CCR №5 (132) 2019
Legal reasoning in constitutional justice: at the foot of the rhetorical approach

The full text of the article is available only in Russian.

Abstract

The author of this article finds it necessary to pay more attention to the reasoning in the judgments of the bodies of constitutional review, taking into account the significant role that such judgments play in modern democracies. Meanwhile, in domestic legal science and practice focus is often made on regarding methods of constitutional interpretation, but not constitutional reasoning per se. The author defines the aim and the functions of constitutional reasoning. Acceptance of reasoning by parties of a constitutional process and by society as a whole is postulated as the aim of the reasoning, but it differs from a consent. A court’s aspiration to convince the audience should not be limited to meeting public expectations. Courts should consider public interests, but at the same time, they should remain “defenders” of the constitutional order and human rights. The author formulates, given the aim, the argumentative-interpretative, legitimating, policy-making or disciplining and informative functions of constitutional reasoning. As an effective model of reasoning in the judgments of the bodies of constitutional review, the author suggests a rhetorical one, considering the need to achieve the stated aim of the reasoning and to perform the indicated functions. The rhetorical approach presupposes a reliance on the plausible, but not true premises and in that is consistent with the social nature of law. Within the framework of the rhetorical model of the reasoning it is possible to use not only the formal-logical arguments but, for example, the psychological and pragmatic ones as well. The key attention in the framework of the rhetorical approach is paid to the structuring of the reasoning process and, as a consequence, to the content of the judgments. Rationalization of the reasoning as a process happens through the identification of the initial premises, the grounds of the reasoning and the application of the case-solving algorithms, such as the proportionality test, for example. The focus of constitutional reasoning on the audience acceptance gives a reason to believe that the rhetorical approach is more likely to reflect the realities of the functioning of the constitutional justice systems, than the other possible approaches, including the formal logical one.

About the author: Aleksandra Uroshleva – Ph.D. Student, Department of Constitutional and Municipal Law, Law Faculty, Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia

Citation: Uroshleva A. (2019) Obosnovanie resheniy organov konstitutsionnogo pravosudiya: na podstupakh k ritoricheskomu podkhodu [Legal reasoning in constitutional justice: at the foot of rhetorical approach]. Sravnitel’noe konstitutsionnoe obozrenie, vol.28, no.5, pp.55–71. (In Russian).

References

Aleksi R. (2008) Yuridicheskaya argumentatsiya kak ratsional’nyy diskurs [Legal argumentation as rational discourse], M.V.Antonov (transl.). Rossiyskiy ezhegodnik teorii prava, no.1, pp.446–456. (In Russian).

Anichkin E.S. (2010) “Preobrazovanie” Konstitutsii Rossiyskoy Federatsii i raz­vitie konstitutsionnogo zakonodatel’stva v kontse XX – nachale XXI vv.: Avtoref. dis. … kand. yurid. nauk [Transformation of the Constitution of the Russian Federation and the development of constitutional legislation in the late XX – early XXI century: Abstract of a dissertation… candidate of legal science], Tyumen. (In Russian).

Avak’yan S.A. (2014) Konstitutsionnoe pravo Rossii: uchebnyy kurs [Constitutional law of Russia: study course], 5th ed., revised and expanded, Moscow: Norma; Infra-M. (In Russian).

Belov S.A. (2014) Sposoben li ratsional’nyy diskurs obosnovat’ tsennostnyy vybor v prave? [Is a rational discourse capable of substantiating a value choice in law?]. Pravovedenie, no.5, pp.224–236. (In Russian).

Belov S.A. (2018) Obyazannost’ sledovat’ sobstvennym pretsedentam v praktike konstitutsionnykh sudov Zapadnoy Evropy [The obligation to follow their own precedents in the case-law of the constitutional courts of Western Europe]. Zhurnal konstitutsionnogo pravosudiya, no.5, pp.19–25. (In Russian).

Boyko T.S. (2017) Zashchita prav i interesov minoritarnykh uchastnikov nepublichnogo obshchestva v prave Rossii, SShA i Velikobritanii: Avtoref. dis. … kand. yurid. nauk [Protection of minority shareholders in closed corporations under the law of Russia, the USA and the United Kingdom: Abstract of a dissertation… candidate of legal science], Moscow. (In Russian).

Dixon R. (2011) Constitutional Amendment Rules: A Comparative Perspective. In: Ginsburg T., Dixon R. (eds.) Comparative Constitutional Law, Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, pp.96–111.

