Comparative legal studies have taken an appropriate niche in the national doctrinal research, generalizations and approbations. However, under modern conditions, the pragmatic functions of comparative jurisprudence call for special attention on the part of representatives of legal science and juridical practice. In this context, of particular interest are the comparative practices intended for optimization of adoption of legal acts, as well as the specific features of activities aimed at drafting various rules and provisions. However, currently these aspects of comparative law developments are not sufficiently outlined in terms of their substance.

 The aim of the article is to analyze comparative legal studies in the context of implementation of their pragmatic tasks and functions. Giving due credit to the doctrinal progress in the comparative jurisprudence domain, the author deems it necessary to highlight the practical importance of comparative legal studies as an essential condition for today’s legal development. The pragmatic functions of comparative jurisprudence (the function of facilitation to lawmaking, the function of ensuring proper interpretation of legislation, the function of facilitation to law administration activities, the function of integration, the function of legal analytics) deserve special attention and research from different angles, although we believe that today the priority should be seen in the comparative “knowledge of law” and subordinate rule-making, i.e., the focus on the efficiency of legislation and rule-drafting activities.

The author emphasizes that the domain of scientific generalizations “comparative jurisprudence” and the method of comparison used in branch-specific disciplines are not “opposing categories”.

The author comes to the conclusion that among the pragmatic functions of comparative legal studies, the function of legal analytics is of special significance, since under modern conditions many misjudgements ensue particularly from the lack of analytical progress, prognostic conclusions, methods of “preliminary assessment”, consequences of certain processes which relate to lawmaking, rule-drafting, legal technology (the context of studying foreign experience).

The author proves the need of studying the legislative process in different countries, as the latter is characterized by certain features which are due, primarily, to the historical conditions under which a particular state has developed, and also to the structure of parliaments, certain traditions and customs, as well as the specifics of constitutional and legal regulation.

The author also emphasizes that currently it is important not only to study the specific features of foreign rule-drafting systems (in Belgium, the Netherlands, Latvia, Canada, etc.), but also to disseminate this experience to the national research centers and institutions of higher education with the aim of developing our own analog best practices regarding the improvement of rule-drafting activities.

Bibliography

Edited books

1. Problemy optymizatsii Instytutsiinykh zasad zakonodavchoi diialnosti Verkhovnoi Rady Ukrainy ta yii komitetiv [Issues Pertaining to Optimization of the Institutional Bases of Legislative Activity of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine and its Committee] (Instytut zakonodavstva Verkhovnoi Rady Ukrainy 2017) (in Ukrainian).

2. Yarmysh O (zah red), Porivnialne pravoznavstvo: navchalnyi posibnyk [Comparative Jurisprudence: Learning Guide] (vyd-vo Kharkivskoho nats un-tu vnutr sprav 2006) (in Ukrainian).

Journal articles

3. Chornolutskyi R, ‘Pravyla normoproektuvannia R. K. Berzherona ta yikh znachennia dlia stanovlennia y rozvytku natsionalnoi systemy normoproektuvannia v Ukraini’ [‘Rule-Drafting Guidelines by R. K. Bergeron and Their Importance for the Establishment and Development of the National Rule-Drafting System in Ukraine’] [2015] 5/1(15) Jurnalul juridic national: teorie şi practică 22-7 (in Ukrainian).

4. Petryshyna M ta Mala Т, ‘Normoproektuvalna tekhnika yak zasib formuvannia systemy diievoho ta efektyvnoho zakonodavstva v Ukraini: teoretyko-pravovyi pidkhid’ [‘RuleDrafting Technique as a Means to Form the System of Effective and Efficient Legislation in Ukraine: Theoretical and Legal Approach’] (2014) 3 Aktualni pytannia publichnoho ta pryvatnoho prava 256-63 (in Ukrainian).

5. Pohorelova Z, ‘Protsedura rozghliadu zakonoproektiv u Verkhovnii Radi Ukrainy: problemy teorii ta praktyky’ [‘Procedure of Draft Laws Consideration in the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine: Issues of Theory and Practice’] 35 [2015] 1(1) Naukovyi visnyk Uzhhorodskoho natsionalnoho universytetu. Seriia Pravo 45-8 (in Ukrainian).

Thesis

6. Sas O, ‘Orhanizatsiia roboty Verkhovnoi Rady Ukrainy: pytannia teorii ta praktyky’ [‘Organization of the Functioning of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine: Theory and Practice’] (avtoref dys kand yuryd nauk, 2013) (in Ukrainian).