaroslavl State University]. Issue 10. Printsipy prava [Law Principles]. Yaroslavl, 2006. Pp. 3–33. (In Russ.).
4. Korobov P. V. Vidy osvobozhdeniya ot ugolovnoy otvetstvennosti i printsip prezumptsii nevinovnosti [Types of Exemption from Criminal Liability and the Principle of the Presumption of Innocence]. Rossiyskaya yustitsiya – Russian Justice. 2012. Issue 1. Pp. 37–40. (In Russ.).
5. Kudryavtsev V. N. Pravovoe povedenie: norma i patologiya [Legal Behavior: the Norm and Pathology]. Moscow, Nauka Publ., 1982. 287 p. (In Russ.).
6. Kuznetsova O. A. Prezumptsii v grazhdanskom prave [Presumptions in Civil Law]. St. Petersburg, 2004. 349 p. (In Russ.).
7. Kuznetsova O. A. Normy-printsipy rossiys¬ko¬go grazhdanskogo prava [Norms-Principles of Rus¬sian Civil Law]. Moscow, 2006. 269 p. (In Russ.).
8. Kuznetsova O. A. Printsipy grazhdanskogo prava: sovremennoe sostoyanie voprosa [Principles of Civil Law: Current State of the Issue]. Vlast' zakona – The Rule of Law. 2011. Issue 4 (8). Pp. 87–95. (In Russ.).
9. Nedelsky J. Sotsial'no-ekonomicheskie prava: demokratiya i ravenstvo na vsekh urovnyakh [Socio-Economic Rights: Democracy and Equality at All Levels]. Konstitutsionnoe pravo: vostochnoevropeyskoe obozrenie – Constitutional Law: Eastern European Review. 2003. Issue 1. Pp. 96‒102. (In Russ.).
10. Prokaev A. V., Strokova O. G. Metodologicheskoe issledovanie vnedogovornoy otvetstvennosti i vnedogovornogo obyazatel'stva [Methodological Study of Non-Contractual Liability and Non-Contractual Obligation]. Vestnik Saratovskoy gosudarstvennoy yuridicheskoy akademii – Saratov State Law Academy Bulletin. 2019. Issue 5 (130). Pp. 132–142. (In Russ.).
11. Sklovskiy K. I. Primenenie prava i printsip dobrosovestnosti [Application of Law and the Principle of Good Faith]. Vestnik ekonomicheskogo pravosudiya RF – Herald of Economic Justice. 2018. Issue 2. Pp. 94–118. (In Russ.).
12. Fuller L. L. Moral' prava [The Morality of Law]. Moscow, 2019. 308 p. (In Russ.).
13. Shaburov A. S. Pravovoy risk s pozitsiy yuridicheskoy otvetstvennosti [Legal Risk from the Standpoint of Legal Responsibility]. Yuridicheskaya tekhnika – Juridical Techniques. 2019. Issue 13. Pp. 387–391. (In Russ.).
14. Schramm H.-J. Sootnoshenie publichno-pravovykh i chastno-pravovykh metodov regulirovaniya [Relationship between Public Law and Private Law Methods of Regulation]. Vestnik Instituta zakonodatel'stva i pravovoy informatsii Respubliki Kazakhstan – Bulletin of the Institute of Legislation and Legal Information of the Republic of Kazakhstan. 2018. Issue 4 (53). Pp. 84–93. (In Russ.).
15. Yakovlev V. F. Otraslevaya differentsiatsiya i mezhotraslevaya integratsiya kak osnovy sistemy zakonodatel'stva [Branch Differentiation and Interbranch Integration as the Basis of the System of Legislation]. Izvestiya vysshikh uchebnykh zavedeniy. Pravovedenie – Proceedings of Higher Educational Institutions. Pravovedenie. 1975.
Issue 1. Pp. 16–23. (In Russ.).
16. Yakovlev V. F., Talapina E. V. Rol' publichnogo i chastnogo prava v regulirovanii ekonomiki [The Role of Public and Private Law in the Regulation of Economy]. Zhurnal rossiyskogo prava – Journal of Russian Law. 2012. Issue 2 (182). Pp. 5–16. (In Russ.).
