Current views on legal interdisciplinary concepts of entities

The article studies the theory of legal concepts. The problem of imperfection of the conceptual and categorical apparatus was identified in the works of Soviet scientists. With varying success, mainly on a fragmentary level, the theory of concepts in law is still being formed. In recent years, the interest in legal technique has clearly manifested itself, the now famous forum was held, and, contrary to expectations, it was not concepts, but terms, i.e. words and word combinations denoting concepts, that were in the centre of attention. The article explains the reasons for ignoring or underestimating the concepts and the consequences in the form of inconsistency of many norms in the system of current legislation. There are many negative assessments from the side of scientists - branch specialists, whose opinion is not always taken into account when creating the next draft law. Although without doctrine a benign legal concept is unlikely to appear. The article focuses on one kind of concepts - inter-sectoral concept (ISC). Its specificity, content and functions are shown. The theoretical basis of judgements and conclusions was philosophical developments in the field of the theory of cognition. On concrete material, and first of all in federal laws, defects of the conceptual apparatus are shown. Cross-sectoral concepts by their functions are an element of methodology in legal sciences. They consolidate the normative mass and reduce its volume much more effectively than the notorious ‘regulatory guillotine’. Branch scientists enrich and update the system of legislation, cleanse it from duplication. The uniformity of theorists naturally stabilises the practice of law enforcement. The paper concludes that it is necessary to continue theoretical research on the topic of interdisciplinary concepts. The tasks for the future should be precisely defined and formulated with the participation of specialists from different industries. The usual sectoral isolation, with all its advantages, divides scientists even where it is necessary to unite in the name of common goals. The authors declare no conflicts of interests.

Keywords

Authors

References