Preview

Kutafin Law Review

Advanced search

The Dialogic Nature of Legal Communication and the Problem of Measuring the Legitimacy of Law

https://doi.org/10.17803/2713-0533.2023.2.25.569-590

Abstract

Communication can be monologic or dialogical. Only the latter forms are an essential characteristic of legal reality. At the same time, dialogue is conceived as an immanent feature of sociality as such. In the process of identity formation and personality socialization, dialogue is necessary and inevitable. The process of dialogic socialization ensures the reproduction of any society. Society exists only in case if there is recognition of mutual legal claims, i.e., legitimacy of law. The principle of universal trust as a constitutive foundation of sociality is at the same time the fundamental principle of a legal system. These initial philosophical and legal provisions require explication in the actual legal refraction. Designation of social situations as legal, attributing legal features to them, involves correlation of personal intention with the legal status of the Self and the counterparty in a legal relationship or in a simple form of realization of law. Thus, the relation I-You is mediated by the legal instance of It. However, it is quite difficult to measure the reciprocity of recognition of the Other as a bearer of legal status in empirical reality, especially in the field of public law. The criteria of “extreme injustice” (G. Radbruch’s formula) and “aggressive violence” (in the terminology of V.A. Chetvernin) can be used to explicate the legitimacy of law and can be specified in sociological and legal studies. This paper states the paradox of measuring of the legitimacy of law, which consists in the difference between trust in an empirically given countersubject in a legal relationship, and impersonal status of a legal institution. Trust in the institution, according to the authors, extends, among other things, to a critical attitude towards it, however, with the condition if there is a recognition of the need for its existence. Another paradox of the legitimacy of law, considered in the article, is associated with the antinomy “the ideal — the real.” Violations (non-observance) of legal norms, if they are not widespread, do not put into question the legitimacy of the legal system as a whole. In general, the recognition of law is determined not by the average result of a sociological survey, but by the understanding of the necessity and the inevitability of the Other as a carrier of a typified legal status (for example, in criminal proceedings: in recognizing the interdependence of the Self from Others as carriers of the status of subjects of law).

About the Authors

I. L. Chestnov
University of the General Prosecutor’s Office, St. Petersburg Institute (Branch)
Russian Federation

Dr. Sci. (Law), Professor, Department of Theory and History of State and Law

44 Liteynyi prosp., St. Petersburg 191104



E. G. Samokhina
National Research University Higher School of Economics
Russian Federation

Cand. Sci. (Law), Associate Professor, Department of Theory and History of Law and State, Law Faculty, National Research University Higher School of Economics

16 Soyuza Pechatnikov St., St. Petersburg 190121



References

1. Alexy, R., (2008). Legal Argumentation as a Rational Discourse. Russian Yearbook of Theory of Law, 1, pp. 446–456 (In Russ.).

2. Bakhtin, M.M., (1997). Collected works. In 7 Vols. Vol. 5. Works 1940s — early 1960s. Moscow: Russkoe slovo Publ. (In Russ.).

3. Bakhtin, M.M., (2000). Collected works. In 7 Vols. Vol. 2. Problems of Dostoevsky’s creativity. 1929. Articles about L. Tolstoy. 1929. Recordings of a course of lectures on the history of Russian literature, 1922–1927. Moscow: Russkoe slovo Publ. (In Russ.).

4. Berger, P.L. and Luckmann, T., (1966). The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge, Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.

5. Bonetskaya, N., (2016). Bakhtin in the Eyes of a Metaphysician. Moscow, St. Petersburg: Publ. House of the Center of Humanitarian Initiatives. (In Russ.).

6. Bourdieu, P., (1993). Public opinion does not exist. In: Bourdieu, P. Sociology of politics. Moscow: Socio-Logos Publ. (In Russ.).

7. Bourdieu, P., (2005a). Sociology of social space. Moscow: Publ. House of the Institute of Experimental Sociology. (In Russ.).

8. Bourdieu, P., (2005b). Social space: fields and practices. Moscow: Publ. House of the Institute of Experimental Sociology. (In Russ.).

9. Denisenko, V.V., (2014). Legitimacy as a characteristic of the essence of law. Introduction to theory. Moscow: Jurlitinform Publ. (In Russ.).

10. Foucault, M., (1988). Minimalist Self. In: Foucault, M. Politics, Philosophy, Culture: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1972– 1977.

11. Kritzman, L.D., (ed.). New York: Routledge. Fukuyama, F., (1995). Trust. The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity. New York: The Free Press.

12. Giddens, A., (1990). The Consequences of Modernity. Stanford University Press.

13. Habermas, J., (1973). Legitimationsprobleme in Spaetkapitalismus. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. (In Germ.).

14. Habermas, J., (2001). Engaging the Other. Essays on political theory. Moscow: Nauka Publ. (In Russ.).

15. Lenoir, R., Merlier, D., Pento, L., and Champagne, P., (2001). Beginnings of practical sociology. Tr. from Fr. Bikbova, A.T., et al. 2nd Ed. Moscow: In-t experiment. sociology; St. Petersburg: Aletheia Publ. (In Russ.).

16. Lukovskaya, D.I., (2019). Legitimacy of law: debatable problems. In: Tonkov, E.N. and Chestnov, I.L., (eds). Legitimacy of law. St. Petersburg: Aletheia Publ. (In Russ.).

17. Polyakov, A.V., (2013). Law between the past and the future. Izvestiya vuzov. Jurisprudence, 3, pp. 6–10. (In Russ.).

18. Polyakov, A.V., (2019). Legitimacy as a property of law. In: Tonkov, E.N. and Chestnov, I.L., (eds). Legitimacy of law. St. Petersburg: Aletheia Publ. (In Russ.).

19. Ricoeur, P., (2000). The Just. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press. Ricoeur, P., (2005). The Just. Moscow: Gnosis Publ. (In Russ.).

20. Rosenstock-Hüssy, E., (1981). The Origin of Speech. Norwich, Vermont: Argo Books.

21. Rosenzweig, F., (1988). Der Stern der Erleosung. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. (In Germ).

22. Tilly, Ch., (2005). Regimes and Contention. The Handbook of Political Sociology. In: Janoski, Th. et. al., (eds). States, Civil Societies, and Globalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (In Russ.).

23. Weber, M., 1968. Mehtodologische Schriften. Hrsg. J. Winckelmann. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. (In Germ.).


Review

For citations:


Chestnov I.L., Samokhina E.G. The Dialogic Nature of Legal Communication and the Problem of Measuring the Legitimacy of Law. Kutafin Law Review. 2023;10(3):569-590. https://doi.org/10.17803/2713-0533.2023.2.25.569-590

Views: 260


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.


ISSN 2713-0525 (Print)
ISSN 2713-0533 (Online)