17. Achterberg E. Größe und Grenzen eines religiösen Humanismus. Der Humanist. 1982. Vol. 8. P. 32–76. (In Germ.).
18. Sen A. The Idea of Justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2009. 496 p. (In Eng.).
19. Antonov M. Introduction. Formalism, Decisionism and Conservatism in Russian Law. Leiden: Brill, 2020. Pp. 1–20. DOI: 10.1163/97890
04442580_002. (In Eng.).
20. Thomas Aquinas. On Law, Morality, and Politics. Ed. by W. P. Baumgarth, R. J. Regan. Indianapolis: Hackett, 1988. 288 p. (In Eng.).
21. Auby J.-B., Freedland M. La distinction du droit public et du droit privé: regards français et britanniques. The Public Law / Private Law Divide: une entente assez cordiale? Paris, 2004. 250 p. (In Fr.; In Eng.).
22. Breman J. G. Eliminating Poor Quality Medicines: 'Caveat emptor, Caveat venditor' (Buyer Beware, Seller Beware). International Health. 2018. Vol. 10. Issue 5. Pp. 321–323. DOI: 10.1093/inthealth/ihy051. (In Eng.).
23. Rinaldo C. Business Negotiations and the Law: The Protection of Weak Professional Parties in Standard Form Contracting. 2020. 84 p. (In Eng.).
24. Fox C. H. Caveat Emptor – Let the Buyer Beware. Journal of Histotechnology. 1983. Vol. 6. Issue 2. Pp. 63-64. (In Eng.).
25. Perelman Ch. Droit, morale et philosophie. Paris, 1976. 202 p. (In Fr.).
26. Cserne Р. Discourses on Judicial Formalism in Central and Eastern Europe: Symptom of an Inferiority Complex? European Review. 2020. Issue 28 (6). Pp. 880–891. (In Eng.).
27. Coleman J. The Practice of Principle: In Defense of a Pragmatist Approach to Legal Theory. Oxford University Press, 2003. 248 p. (In Eng.).
28. Dagan H. Pluralism and Perfectionism in Private Law. Columbia Law Review. 2012. Vol. 112. Issue 6. Pp. 1409–1446. (In Eng.).
29. Graaff R. de. Concurrent Claims in Contract and Tort: A Comparative Perspective. European Review of Private Law. 2017. Vol. 25. Issue 4. Pp. 701–726. (In Eng.).
30. Delacroix S. Understanding Normativity. Revus. 2019. Issue 37. Pp. 17‒28. (In Eng.).
31. Dworkin R. M. Hart and the Concepts of Law. Harvard Law Review Forum. 2006. Vol. 119. Pp. 95–104. (In Eng.).
32. Dworkin R. M. Taking Rights Seriously. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1977. 392 p. (In Eng.).
33. Santas G. Goodness and Justice: Plato, Aristotle and the Moderns. Oxford: Blackwell, 2001. 312 p. (In Eng.).
34. Gibbons L. J. Liberty or Licentiousness: Disinserting, Disparaging and Scandalous Marks Post-Tam and Brunetti. Hasting Science and Technology Law Journal. 2021. Vol. 12. Issue 2. Pp. 83–146. (In Eng.).
35. Gordon J.-S. Morality and Justice: Reading Boylan's A Just Society. Lanham: Lexington Books, 2009. 232 p. (In Eng.).
36. Hart H. L. A. The Concept of Law. With a postscript ed. by P. A. Bulloch, J. Raz. 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994. 380 p. (In Eng.).
37. Hesselink M. The General Principles of Civil Law: Their Nature, Roles and Legitimacy. Centre for the Study of European Contract Law Working Paper Series. Issue 2011-14. (In Eng.).
38. Hesselink M. The Protection of Weaker Parties. CFR & Social Justice. Berlin; New York: Otto Schmidt / De Gruyter European law publishers, 2008. Pp. 29‒42. (In Eng.).
39. Hochfeld J. Studia o marksowskiej teorii społeczeństwa. Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1963. 271 p. (In Pol.).
