Acta Universitatis Carolinae Iuridica (AUCI) is the main journal of the Faculty of Law of Charles University. It has been published since 1954 and is one of the traditional law journals with a theoretical focus.
As a general law journal, it publishes longer studies and shorter articles on any relevant issues in legal theory and international, European and national law. AUCI also publishes material relating to current legislative issues. AUCI is a peer-reviewed journal and accepts submissions from both Czech and international authors. Contributions by foreign authors are published in their original language – Slovak, English, German, French.
AUCI is a theoretical journal for questions of state and law. It is published by Charles University in Prague, Faculty of Law, through Karolinum Press. It is published four times a year, the dates of publication can be found here.
Articles published in AUCI undergo an independent peer review process, which is anonymous on both sides. Reviewers from the field give their opinion on the scientific quality of the paper and the suitability of publication in the journal. In the case of comments, the opinion is sent back to the author with the possibility of revising the text (see Guidelines for Authors – Per Review Process for more details).
The AUCI journal (ISSN 0323-0619) is registered in the Czech National Bibliography (kept by the National Library of the Czech Republic) and in the Index to Foreign Legal Periodicals (kept by the American Association of Law Libraries). AUCI has been assigned a periodical registration number MK E 18585.
In 2021 the journal AUCI was the first journal of the Faculty of Law of Charles University to be included in the prestigious international database Scopus. This Elsevier database is the largest abstract and citation database of peer-reviewed literature in the world. The editors of the journal expect from the inclusion in the elite Scopus database not only an increase in the readership of the journal, but also an increase in interest in the publication of papers by both Czech and foreign authors.
AUCI is an open journal and all its content is published both on the faculty website and on the Karolinum Press website. Access to it is free of charge. The homepage of AUCI is on the Karolinum Press website.
The AUCI journal uses the Creative Commons license: CC BY 4.0.
Long-term archiving of the digital content of the journal is provided by Portico.
AUC IURIDICA, Vol 67 No 1 (2021), 37–56
K dotváření práva cestou analogie aneb jak zvýšit legitimitu a prosystémovost analogické argumentace v právu
[On the Filling of Statutory Gaps Using Analogy, or How to Increase the Legitimacy and Pro-systemicity of Analogical Argumentation in Law]
Katarzyna Žák Krzyžanková
DOI: https://doi.org/10.14712/23366478.2021.3
published online: 12. 03. 2021
abstract
The article presents the current state of knowledge regarding the use of analogy in domestic jurisprudence, with the aim of outlining its place and role in the process of finding the law. The performed analysis makes it possible to identify two main functions that the analogy performs, namely the heuristic function and, under certain circumstances, the legitimization function. If the analogy is to constitute a legitimate and retrospectively verifiable instrument of filling statutory gaps, the reasoning behind its use in a case under consideration must be presented in a logical form, which means the premises lying behind the argumentation by analogy must be reconstructed. Therefore, a deciding authority should, in particular, deal with a question of why the given case was a so-called analogous situation in law, justify the choice of the source of analogy (a particular legally regulated case or legal principle), and the way to resolve discrepancies between the case under consideration and the analogous one. The article concludes with an overview of the main problems that deciding authorities should pay attention to in situations where they fill statutory gaps using analogy, in which case their resolutions can be expected to increase the pro-systemic approach to law in the processes of law finding.
keywords: analogy; analogical reasoning; similarity; pro-systemic approach
references (57)
1. ALEXY, R. Lidská důstojnost a princip proporcionality. Právník, 2015, č. 11, s. 867-878.
2. ALEXY, R. Two or Three? In: BOROWSKI, M. (ed.). On the Nature of Legal Principles. Archiv für Rechts-und Sozialphilosophie. ARSP-Beiheft 119, Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, s. 9-18.
3. ARISTOTELES. Etika Nikomachova. Praha: Petr Rezek, 1996.
4. ARYSTOTELES. Hermeneutyka: topiki: o dowodach sofistycznych. Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 2013.
5. BARTHA, P. Analogy and Analogical Reasoning. In: ZALTA, E. N. (ed.). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. [online]. 25. 1. 2019 [cit. 2020-05-05]. Dostupné na: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/reasoning-analogy/.
