No abstract

No abstract

The article is devoted to the analysis of concretization of legal norms in lawmaking as the means of juridical technique, and also to the exposure of the limits of lawmaking juridical concretization. The objective-subjective nature of the concretization of legal norms is argued. The cases of obligatory use of the means of concretization of legal norms in lawmaking are revealed. The author identifies hierarchical, spatial, substantive and competence limits of juridical concretization in lawmaking. The author formulates a conclusion that the main limitation of lawmaking juridical concretization is unacceptability of formulating too casuistic rules and of creation of excessive legal regulation. Further concretization of legal norms should be carried out with consideration of specific social relations in the process of realization of law.

The article explains the idea of interpretation and concretization of law as the creative content of judicial practice. It contains a review of the main positions of national legal science on the content, forms and significance of judicial practice. The author deals with the issues relating to possibilities of recognition of the court practice as an independent source of law. The legal nature of the judicial act contains the assessment of the subject of it’s regulatory novelty. Subject to analysis is the impact of judicial practice on law-making in modern conditions in the form of drafting in the process of interpretation and concretization of law an abstract rules, which may obtain further its legislative development in the rules of law. The idea of the creative content of judicial practice is based on the legal uncertainty which determines the creative nature of interpretation and concretization of law by judicial organs and the regulatory character of the results of interpretation and concretization of law. The process of interpretation of law is presented sequentially in three stages: understanding, clarification and development. The creative nature is inherent in the results of the judicial practice which generated at the stage of development of rules of law. The authors examines concretization of law which is performed by judicial organs (concretization of rules of law of general character; concretization of concepts contained in rule of law (terminological enforcement concretization); concretization of rules of law in the presence of gaps in normative legal acts). The analysis of the creative character of interpretation and concretization of rules of law in judicial practice emphasizes general and special characteristics thereof.

No abstract