Conflicts of laws: prevention, removal and resolution

CONFLICTS OF LAWS: PREVENTION, REMOVAL AND RESOLUTION

QUESTIONS

 

1. Definition of conflicts of laws

An integral feature of the language, including legal language, is polysementic. The term "conflict" (Lat. - "Collisio") comes from the Latin "collide" and means a battle.

The term "conflict" in the law in the legal doctrine is used in the broad and narrow sense. The broad understanding of the legal conflict is virtually any conflict, dispute in the legal field, that includes 1) a conflict between normative legal acts or separate legal norms; 2) conflicts of law-making; 3) conflicts in law enforcement; 4) conflict of powers and status. In a narrow sense prof. Miroshnichenko considers the concept of "conflict of law" as a difference between legal provisions which leads to impossibility to apply provisions.

 

Невід’ємною ознакою мови, у тому числі юридичної, є багатозначність. Термін “колізія” (лат. – “collisio”) походить від латинського “collide” і означає зіткнення, сутичку. У доктрині вказується на вживання поняття “колізія” в праві у широкому та вузькому розуміннях. За широким розумінням юридична колізія розглядається фактично як будь-який конфлікт, суперечка у правовій сфері. За широкого розуміння колізій до них включають: 1) колізії між нормативно-правовими актами або окремими правовими нормами; 2) колізії у правотворчості; 3) колізії у правозастосуванні; 4) колізії повноважень та статусів. У вузькому значенні Мірошниченко А. М. вважає за потрібне розглядати поняття “правова колізія” як розбіжність між двома або більше приписами правових актів, що поширюються на ті самі відносини і не можуть бути застосовані одночасно.

2. Legal conflicts, conflicts of legislative acts, conflicts between rules on liability, differences between legislative provision

Legal conflicts - "conflict" in the law is virtually any conflict, dispute in the legal field, that includes 1) a conflict between normative legal acts or separate legal norms; 2) conflicts of law-making; 3) conflicts in law enforcement; 4) conflict of powers and status.

Conflictsoflegislativeacts. In a narrower sense synonymous with the term "conflict of law" is the concept of "conflict of legislative acts", that is regarded by prof. Miroshnichenko as a difference between legal provisions, which leads to impossibility to apply provisions.

Conflictsbetweenrulesonliability. In legal doctrine remains controversial question of the relationship of conflict and competition. In view of prof. Miroshnichenko, today the term "competition" is used mainly to the application of security criminal law provisions, establishing liability for specific offenses. Competition rules - is condition, which occurs in the application of criminal law, when one of theseveral penal provisions should be applied. The question of which legal norm should be applied refers to the principle that no one shall bear twice legal liability of the same type for the same offense. Non bis in idem, no legal action can be instituted twice for the same cause of action; double jeopardy doctrine found in common law jurisdictions.

 

Conflictsoflegislativeacts - У більш вузькому розумінні синонімами терміну “юридична колізія” є поняття “колізія законодавства”. У вузькому значенні Мірошниченко А. М. вважає за потрібне розглядати поняття “правова колізія” як розбіжність між двома або більше приписами правових актів, що поширюються на ті самі відносини і не можуть бути застосовані одночасно.

Conflictsbetweenrulesonliability - У правовій доктрині залишається спірним питання про співвідношення колізії та конкуренції. На погляд Мірошниченко А. М., слід враховувати, що сьогодні термін “конкуренція норм” вживається переважно у зв’язку із застосуванням охоронних кримінально-правових норм, які встановлюють відповідальність за конкретні склади злочину. Конкуренція норм – це “стан, що виникає в процесі застосування кримінально-правових норм, коли з кількох кримінально-правових норм, застосуванню підлягає лише одна з них”. Вирішення питання про те, яку норму слід застосовувати, у таких випадках відбувається з урахуванням правового принципу, за яким «ніхто не може бути двічі притягнений до юридичної відповідальності одного виду за одне й те саме правопорушення».

 

3. Conflicts of laws in international private law

Conflict of laws in Private international law concerns relations across different legal jurisdictions between persons, and sometimes also companies, corporations and other legal entities.

