Naslov
Pravna znanost: Kantorowiczeva dioba na znanosti ili funkcije?
(Legal Science: Kantorowicz Division into Disciplines or Functions?)

Autori
Padjen, Ivan

Izvornik
Zbornik Pravnog fakulteta u Zagrebu (0350-2058) 69 (2019), 5-6; 633-661

Vrsta, podvrsta i kategorija rada
Radovi u časopisima, članak, znanstveni

Ključne riječi
Hermann U. Kantorowicz ; pravna znanost ; pravna dogmatika ; pravna historija ; pravna teorija ; pravna politika
(Hermann U. Kantorowicz ; legal science ; legal dogmatics ; legal history ; legal theory ; legal policy)

Sažetak
Pravna znanost: Kantorowiczeva dioba na znanosti ili funkcije? Pokrovčeva knjiga Slobodno stvaranje prava: Herman U. Kantorowicz i slobodnopravni pokret (2018) nameće pitanje izraženo naslovom ovog rada, na koje rad odgovara u tri koraka: prvo, pretpostavkom da je pitanje odgovorivo samo ideal tipovima pravnih disciplina / funkcija ; drugo, upućivanjem na kontekst Kantorowiczevih gledišta, nar. na objavu presuda ; treće, ocjenom da je Kantorowicz podijelio pravnu znanost u prepletene funkcije a ne u odvojene discipline. U tu svrhu rad nudi ideal tipove disciplina i funkcija pravne dogmatike, pravne historije, pravne teorije i, kao najsloženiji i najkorisniji skup funkcija, pravnopolitičku analizu. Pretpostavka je koja se ne dokazuje da ne postoji niti oštra granica između pravne znanosti i susjednih znanosti: sociologije, ekonomije, psihologije, filozofije Legal Science: Kantorowicz's Division into Disciplines or Functions? Is Herman U. Kantorowicz's classification of legal disciplines - which includes general legal science, legal dogmatics, legal history, sociology of law, philosophy of law, and legal policy - a division of scholarly knowledge of law into distinct disciplines/sciences or into intertwined functions of a single scholarly discipline/science? The question is prompted by the book written by Zoran Pokrovac in Croatian under the title Slobodno stvaranje prava: Hermann U. Kantorowicz i slobodnopravni pokret (Free Law: Hermann U. Kantorowicz and the Free Law Movement ) and published by „Breza“ and the Faculty of Law at University of Split in 2018. An answer may assist Croatian legal scholars in finding standards of scholarly excellence, especially of research de lege ferenda. This paper offers an answer in three steps. The first is the recognition that scolarly practices differ considerably so that the question may be answered only by construing and correlating ideal types of legal disciplines / functions that are compatible with Kantorowicz's general ideas, prominent interpretations of legal scholarship, and Croatian mainstream legal scholarship since. The second step provides a context of Kantorowicz's classificaton, focusing upon the publication of judicial decisions as a trigger of the Free Law Movement and a task that the Croatian legal order has yet to complete. The third step is the claim that Kantorowicz has in all probability considered scholarly knowledge of law to be a set of intertwined functions. To make the claim good, the bulk of the paper construes ideal types of legal dogmatics, legal history, legal theory, and, as the most complex and promissing integration of the functions, legal policy modelled on Lasswell and McDougal Policy Oriented Jurisprudence. The assumption that is stated but not discussed is that there is no clear cut border line between legal scholarship and other scholarly disciplines, most notably sociology, economics, psychology and philosophy.

Izvorni jezik
Hrvatski

Znanstvena područja
Pravo, Politologija

POVEZANOST RADA