|
Perm University Herald. Juridical Sciences. 2021. Issue 3 (53) |
||||||||||
| Title: | THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE OF PROPORTIONALITY: A LEGAL-DOGMATIC METHOD |
|||||||||
| Authors: |
A. V. Dolzhikov, Saint Petersburg State University |
 |
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. | |||||||
| ORCID: | 0000-0001-8866-8993 |
ResearcherID: | J-4829-2014 |
|||||||
| Articles of «Scopus» & «Web of Science»: | DOI: 10.17072/1995-4190-2020-47-6-27 | |||||||||
| Requisites: | Dolzhikov A. V. Konstitutsionnyy printsip sorazmernosti: metod yuridicheskoy dogmatiki [The Constitutional Principle of Proportionality: A Legal-Dogmatic Method]. Vestnik Permskogo universiteta. Juridicheskie nauki – Perm University Herald. Juridical Sciences. 2021. Issue 53. Pp. 540–561. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.17072/1995-4190-2021-53-540-561 |
|||||||||
| DOI: | 10.17072/1995-4190-2021-53-540-561 |
|||||||||
| Annotation: |
Introduction: the paper develops a thesis about the interdependence between the interdisciplinary approach and the method of legal-dogmatic research on proportionality. The dogmatic method makes it possible to define the essence of this principle provided that research relies on judicial practice. Methods: the paper applies the technique of conceptual jurisprudence as one of the most common forms of dogmatic methodology. The purpose of the research was to provide systematic and coherent analysis of the principle of proportionality with the application of the legal-dogmatic method. With this purpose in view, the paper is divided into three sections. The first section starts with the comparison of two concepts most commonly used in Russian legal science –sorazmernost’ (which translates into English as proportionality, but linguistically closer to the word ‘commensurability’) and proportsional’nost’ (proportionality). The second section discusses the concepts of legislative reconciliation and judicial balancing of conflicting interests. Finally, the third section analyzes two opposite but interacting forms of the principle of commensurability/proportionality – the prohibition of excessiveness and the prohibition of insufficiency. Results: the paper provides arguments for the use of the term commensurability (sorazmernost’) in Russian national jurisprudence as a generic concept. The term proportionality (proportsional’nost’) is of a foreign origin. It could be used as a synonym of the term commensurability as applied to the English-language or international model of this principle. The concept of reconciliation can be considered to cover the sphere of lawmaking, while the term balancing can be applied in relation to judicial weighing of private and public interests. These two conceptual models predetermine the difference in legitimacy of the parliamentary and judicial application of commensurability. The paper also argues that two functions of commensurability are complementary. One of them is reflected in the classic liberal prohibition of excessiveness, which aims to prevent government interference in the individual freedoms. According to the other function, which emerged later, commensurability prohibits the passivity of public authorities in the protection of constitutional rights (prohibition of insufficiency). The difference between the two functions of commensurability is expressed in the distinction between the corresponding negative and positive obligations of the government. We come to a conclusion that legal dogmatics should not become an end in itself, turning into formalism and scholastic disputes about concepts. Of more significance are the social consequences to which the application of certain concepts in constitutional adjudication leads. |