6. BARTHA, P. By Parallel Reasoning: the Construction and Evaluation of Analogical Arguments. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010. CrossRef
7. BREWER, S. From Enthymeme to Argument: Logocratic Method and the Virtues and Vices of Arguments. In: WEINSTEIN, J. B. - ABRAMS, N. - BREWER, S. - MEDWED, D. S. Evidence. Cases and Materials. 10th ed. Foundation Press, 2017, s. 121-147.
8. BREWER, S. Indefeasible analogical argument. In: KAPTEIN, H. - VELDEN, B. VAN DER (eds.). Analogy and Exemplary Reasoning in Legal Discourse. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2018, s. 33-48. CrossRef
9. BROŻEK, B. Analogy and balancing. A reply to David Duarte. In KAPTEIN, H. - VELDEN, B. VAN DER (eds.). Analogy and Exemplary Reasoning in Legal Discourse. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2018, s. 101-107. CrossRef
10. BROŻEK, B. Analogy in Legal Discourse. Archiv fur Rechts-und Sozialphilosophie, 2008, Vol. 94, No 2, s. 188-201.
11. BROŻEK, B. Is analogy a form of legal reasoning? In: KAPTEIN, H. - VELDEN, B. VAN DER (eds.). Analogy and Exemplary Reasoning in Legal Discourse. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2018, s. 49-64. CrossRef
12. BROŻEK, B. Myślenie. Podrecznik uzytkownika. 3. wyd. Kraków: Copernicus Center Press, 2019.
13. BROŻEK, B. Umysł prawniczy. Kraków: Copernicus Center Press, 2019.
14. CANALE, D. - TUZET, G. Analogical reasoning and extensive interpretation. In: KAPTEIN, H. - VELDEN, B. VAN DER (eds.). Analogy and Exemplary Reasoning in Legal Discourse. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2018, s. 658-4.
15. CVRČEK, F. Kritické poznámky k výuce interpretace právních textů. In: GERLOCH, A. - MARŠÁLEK, P. (eds.). Problémy interpretace a argumentace v soudobé právní teorii a právní praxi. Praha: EurolexBohemia, 2003, s. 49-62.
16. ČAPEK, J. Interpretace socialistického práva (základní teoretické otázky). Acta Iniversitatis Carolinae Iuridica, Monographia XL, 1983, s. 58-5.
17. DUARTE, D. Analogy and balancing: the partial reducibility thesis and its problems. In: KAPTEIN, H. - VELDEN, B. VAN DER (eds.). Analogy and Exemplary Reasoning in Legal Discourse. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2018, s. 87-100. CrossRef
18. GERLOCH, A. Teorie práva. 7. vyd. Plzeň: Vydavatelství a nakladatelství A. Čeněk, 2017.
19. GOODMAN, N. Problems and Projects. New York: Bobbs-Merril Co, 1979.
20. HAAPARANTA, L. The Analogy Theory of Thinking. Dialectica. International Journal of Philosophy of Knowledge, 1992, Vol. 46, No 2, s. 169-183. CrossRef
21. HARVÁNEK, J. a kol. Právní teorie. Plzeň: Aleš Čeněk, 2013.
22. HLOUCH, L. Teorie mezer a současné právní myšlení. Časopis pro právní vědu a právní praxi. 2013, č. 2, s. 129-136.
23. HOCHSCHILD, J. P. The Semantics of Analogy. Rereading Cajetan's 'De Nominum Analogia'. Notre Dame: Notre Dame University Press, 2010. CrossRef
24. HOLLÄNDER, P. Nový logicismus v teoretickém právním myšlení. In: České právní myšlení a logika - minulost a perspektivy: sborník příspěvků z konference. Brno: Masarykova univerzita v Brně, 2003, s. 87-97.
25. JOYCE, G. H. Principles of Logic. 3rd ed. London: Longmans, Green and Co, 1936.
26. KÁČER, M. Na okraji krajnej núdze: o prepisovaní zákonov počas ich aplikácie. Praha: Leges, 2015.
27. KAHNEMAN, D. Myšlení rychlé a pomalé. Příbram: Melvil Publishing, 2011.
28. KEYNES, J. M. Treatise on Probability. London: Macmillan and Co, 1921
29. KNAPP, V. Vědecká propedeutika pro právníky. Praha: EurolexBohemia, 2003.
30. MALINOWSKI, A. (ed.). Logika dla prawników. Warszawa: LexisNexis, 2010.
31. MELZER, F. Metodologie nalézání práva. Úvod do právní argumentace. 2. vyd. Praha: C. H. Beck, 2010.
32. MILL, J. S. A System of Logic: Ratiocinative and Inductive. Being a Connected View of the Principles of Evidence, and the Methods of Scientific Investigation. 8th ed. New York: Harper and Bros, 1882.