Dolzhikov A. (2016) Tolkovanie konstitutsionnykh prav [Interpreting the Constitutional Rights]. Sravnitel’noe konstitutsionnoe obozrenie, vol.25, no.4, pp.125–151. (In Russian).

Dworkin R. (1986) Law’s Empire, Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.

Dyevre A. Purpose and Function of Constitutional Reasoning. European Commission for Democracy Through Law (Venice Commission), Workshop on Constitutional Reasoning, Bishkek, Kyrgyz Republic, May 11–12. Available at: https://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/?pdf=CDL-PI(2015)012-e (accessed: 09.10.2019).

Dyevre А., Jakab A. (2013) Foreword: Understanding Constitutional Reasoning. German Law Journal, vol.14, no.8, pp.983–1015.

Gritsenko E. (2011) Predely konstitutsionno-sudebnogo normotvorchestva [Limits of the constitutional judicial law-making]. Sravnitel’noe konstitutsionnoe obozrenie, vol.20, no.5, pp.107–130. (In Russian).

Hart H.L.A. (1983) Positivism and the Separation of Law and Morals. In: Hart H.L.A. Essays in Jurisprudence and Philosophy, Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp.49–87.

Ivanova O. (2009) Institut tolkovaniya konstitutsii v Rossii i Frantsii (srav­nitel’no-pravovoy analiz) [Constitutional interpretation in Russia and France (comparative analysis)]. Leningradskiy yuridicheskiy zhurnal, no.4, pp.173–185. (In Russian).

Karaseva I. (2014) Konkurentsiya konstitutsionnykh tsennostey v pravopri­mentil’noy praktike Rossii i zarubezhnykh gosudarstv [The сompetition of the constitutional values in the law-enforcement practice of Russia and foreign states]. Sravnitel’noe konstitutsionnoe obozrenie, vol.23, no.4, pp.75–85. (In Russian).

Kasatkin S.N. (2015) “Zloupotreblenie logikoy” v sudebnom reshenii: polemika formalizma i realizma v interpretatsii G.L.A.Kharta [“Abuse of logic” in a judicial decision: the controversy between formalism and realism in G.L.A.Hart’s interpretation]. In: Problemy metodologii i filoso­fii prava: sbornik statey mezhdunarodnogo kruglogo stola. 28 fevralya 2014 goda, Samara [Problems of methodology and philosophy of law: a collection of articles of the international round table. February 28, 2014, Samara], Samara: Samarskaya gumanitarnaya akademiya. (In Russian).

Kenenova I.P., Troitskaya A.A., Shustrov D.G. (2015) Sravnitel’noe konstitutsionnoe pravo v doktrine i sudebnykh resheniyakh: uchebnoe posobie [Comparative constitutional law in doctrine and court decisions: a textbook], Moscow: URSS: Krasand. (In Russian).

Khabrieva T.Ya. (1998) Tolkovanie Konstitutsii Rossiyskoy Federatsii: teoriya i praktika [Interpretation of Russian Constitution: theory and practice], Moscow: Yurist. (In Russian).

Knyazev S.D. (2013) Konstitutsionnyy Sud v pravovoy sisteme Rossiyskoy Federatsii [Constitutional Court in the legal system of Russian Federation]. Zhurnal rossiyskogo prava, no.12, pp.5–13. (In Russian).

Kokotov A.N. (2014) O pravotvorcheskom soderzhanii resheniy Konstitu­tsionnogo Suda Rossiyskoy Federatsii [On the normative content of the judgements of the Constitutional Court of Russian Federation]. Rossiy­skaya yustitsiya, no.4, pp.21–24. (In Russian).

Kotel’nikova L.A., Ruzavin G.I. (2001) Sistemnyy podkhod k protsessu ubezhdeniya i argumentatsii [Systematic approach to the process of persuasion and argumentation]. In: Gerasimova I.A. (ed.). Teoriya i praktika argumentatsii [Theory and practice of argumentation], Moscow: Institut filosofii RAN. (In Russian).

Kovler A. (2013) “Moral’nyy suverenitet” pered litsom “gosudarstvennogo suvereniteta” v evropeyskoy sisteme zashchity prav cheloveka [“Moral sovereignty” in the face of the “state sovereignty” in the European system of protection of human rights]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, vol.3, no.3, pp.52–63. (In Russian).