|||||||||
| Keywords: | principle of proportionality; constitutional rights, constitutional adjudication; legal-dogmatic method; judicial balancing; prohibition of insufficiency | |||||||||
 |
download the full-version article | |||||||||
| References: | 1. Aranovskiy K. V. Konstitutsionnaya traditsiya v rossiyskoy srede [Constitutional Tradition in the Russian Milieu]. St. Petersburg, 2003. 656 p. (In Russ.). 2. Bol'shoy illyustrirovannyy slovar' inostrannykh slov [Large Illustrated Dictionary of Foreign Words]. Moscow, 2002. 960 p. (In Russ.). 3. Bondar' N. S. Sudebnyy konstitutsionalizm v Rossii v svete konstitutsionnogo pravosudiya [Judicial Constitutionalism in Russia in the Context of Constitutional Justice]. Moscow, 2011. 544 p. (In Russ.). 4. Gadzhiev G. A. Konstitutsionnye printsipy rynochnoy ekonomiki. (Razvitie osnov grazhdanskogo prava v resheniyakh Konstitutsionnogo Suda Rossiyskoy Federatsii) [Constitutional Principles of Market Economy. (Development of the Foundations of Civil Law in the Decisions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation)]. Moscow, 2004. 286 p. (In Russ.). 5. Gadzhiev G. A. O printsipe proportsional'nosti i konstitutsionnoy kassatsii [On the Principle of Proportionality and Constitutional Cassation]. Sud'ya – The Judge. 2019. Issue 7. Pp. 56–63. (In Russ.). 6. Grimm D. D. Lektsii po dogme rimskogo prava [Lectures on the Dogma of Roman Law]. Ed. by V. A. Tomsinov. Moscow, 2003. 496 p. (In Russ.). 7. Dedov D. I. Printsip proportsional'nosti v prave ES [The Principle of Proportionality in EU Law]. Prepodavanie prava Evropeyskogo Soyuza v rossiyskikh vuzakh [Teaching European Union Law in Russian Universities]. Moscow, 2001. Pp. 134–145. (In Russ.). 8. Evstigneeva E. E. Printsip sorazmernosti (proportsional'nosti) kak element evropeyskoy pravovoy kul'tury [The Principle of Proportionality as an Element of the European Legal Culture]. Pravovye kul'tury [Legal Сultures]. Moscow, 2012. Pp. 140–148. (In Russ.). 9. Zhukov V. N. Yurisprudentsiya kak nauka: vozvrashheniye k zabytym istinam [Jurisprudence as a Science: a Return to the Forgotten Truths]. Gosudarstvo i pravo – State and Law. 2017. Issue 9. Pp. 5–24. (In Russ.). 10. Ivanets G. I. Pravo kak normativnoe vyrazhenie soglasovannykh interesov [Law as a Normative Expression of Aligned Interests]. Pravo i obrazovanie – Law and Education. 2001. Issue 3. Pp. 74–81. (In Russ.). 11. Karapetov A. G. Politika i dogmatika grazhdanskogo prava: istoricheskiy ocherk [Politics and Dogmatics of Civil Law: a Historical Essay]. Vestnik Vysshego Arbitrazhnogo Suda Rossiyskoy Federatsii – Herald of the Supreme Arbitrazh Court of the Russian Federation. 2010. Issue 4. Pp. 6–69; Issue 5. Pp. 6–56. (In Russ.). 12. Kurbatov A. Obespechenie balansa chastnykh i publichnykh interesov – osnovnaya zadacha prava na sovremennom etape [Ensuring the Balance of Private and Public Interests as the Main Task of Law at the Present Stage]. Khozyaystvo i pravo – Business and Law. 2001. Issue 6. Pp. 88–97. (In Russ.). 13. Ledyakh I. A. Konstitutsionnyy Sud RF: kompetentsiya, printsipy i formy zashhity prav i svobod cheloveka i grazhdanina [Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation: Competence, Principles and Forms of Protection of Human and Civil Rights and Freedoms]. Prava cheloveka [Human Rights]. Ed. by E. A. Lukasheva. 