33. MORAWSKI, L. Zasady wykładni prawa. Toruń: Dom Organizatora, 2010.
34. NORTON, J. D. The Material Theory of Induction. [online]. Philosophy of Science [online]. 2003, Vol. 70, No. 4 [cit. 2020-05-05]. Dostupné na: file:///C:/Users/CHZ/Desktop/k%20tisku/4.%20Analogy-draft%20norton.pdf.
35. ONDŘEJEK, P. Poměřování jako klíčový argument přezkumu ústavnosti v éře proporcionality a některé projevy jeho kritiky. Právník, 2016, č. 4, s. 349-368.
36. ONDŘEJEK, P. Koncepce práva jako systému. Praha: Wolters Kluwer, 2020.
37. PERELMAN, Ch. Právna logika: nová rétorika. Bratislava: Kalligram, 2014.
38. PERELMAN, Ch. The Idea of Justice and the Problem of Argument. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul Limited, 1963.
39. PRAKKEN, H. - SARTOR, G. The Three Faces of Defeasibility in Law. Ratio Juris, 2004, No. 17, s. 118-139. CrossRef
40. PRAKKEN, H. Logical Tools for Modelling Legal Argument: a Study of Defeasible Reasoning in Law. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1997. CrossRef
41. PROCHÁZKA, R. - KÁČER, M. Teória práva. 2. vyd. Bratislava: C. H. Beck, 2019.
42. SMEJKALOVÁ, T. Judikatura, nebo precedens? Právník, 2019, č. 9, s. 852-864.
43. SOBEK, T. Argumenty teorie práva. Praha: Ústav státu a práva, 2008.
44. SOBEK, T. Právní myšlení: kritika moralismu. Praha: Ústav státu a práva, 2011.
45. ŠTĚPÁN, J. Logika a právo. 3. vyd. Praha: C. H. Beck, 2011.
46. ŠVESTKA, J - DVOŘÁK, J. a kol. Občanský zákoník. Komentář. Sv. 1. Praha: Wolters Kluwer ČR, 2014.
47. TRYZNA, J. Garance právní jistoty z hlediska metodologie interpretace práva předvídané novým občanským zákoníkem. In: GERLOCH, A. - TRYZNA, J. - WINTR, J. (eds.). Metodologie interpretace práva a právní jistota. Plzeň: Vydavatelství a nakladatelství A. Čeněk, 2012, s. 190 -205.
48. TVRDÝ, J. Logika. Praha: Melantrich, 1937.
49. VEČEŘA, M. - GERLOCH, A. - SCHLOSSER, H. - BERAN, K. - RUDENKO, S. Teória práva. 5., rozš. a dopl. vyd. Bratislava: EUROKÓDEX, 2013.
50. VEČEŘA, M. Soudcovské dotváření práva. In: GERLOCH, A. - TRYZNA, J. - WINTR, J. (eds.). Metodologie interpretace práva a právní jistota. Plzeň: Vydavatelství a nakladatelství A. Čeněk, 2012, s. 221-234.
51. WEINBERGER, O. Norma a instituce: úvod do teorie práva. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 1995.
52. WHITE, J. Analogical reasoning. In: PATTERSON, D. (ed.). A companion to philosophy of law and legal theory. Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 1999.
53. WINTER, S. L. A Clearing in the forest. Law, life and mind. Chicago - London: The University of Chicago Press, 2001.
54. WINTR, J. Metody a zásady interpretace práva. 2. vyd. Praha: Auditorium, 2019
55. WINTR, J. Říše principů. Obecné a odvětvové principy současného českého práva. Praha: Karolinum, 2006.
56. WOJTCZAK, S. The Metaphorical Engine of Legal Reasoning and Legal Interpretation. Warszawa: C. H. Beck, 2017.
57. ŽÁK KRZYŽANKOVÁ, K. Právní interpretace - mezi vysvětlováním a rozuměním. Praha: Wolters Kluwer ČR, 2019.
K dotváření práva cestou analogie aneb jak zvýšit legitimitu a prosystémovost analogické argumentace v právu is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
230 x 157 mm
periodicity: 4 x per year
print price: 65 czk
ISSN: 0323-0619
E-ISSN: 2336-6478
