Teisės normos struktūra ir diskusija dėl jos
Giedrienė, Monika |
Kaluina, Andrius | Recenzentas / Rewiewer |
Vaišvila, Alfonsas | Darbo gynimo komisijos pirmininkas / Thesis Defence Board Chairman |
Šlapkauskas, Vytautas | Darbo gynimo komisijos narys / Thesis Defence Board Member |
Arlauskas, Saulius | Darbo gynimo komisijos narys / Thesis Defence Board Member |
Beinoravičius, Darijus | Darbo gynimo komisijos narys / Thesis Defence Board Member |
Nikitinas, Vladas | Darbo gynimo komisijos narys / Thesis Defence Board Member |
Baublys, Linas | Darbo gynimo komisijos narys / Thesis Defence Board Member |
Spruogis, Ernestas | Darbo gynimo komisijos narys / Thesis Defence Board Member |
Visą žmogaus gyvenimą reguliuoja tam tikros verbalinės instrukcijos, nurodančios Tinkamą elgesio modelį, t. y. tam tikrą normą. Sąvoka norma yra labai įvairiai suprantama ir įvairiareikšmė. Bendriausia prasme ši sąvoka apibrėžia tam tikrų procesų bendrą vidutinį lygį arba reiškia natūralią objekto būseną, kuri sąlygoja šio objekto prigimtis. Teisės norma yra valstybės nustatyta visiems privaloma bendro pobūdžio taisyklė, kurios įgyvendinimas garantuojamas valstybės prievartos priemonėmis. Šiame magistro baigiamajame darbe nagrinėjami teisės normos struktūros elementai, jų tarpusavio sąveika, atskleidžiami pagrindiniai kiekvienos struktūros dalies bruožai, akcentuojant sankciją, kaip, autorės nuomone, labiausiai diskutuotiną struktūros elementą, taip pat pateikiami keli požiūriai į pačią teisės normos struktūrą.
Human life is regulated by certain verbal instructions, which identify the appropriate behavioral model, i.e. a particular norm. The concept of a norm is very miscellaneous and complex. In general terms it defines the average level of certain processes or means a natural state of an object. Legal norm is a general rule, established by state and compulsory for everybody. The implementation of such a rule is guaranteed by state copulsory measures. This master thesis concentrates on analyzing the elements of a legal norm structure and their interface. The main features of each structural element are depicted while emphasizing the sanction as, according to author’s opinion, most negotiable structural element. Furthermore, several different attitudes towards whole structure of a legal norm are explained. Genaral conception of a legal norm and presumptions of norm structure are described in the first part. The second part analyses the elements of a legal norm and the third part concentrates on discussion on norm structure while distinguishing the binomial and trinomial system of the structure. Herewith author argues for legal norm being constitued of the following elements: cases of real life, indicating when legal subjects are allowed or obliged to follow the rule (hypothesis), rule of behavior (disposition) and consequence, which occurs to a legal subject who disobeyed the requirements of a legal norm (sanction). Binomial conception of legal norm structure is based on whidly spreaded oppinion that legal norm constitutes two compulsory elements: hypothesis and disposition. Legal sanction exsists there not as a compulsory element of legal norm structure, but as a new form, which formulates an obligation for state institutions to enforce an addressee of legal imperative to fulfill it’s legal obligation or adjust some new negative state copulsory measures (repressive sanctions). On the other hand many legal theoreticians develops the oppinion, that legal norm constitutes three elements, which are: hypothesis, disposition and sanction. Trinomial system of the structure of legal norm embodies all the formal features of legal norm, including its normative character; connection with exact social reality, organisation and finishing with the fact that legal norm is a general rule, established by state and compulsory for everybody. The question of the structure of legal norm is very impoortant, because it helps to concretize the essence of legal norm. If it is impossible to clarify the structure of legal norm, it is impossible to organise all questions of legal theory into whole system and in practice – segregate legal facts (hypothesis) from a rule of behaviour (disposition), which is based on the circumstances, described in hypothesis. From this derives, that such a mess in theory of law cannot reflect all the definitions and interpretation of them and therefore become “legal encyclopedia” but not a science.