2nd ed., revised. Moscow, 2009. Pp. 303–317. (In Russ.). 14. Ledyakh I. A. Prava grazhdan: burzhuaznye teorii i praktika FRG [Citizens' Rights: Bourgeois Theories and Practice of the Federal Republic of Germany]. Moscow, 1986. 188 p. (In Russ.). 15. Mikhaylov A. M. Yuridicheskaya dogma i formal'no-yuridicheskiy (dogmaticheskiy) metod v postsovetskom pravovedenii [Legal Dogma and Formal-Legal (Dogmatic) Method in Post-Soviet Jurisprudence]. Problemy postsovetskoy teorii i filosofii prava: perspektivy svobodnogo obshhestva. Sbornik statey [Problems of Post-Soviet Theory and Philosophy of Law: Prospects for a Free Society. Collection of Articles]. Moscow, 2018. Pp. 149–201. (In Russ.). 16. Muromtsev S. A. Chto takoe dogma prava? Kritiko-polemicheskaya zametka po povodu stat'i Gol'mstena «Neskol'ko mysley o pozitivizme v nauke prava» v «Zhurnale Grazhdanskogo i Ugolovnogo prava» za 1884 g., kn. 3 [What Is a Dogma of Law? A Critical Polemic Note on the Holmsten's Article 'A Few Thoughts on Positivism in the Science of Law' in the Journal of Civil and Criminal Law, 1884, Vol. 3]. Yuridicheskiy vestnik – Legal Bulletin. 1884. Issue 4. Pp. 759–765; Issue 5. Pp. 231–240. (In Russ.). 17. Nemetsko-russkiy stroitel'nyy slovar' [The German-Russian Construction Dictionary]. Ed. by N. I. Polivanov, M. A. Predtechenskiy. Moscow, 1972. 612 p. (In Russ.). 18. Neshataeva T. N., Starzhenetskiy V. V. Soblyudenie balansa publichnogo i chastnogo interesa [Maintaining the Balance of Public and Private Interest]. Vestnik Vysshego Arbitrazhnogo Suda Rossiyskoy Federatsii – Herald of the Supreme Arbitrazh Court of the Russian Federation. 2000. Issue 4. Pp. 110–113. (In Russ.). 19. Podmarev A. A. Sorazmernost' kak konstitutsionnyy printsip ogranicheniya prav i svobod cheloveka i grazhdanina v Rossiyskoy Federatsii [Proportionality as a Constitutional Principle of Limiting the Human and Civil Rights and Freedoms in the Russian Federation]. Izvestiya Saratovskogo universiteta. Novaya seriya. Seriya Ekonomika. Upravlenie. Pravo – Izvestiya of Saratov University. Economics. Management. Law. 2021. Vol. 21. Issue 1. Pp. 83–91. (In Russ.). 20. Pchelintsev S. V. Rol' ogranicheniya prav i svobod grazhdan v obespechenii balansa interesov lichnosti, obshhestva i gosudarstva [The Role of Limitation of Rights and Freedoms of Citizens in Ensuring the Balance of Interests of Personality, Society and State]. Pravo i politika – Law and Politics. 2006. Issue 5. Pp. 32–39. (In Russ.). 21. Rumyantsev A. G. Verhältnismäßigkeit – proportionality – sorazmernost' [Verhältnismäßigkeit – proportionality – commensurability]. Sravnitel'noe konstitutsionnoe obozreniye – Comparative Constitutional Review. 2014. Issue 5. Pp. 156–158. (In Russ.). 22. Sokovnin V. A. Printsip proportsional'nosti v resheniyakh Evropeyskogo suda po pravam cheloveka i rossiyskoy sudebnoy praktike [The Principle of Proportionality in the Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights and Russian Case-Law]. Aktual'nye problemy mezhdunarodnogo publichnogo i chastnogo prava [Current Problems of International Public and Private Law]. Ed. by E. V. Mokhova. Perm, 2007. Issue 1. Pp. 89–103. (In Russ.). 