Naslov
Uskrata pravosuđa i uskrata prava: pojmovni problemi
(Denial of justice and suspended judgment: conceptual problems)

Autori
Padjen, Ivan ; Pokrovac, Zoran

Vrsta, podvrsta i kategorija rada
Poglavlja u knjigama, znanstveni

Knjiga
Zabrana uskrate pravosuđa i prava: 11. njemačko-hrvatski pravnički simpozij, Split, 27.-28. Travnja 2007. / Justiz- und Rechtsverweigerungsverbot: 11. deutsch-kroatisches Juristensymposium, Split, 27.-28. April 2007

Urednik/ci
Pokrovac, Zoran ; Padjen, Ivan

Izdavač
Pravni fakultet Sveučilišta u Splitu ; Hrvatska udruga za pravnu i socijalnu filozofiju

Grad
Split

Godina
2010

Raspon stranica
39-57

ISBN
978-953-6102-57-0

Ključne riječi
uskrata pravosuđa; uskrata prava; non liquet; pravosuđe; integralna teorija prava; hrvatska dogmatika građanskog postupka
(denial of justice, suspended judgment, non liquet, judiciary; integral theory of law; Croatian dogmatics of civil procedure)

Sažetak
Abstract: Prvotni problem rada je neodređenost izraza uskrata pravosuđa i uskrata prava ne samo u standardnoj hrvatskoj udžbeničkoj literaturi teorije prava i države nego i u zapadnoj literaturi. Izvor problema je, neodgovarajuća raščlamba pravosuđa u pravnoj teoriji. Nezadovoljavajuće stanje hrvatske teorije prava u tom pogledu objašnjivo je, između ostalog, stanjem hrvatske dogmatike građanskog postupka, koje obilježava procesualistički monizam. Summary: The primary problem of the paper is indeterminacy / indefinability of the terms denial of justice and suspended judgment. Croatian textbooks on theory of law and state provide at best initial information on the subject. Western literature on denial of justice deals with a series of phenomena that have a family resemblance only. Suspended judgment (Rechtsverweigerung) is not even a widely used term let alone a library subject heading. The fact that even Mirjan Damaška's classical study of judiciary, The Faces of Justice and State Authority, does not mention either denial of justice or suspended judgment indicates that the source of the primary problem is, bizarrely enough, inadequate analysis of judiciary in legal theory. The leading Croatian scholar of civil procedure has criticized the analysis of procedure and, implicitly, of judiciary in Croatian legal theory. However, the inadequacy of Croatian legal theory is explicable inter alia by the state of Croatian scholarship of civil procedure, which may be characterized as procedural monism that tends to consider substantive civil law as mores rather than law. This is the secondary problem of the paper.

Izvorni jezik
Hrvatski

Znanstvena područja
Pravo

POVEZANOST RADA