The Intricacy of Competition of Conflict Rules in Legal Science and Practice

The aim of the article consists in the examination of the intricacy of conflict rules and procedures for interpretation of conflict rules, of the issue of competition between means of conflict, and rules for solving the competition. Within the framework of the subject-matter, the issues of the perception of the means of conflict, of the competition of conflict rules in Russian and foreign doctrines, in conjunction with the legislative control and practice of solving the competition of conflict rules within the legal systems of the Russian Federation and certain post-Soviet states are being examined. In order to solve conflicts, contemporary legal systems have special regulations, conflict rules, consolidated in civil law (lex lata) and aimed at showing the law enforcer which contradicting legal regulation is to be preferred. Furthermore, certain criteria for interpretation have been established within the framework of legal hermeneutics (the rules of interpretation of conflict rules) aimed at assisting the law enforcing body in choosing between conflicting rules in terms of their application. Nevertheless, there may arise certain circumstances, in the context of which several means of conflict rules may be used for eliminating the contradiction between the legal regulations, so that a competition may arise between them. Competition takes place between the conflict rules such as "lex superior derogat legi interior", "lex specialis derogat legi generali", "lex posterior derogat legi priori", as well as the "priority of a more favorable rule". This way, a superior legal regulation (which was adopted earlier) may contradict a subsequently adopted inferior regulation (the so-called complex conflict, which consists of hierarchical and temporal elements). A subsequently adopted general legal rule may contradict an earlier adopted special regulation (the so-called complex conflict, which consists of temporal and substantial elements). A subsequently adopted general legal rule with a superior legal effect may contradict an earlier adopted special rule with an inferior legal effect (three elements of conflict, such as hierarchical, temporal and substantial, can be observed here). The study of research works of Russian, German, Italian and Armenian scholars, as well as of the legislative control and practice of solving the competition of means of conflicts, shows that while solving the competition of conflict rules the following rationale is applied: a hierarchical conflict rule has a priority over other conflict rules; a substantial conflict rule is preferred over a temporal rule; in cases of legal branch conflicts, the branch conflict rule dominates over substantive, temporal and hierarchical rules. The priority of a hierarchical conflict rule does not apply in the instances of competence conflicts: in such circumstances, the priority is granted to a competence conflict rule. Furthermore, in accordance with the legal doctrine, the primacy of the hierarchical conflict rule lex superior derogat legi interior over the "priority of a more favorable" conflict rule is unambiguous. While applying such rules (especially in the field of human rights protection), state bodies should take into consideration the concept of the higher degree of protection of human/citizen rights and freedoms and grant priority to the rule which has more favorable consequences for persons.

Keywords

Authors

References