23. Sokolov A. N. Izvrashhenie prava v fashistskoy Germanii i opyt Rossii v stanovlenii pravovogo gosudarstva (sravnitel'no-pravovoy analiz): monografiya [Distortion of Law in Fascist Germany and Russia's Experience in the Formation of the State of Law (Comparative Legal Analysis): Monograph]. A. N. Sokolov, L. E. Kotkovskiy. Kaliningrad, 2012. 70 p. (In Russ.). 24. Sokolov A. N. Instituty pravovogo gosudarstva – v zakonotvorchestvo i pravoprimenenie Rossii [Institutions of the State of Law: the Prospects of Their Being Introduced into Lawmaking and Law Enforcement in Russia]. Pravovoe gosudarstvo: teoriya i praktika – The Rule–of-Law State: Theory and Practice. 2012. Issue 1 (27). Pp. 7–15. (In Russ.). 25. Timoshina E. V., Kraevskiy A. A., Salmin D. N. Metodologiya sudebnogo tolkovaniya: instrumenty vzveshivaniya v situatsii konkurentsii prav cheloveka [Axiology of Judicial Interpretation: Means of Weighing in the Situation of Human Rights Competition]. Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo universiteta. Seriya 14. Pravo – Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Law. 2015. Issue 3. Pp. 4–34. (In Russ.). 26. Trubetskoy N. S. Osnovy fonologii [Fundamentals of Phonology]. Moscow, 2000. 352 p. (In Russ.). 27. Tumanov V. A. Dogma prava [Dogma of Law]. Bol'shaya sovetskaya entsiklopediya [The Great Soviet Encyclopedia]. Ed. by A. M. Prokhorov. In 30 vols. Moscow, 1972. Vol. 8: Debitor-Evkalipt [Debtor-Eucalyptus]. P. 382. (In Russ.). 28. Chervonyuk V. I., Goyman-Kalinskiy I. V. Soglasovanie interesov kak vid sovremennykh zakonodatel'nykh tekhnologiy [Coordination of Interests as a Type of Modern Legislative Technologies]. Gosudarstvo i pravo – State and Law. 2004. Issue 8. Pp. 30–38. (In Russ.). 29. Chudinov A. N. Slovar' inostrannykh slov, voshedshikh v sostav russkogo yazyka [Dictionary of Foreign Words Included in the Russian Language]. St. Petersburg, 1894. 994 p. (In Russ.). 30. Aleinikoff T. A. Constitutional Law in the Age of Balancing. The Yale Law Journal. 1986. Vol. 96. Issue 5. Pp. 943–1005. (In Eng.). 31. Alexy R. Grundrechte und Verhältnismäßigkeit. Die Freiheit des Menschen in Kommune, Staat und Europa: Festschrift für Edzard Schmidt-Jortzig. Ed. by U. Schliesky, R. Alexy. Heidelberg, 2011. Pp. 3–15. (In Germ.). 32. Beatty D. M. The Ultimate Rule of Law. Oxford, 2004. 193 p. (In Eng.). 33. Bermann G. A. The Principle of Proportionality. American Journal of Comparative Law Supplement. 1977. Vol. 26. Pp. 415–432. (In Eng.). 34. Bettermann A. Verfassungsrechtliche Bedenken gegen die Besteuerung von Altkontrakten durch das Absicherungsgesetz. A. Bettermann, E. Loh. Betriebs-Berater. 1969. Vol. 24. Issue 2. Pp. 70–72. (In Germ.). 35. Bydlinskif F. Methodological Approaches to the Tort Law of the ECHR. Tort Law in the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. Ed. by A. Fenyves, E. Karner. Berlin, 2011. Pp. 29–128. (In Eng.). 36. Calliess Ch. Die Leistungsfähigkeit des Untermaßverbots als Kontrollmaßstab Grundrechtlicher Schutzpflichten. Die Ordnung der Freiheit: Festschrift für Christian Starck zum Siebzigsten Geburtstag. Ed. by R. Grote. Tübingen, 2007. Pp. 201–218. (In Germ.). 37. Christoffersen J. Fair Balance: Proportionality, Subsidiarity and Primarity in the European Convention on Human Rights. Leiden, 2009. 668 p. (In Eng.). 38. Clérico L. Proportionality in Social Rights Adjudication: Making it Workable. Proportionality in Law: an Analytical Perspective. Ed. by D. Duarte. New York, 2018. Pp. 25–48. (In Eng.). 