The article provides a critical analysis of the scientific novelty proposed by I. Chestnov so-called “postclassical theory of law”. It is noted that the author of this theory critically perceives the main directions of legal understanding in terms of postclassical methodology, as a radical critique of the modern era. He proposes to focus in the knowledge of legal reality not only on rational, but also on linguistic, anthropological and pragmatic approaches in the context of dialogical methodology. Therefore, the law is considered not in statics, but in the dynamics of the process of reproduction of legal reality, taking into account the personality of the individual. Thus, classical jurisprudence is denied as “inhuman”, one that depersonalizes people to legal status, without taking into account their interests, needs, mechanisms of socialization.

From the standpoint of dialectical logic, the article evaluates I. Chestnov’s understanding of the concept of scientific novelty as only a novelty of the conceptual level, which, in his opinion, is inherent in the postclassical theory of law. Similarly, from the point of view of the dialectic of law, the metaphysical nature of the dialogical methodology of the dichotomous approach to innovation in law is criticized. Attention is paid to the interpretation of the concepts of the legal system. The author’s statement about the functionally significant for the whole society rule of conduct, which the author considers the prohibition of murder in all societies, and his idea of the implementation of law outside the legal relationship was critically evaluated.

The reasoning of the author of the “po stclassical theory” on the relationship between the concepts of “law” and “subject of law” and the latter with the concept of “legal status” is also considered, critical remarks are made about these considerations.

 His understanding of the concept of rights and responsibilities and the recognition of the subject of law as a primary element of the legal system has been critically assessed. The general conclusion is made that in the search for a way out of the ongoing crisis of legal understanding, the tendency to move away from positivist interpretations of law in the direction of sociological and dialectical legal understanding is markedly determined.

Bibliography

Authored books

1. Chestnov Il’ja, Postklassicheskaja teorija prava (Alef-Press 2012) (in Russian).

2. Yushchyk O, Haluzi ta instytuty pravovoi systemy (mify i realnist) (Oriiany 2002) (in Ukrainian).

Journal articles

3. Poljakov A, ‘Kommunikativnyj podhod v obshhej teorii prava’ (2006/2007) 4/5 Problemy filosofii prava 60–7 (in Ukrainian).

 4. Yushchyk O, ‘Eskiz dialektychnoi teorii prava’ (2016) 6 Pravo Ukrainy 156–66 (in Ukrainian). 5. Yushchyk O, ‘Subiektne pravo – vykhidnyi punkt doslidzhennia prava’ (2002) 21 Derzhava i pravo 16–23 (in Ukrainian).

Theses

 6. Bekbaev E, ‘Problema nachala v teoreticheskom poznanii pravovoj sistemy’ (avtoref dis d-ra jurid nauk, 2016) (in Russian).