Kravets I.A. (2016) Konstitutsionnoe pravosudie: teoriya sudebnogo konstitutsionnogo prava i praktika sudebnogo konstitutsionnogo protsessa [Constitutional justice: the theory of judicial constitutional law and the practice of the judicial constitutional process], Moscow: Yustitsinform. (In Russian).

Kryazhkova O., Rudt Yu. (2015) Rasstanovka mest slagaemykh v resheniyakh konstitutsionnykh sudov: pochemu summa menyaetsya? [Changing the order of items in the judgements of the constitutional courts: why does it change the sum?]. Sravnitel’noe konstitutsionnoe obozrenie, vol.24, no.5, pp.120–135. (In Russian).

Oturgasheva N.V. (2012) Ritorika: uchebnoe posobie [Rhetoric: a textbook], Novosibirsk: Izd-vo SibAGS. (In Russian).

Perelman Ch. (1979) The New Rhetoric and Humanities, Dordrecht: Reidel.

Perelman Ch., Olbrekht-Tyteka L. (1987) Iz knigi “Novaya ritorika: traktat ob argumentatsii” [From the book “New rhetoric: a treatise on argumentation”]. In: Petrov V.V. (ed.) Yazyk i modelirovanie sotsial’nogo vzaimo­deystviya [Language and modeling of social interaction], Moscow: Progress. (In Russian).

Perelman Сh. (1980) Justice, Law, and Argument: Essays on Moral and Legal Reasoning, Dordrecht: Reidel.

Prisacariu M.R. (2014) The Predictability of Romanian Constitutional Court Decisions and the Political “Migration” of Parliamentarians. Reforme ale Justitiei in Europa de Est, Institutul European Publishing, Iasi. Available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2597715 (accessed: 04.09.2019).

Mellinkoff D. (1963) The Language of the Law, Boston: Little, Brown & Co.

Shustrov D. (2017) Essentia constitutionis: Konstitutsiya Rossiyskoy Federa­tsii v fokuse teoriy konstitutsii XX–XXI vekov. Chast’ 1 [Essentia constitutionis: The Constitution of the Russian Federation in the focus of constitutional theories of the 20th and 21st centuries. Part 1]. Sravnitel’noe konstitutsionnoe obozrenie, vol.26, no.4, pp.124–141. (In Russian).

Shustrov D. (2017) Essentia constitutionis: Konstitutsiya Rossiyskoy Federa­tsii v fokuse teoriy konstitutsii XX–XXI vekov. Chast’ 2 [Essentia constitutionis: The Constitution of the Russian Federation in the focus of the constitutional theories of the 20th and 21st centuries. Part 2]. Sravnitel’­noe konstitutsionnoe obozrenie, vol.26, no.5, pp.78–93. (In Russian).

Shustrov D. (2017) Essentia constitutionis: Konstitutsiya Rossiyskoy Federatsii – vzglyad cherez veka konstitutsionnoy teorii [Essentia constitutionis: Constitution of the Russian Federation – a look through the centuries of the constitutional theory]. Sravnitel’noe konstitutsionnoe obozrenie, vol.26, no.3, pp.71–90. (In Russian).

Soboleva A.K. (1997) Ritoricheskaya germenevtika i interpretatsiya tekstov prava [Rhetorical hermeneutics and interpretation of legal texts]. Ritorika, vol.4, no.1, pp.103–130. (In Russian).

Soboleva A.K. (2002) Topicheskaya yurisprudentsiya: argumentatsiya i tol­kovanie v prave [Topical jurisprudence: arguments and interpretation in law], Moscow: Dobrosvet. (In Russian).

Voßkuhle А. (2013) Preface to the German Law Journal’s Constitutional Reasoning Special Edition. German Law Journal, vol.14, no.8, pp.979–982.

Zdennitski B. (2010) Effectivnost’ prava s tochki zreniya Konstitutsionnogo Tribunala Pol’skoy Respubliki [Effectiveness of law from the position of Constitutional Tribunal of Republic of Poland]. Zhurnal konstitutsionnogo pravosudiya, no.4, pp.25–30.

Zor’kin V.D., Lazarev L.V. (eds.). (2010) Kommentariy k Konstitutsii Rossiy­skoy Federatsii [Commentary to the Constitution of Russian Federation], Moscow: Eksmo. (In Russian).

Issue articles