39. Denninger E. Vom Elend des Gesetzgebers Zwischen Übermaßverbot und Untermaßverbot. Gegenrede: Aufklärung – Kritik – Öffentlichkeit; Festschrift für Ernst Gottfried Mahrenholz. Ed. by H. Däubler-Gmelin. Baden-Baden, 1994. Pp. 561–572. (In Germ.). 40. Dietlein J. Das Untermaßverbot: Bestandsaufnahme und Entwicklungschancen Einer Neuen Rechtsfigur. Zeitschrift für Gesetzgebung [ZG]. 1995. Vol. 10. Issue 1. Pp. 131–141. (In Germ.). 41. Engle E. A. The General Principle of Proportionality and Aristotle. Aristotle and the Philosophy of Law: Theory, Practice and Justice. Ed. by L. Huppes-Cluysenaer, C. A. Bates. Dordrecht, 2013. Pp. 265–276. (In Eng.). 42. Eskridge W. N. Interpreting Legislative Inaction. Michigan Law Review. 1988. Vol. 87. Issue 1. Pp. 67–137. (In Eng.). 43. Fordham M. Identifying the Principles of Proportionality; M. Fordham, T. de la Mare. Understanding Human Rights Principles. Ed. by J. Jowell, J. Cooper. Oxford, 2001. Pp. 27–89. (In Eng.). 44. Grechenig K., Gelter M. Divergente Evolution des Rechtsdenkens–von Amerikanischer Rechtsökonomie und Deutscher Dogmatik. Rabels Zeitschrift für Ausländisches und Internationales Privatrecht. 2008. Vol. 72. Issue 3. Pp. 513–561. (In Germ.). 45. Hilf M. Margin of Appreciation Revisited: The Balancing the Pole in Multilevel Governance; M. Hilf, T. R. Salomon. Reflections on the Constitutionalisation of International Economic Law: Liber Amicorum for E.-U. Petersmann. Ed. by M. Cremona. Leiden, 2014. Pp. 37–49. (In Eng.). 46. Huster S. Allgemeine Grundrechtsdogmatik. Baden-Baden, 2021. 200 p. (In Germ.). 47. Jackson V. C. Ambivalent Resistance and Comparative Constitutionalism: Opening up the Conversation on 'Proportionality', Rights and Federalism. University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law. 1999. Vol. 1. Issue 3. Pp. 583–639. (In Eng.). 48. Jakobs M. Ch. Der Grundsatz der Verhältnismäßigkeit. Mit Einer Exemplarischen Darstellung Seiner Geltung im Atomrecht. Cologne, 1985. 243 p. (In Germ.). 49. Kelsen H. The Pure Theory of Law and Analytical Jurisprudence. Harvard Law Review. 1941. Issue 55. Pp. 50–66. (In Eng.). 50. Kelso R. R. United States Standards of Review versus the International Standard of Proportionality: Convergence and Symmetry. Ohio Northern University Law Review. 2013. Vol. 39. Pp. 455–504. (In Eng.). 51. Kirchhof P. Der Antwortcharakter der Verfassung. Verfassungsvoraussetzungen: Gedächtnisschrift für Winfried Brugger. Ed. by M. Anderheiden, R. Keil, S. Kirste, J. P. Schaefer. Tübingen, 2013. Pp. 447–461. (In Germ.). 52. Klatt M. Positive Obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights. Heidelberg Journal of International Law. 2011. Vol. 71. Pp. 691–718. (In Eng.). 53. Kühn Z. Worlds Apart: Western and Central European Judicial Culture at the Onset of the European Enlargement. The American Journal of Comparative Law. 2004. Vol. 52. Issue 3. Pp. 531–567. (In Eng.). 54. Lavrysen L. Human Rights in a Positive State: Rethinking the Relationship between Positive and Negative Obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights. Cambridge, 2016. 428 p. (In Eng.). 55. Lerche P. Übermaß und Verfassungsrecht: zur Bindung des Gesetzgebers an die Grundsätze der Verhältnismäßigkeit und der Erforderlichkeit. Goldbach: Keip Verlag, 1999 [1961]. 361 p. (In Germ.). 56. Möllers T. M. J. Juristische Methodenlehre. Munich, 2021. 600 p. (In Germ.). 57. Möstl M. Probleme der Verfassungsprozessualen Geltendmachung Gesetzgeberischer Schutzpflichten: die Verfassungsbeschwerde Gegen Legislatives Unterlassen. Die öffentliche Verwaltung [DÖV]. 