40. Jamin С. Une brève histoire politique des interpretations de l'article 1134 du code civil. Recueil Dalloz. 2002. Issue 11. Pp. 901‒907. (In Fr.).
41. Kähler L. The Influence of Normative Reasons on the Formation of Legal Concepts. Concepts in Law. Ed. by J. C. Hage, D. von der Pfordten. Dordrecht: Springer, 2009. Pp. 81–97. (In Eng.).
42. Kelsen H. General Theory of Law and State. Routledge, 2005. 556 p. (In Eng.).
43. Keus L. A. D. Europees privaatrecht Een bonte lappendeken; Preadviezen, uitgebracht voor de Vereniging voor Burgerlijkde Nederlandse Vereniging voor Europees Recht. Lelystad: Recht en Vermande, 1993. 184 p. (In Dutch).
44. Mayer F. To Boldly Go Where No Court Has Gone before. The German Federal Constitutional Court's ultra vires Decision of May 5, 2020. German Law Journal. 2020. Issue 21(5). Pp. 1116–1127. DOI: 10.1017/glj.2020.58. (In Eng.).
45. Duverger M. Introduction to the Social Sciences (RLE Social Theory). Routledge, 2016. 342 p. (In Eng.).
46. Palombella G. Principles and Disagreements in International Law (with a View from Dworkin's Legal Theory). General Principles of Law – The Role of the Judiciary. Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice. Vol. 46. Ed. by L. Pineschi. Springer, 2015. Pp. 3–21. (In Eng.).
47. Pavlakos G. Law, Normativity and the Model of Norms. New Essays on the Normativity of Law. Ed. by S. Bertea, G. Pavlakos. Series: Law and Practical Reason. Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2011. Pp. 246–280. (In Eng.).
48. Pineschi L. (ed.) General Principles of Law – The Role of the Judiciary. Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice. Vol. 46. Springer, 2015. 343 p. (In Eng.).
49. Plunkett D., Shapiro S. J., Toh K. (eds.) Dimensions of Normativity: New Essays on Metaethics and Jurisprudence. Oxford University Press, 2019. 464 p. (In Eng.).
50. Rosenfeld M. Contract and Justice: The Relation between Classical Contract Law and Social Contract Theory. Iowa Law Review. 1985. Vol. 70. Issue l. Pp. 769–900. (In Eng.).
51. Robertson A. On the Distinction between Contract and Tort. The Law of Obligations: Connections and Boundaries. London: Routledge-Cavendish, 2004. Pp. 87-109. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.
391081. (In Eng.).
52. Rodríguez Р. The Principle of Legal Certainty and the Limits to the Applicability of EU Law. Cahiers de Droit Européen. 2016. Vol. 52. Issue 1. Pp. 115–140. (In Eng.).
53. Solomon R. C., Murphy M. C. What Is Justice? 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. 366 p. (In Eng.).
54. Somek A. The Legal Relation: Legal Theory after Legal Positivism. Cambridge University Press, 2017. 220 p. (In Eng.).
55. Sweigart R. English Indemnity Law – Parsing the Promise: Words Are Important, but So Are Actions. Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman. 2015. Available at: https://www.pillsbury¬law.com/ images/content/1/0/103034.pdf. (In Eng.).
56. Tridimas Т. The General Principles of EU Law. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006. 800 p. (In Eng.).
57. Verkuil P. R. Outsourcing Sovereignty: Why Privatization of Government Functions Threatens Democracy and What We Can Do about It. 1st ed. Cambridge University Press, 2007. 248 p. (In Eng.).
58. Vranes E. German Constitutional Foundations of, and Limitations to, EU Integration: A Systematic Analysis. German Law Journal. 2013. Issue 14(1). Pp. 75–112. DOI: 10.1017/
S2071832200001723. (In Eng.).
59. Waldhoff C. Recent Developments Relating to the Retroactive Effect of Decisions of the ECJ. Common Market Law Review. 2009. Vol. 46. Issue 1. Pp. 173–190. (In Eng.).
60. Walzer M. Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations. 3rd ed. New York: Basic Books, 2000. 400 p. (In Eng.).
|