1998. Vol. 51. Issue 24. Pp. 1029–1039. (In Germ.). 58. Mowbray A. A Study of the Principle of Fair Balance in the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. Human Rights Law Review. 2010. Vol. 10. Issue 2. Pp. 289–317. DOI: 10.1093/hrlr/ngq006. (In Eng.). 59. Mowbray A. R. Development of Positive Obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights by the European Court of Human Rights. Oxford, 2004. 239 p. (In Eng.). 60. Nußberger A. Verhältnismäßigkeit als Richterliches Strukturprinzip. Neue Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht. 2013. Vol. 32. Issue 14. Appendix 1. Pp. 36–43. (In Germ.). 61. O'Cinneide C. The Social Dimension of ECHR Rights: Еscaping the Dead Hand of Orthodoxy. Melanges en l'honneur de. Essays in Honour of Dean Spielmann. Oisterwijk: Wolf Legal Publishers, 2015. Pp. 445–455. (In Eng.). 62. Otte G. Ist die Begriffsjurisprudenz Wirklich tot? Festgabe Zivilrechtslehrer 1934/1935. Ed. by W. Hadding. Berlin, 1999. Pp. 433–446. (In Germ.). 63. Posner R. A. The Decline of Law as an Autonomous Discipline: 1962-1987. Harvard Law Review. 1986. Vol. 100. Issue 4. Pp. 761–780. (In Eng.). 64. Proportionality: New Frontiers, New Challenges.d. by V. C. Jackson, M. Tushnet. New York, 2017. 343 p. DOI: 10.1017/9781316691724. (In Eng.). 65. Ress G. Der Grundsatz der Verhältnismäßigkeit im Deutschen Recht. Der Grundsatz der Verhältnismäßigkeit in Europäischen Rechtsordnungen; H. Kutscher, G. Ress et al. (co-athors). Heidelberg, 1985. Pp. 5–51. (In Germ.). 66. Smits J. M. What Is Legal Doctrine? On The Aims and Methods of Legal-Dogmatic Research. Rethinking Legal Scholarship: a Transatlantic Dialogue. Ed. by R.van Gestel, H.-W. Micklitz, E. L. Rubin. Cambridge, 2017. Pp. 207–228. DOI: 10.1017/9781316442906.006. (In Eng.). 67. Urbina F. J. Is It Really That Easy? A Critique of Proportionality and 'Balancing as Reasoning'. Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence. 2014. Vol. 27. Pp. 167–192. (In Eng.). 68. Voßkuhle A. Der Grundsatz der Verhältnismäßigkeit. Juristische Schulung [JuS]. 2007. Vol. 47. Issue 5. Pp. 429–431. (In Germ.). |
|||||||||
| Received: | 05.04.2021 | |||||||||
| Financing: |
--- |
|||||||||
The Perm State University
614068, Perm, street Bukireva, 15 (Faculty of Law), +7 (342) 2 396 275
vesturn@yandex.ru
ISSN 1995-4190 ISSN (eng.) 2618-8104
ISSN (online) 2658-7106
DOI 10.17072/1995-4190
614068, Perm, street Bukireva, 15 (Faculty of Law), +7 (342) 2 396 275
vesturn@yandex.ru
ISSN 1995-4190 ISSN (eng.) 2618-8104
ISSN (online) 2658-7106
DOI 10.17072/1995-4190
(с) Editorial board, 2010
The magazine is registered in Federal Agency of supervision in sphere of communication and mass communications.
The certificate on registration of mass media ПИ № ФС77-33087 from September, 5th, 2008
The certificate on reregistration of mass media ПИ № ФС77-53189 from Marth, 14th, 2013
The magazine is included in List ВАК and in the Russian index of scientific citing
The founder & Publisher: the State educational institution of the higher training
“The Perm State University”.
Publishing 4 times a year
The certificate on registration of mass media ПИ № ФС77-33087 from September, 5th, 2008
The certificate on reregistration of mass media ПИ № ФС77-53189 from Marth, 14th, 2013
The magazine is included in List ВАК and in the Russian index of scientific citing
The founder & Publisher: the State educational institution of the higher training
“The Perm State University”.
Publishing 4 times a year