Courts faced with a choice of law issue have a two-stage process:

1 the court will apply the law of the forum (lex fori) to all procedural matters (including, self-evidently, the choice of law rules); and

it counts the factors that connect or link the legal issues to the laws of potentially relevant states and applies the laws that have the greatest connection, e.g. the law of nationality (lex patriae) or domicile (lex domicilii) will define legal status and capacity, the law of the state in which land is situated (lex situs) will be applied to determine all questions of title, the law of the place where a transaction physically takes place or of the occurrence that gave rise to the litigation (lex loci actus) will often be the controlling law selected when the matter is substantive, but the proper law has become a more common choice

 

European Court of Justiceto justify their decisions use next principles to resolve legal conflict: lex specialis, lex generalis, a fortiori, a contrario.

A fortiori - Latin for "with even stronger reason," This phrase is used in logic to denote an argument to the effect that because one ascertained fact exists, therefore another which is included in it or analogous to it and is less improbable, unusual, or surprising must also exist. (Завідсутностінорми, щобезпосередньорегулюєпевнівідносини, вважається, що “якщодозволенобільше – дозволеноіменше”; “якщозабороненоменше – забороненеібільше”)

A contrario - Used especially of arguments reasoning from an accepted conclusion to the rejection of its contrary. (Якщоупевнійситуаціївідсутняякасьзобставин, зякоюіснуючийприписспеціальнопов’язуєправовінаслідки, доцієїситуаціїзастосовуютьсяправовінаслідки, протилежнітим, щопередбаченіцимприписом)

The international legal doctrine suggests that traditional principles of resolving conflicts (lex superior, lex posterior, lex specialis) arise from the structure of the legal system, and therefore do not require to be established by legal provisions. United Nations Commission on International Law also suggested that there is no need for formal rules of application of lex specialis. Moreover, there is no such possibility, as application of the principle depends on the circumstances of the particular situation. However, there are other examples. Hierarchical, temporal and substantive principles of solving conflicts enshrined in Articles 1-15 of Italian Civil Code (Codice Civile).

 

Узарубіжнійправовійдоктринівисловлюєтьсядумка, щотрадиційніпринципивирішенняколізій (lex superior, lex posterior, lex specialis) знеобхідністювипливаютьізсамоїструктуриправовоїсистеми, ітомунепотребуютьпозитивногоправовогозакріплення. КомісієюООНзміжнародногоправатакожбулависловленадумка, щопотребиуформальномувикладенніправилзастосування, наприклад, принципу lex specialis, немає; більштого, немаєітакоїможливості, оскількизастосуванняпринципузалежитьвідобставинконкретноїситуації. Протеєйіншіприклади. Ієрархічний, темпоральнийтазмістовнийпринципивирішенняколізійзакріпленіуст.ст. 1–15 ЦивільногокодексуІталії (Codice Civile).

 

4. Hierarchic, temporal, substantive conflicts of laws

The most common conflicts of laws are temporal, hierarchical and substantive conflicts.

Temporal (time) conflict - a conflict arising from publishing at various times in the same issue of at least two of the law. The general principle of conflict of temporal used to overcome these conflicts are the rule, the next law on the same subject cancels the previous action.

Hierarchical (Subordinate) collisions occur when the settlement of some actual relationship claim rules at different levels in a hierarchical (vertical) structure of the law and therefore have different legal force. The general principle of conflict, which is used to overcome the hierarchical conflicts, is: in case of conflict, the rules that have a higher legal force. Overcoming hierarchical conflicts is impossible without clarification of hierarchical (vertical) structure of the legislation of Ukraine. This structure is determined by the legal force of regulations, which, in turn, depends on the place that occupy agencies that issue these acts in the mechanism of the state. Place an act in the hierarchy of legislation also defined specific content of the sources of law, which distinguishes it from other acts adopted the same law-making body. Conflicts between domestic law and the norms of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine ratified international treaties are considered a kind of hierarchical and conflicts should be resolved in favor of international treaties (other than collision norms of international treaties with the norms of the Constitution of Ukraine).

Content (substantive) conflict - a conflict arising if the overlap volume of regulation, due to specific nature of relations. The specifics of these impacts associated with the division of the law in general, special and exceptional. General law is known to be extended to relationships in general; Special operating only within certain kind of relationship and establish it for certain characteristics compared to the general rule; exceptional (which is a special kind of law) set a completely different order than the general rules. In other words, the objective cause of the conflict is usually the specifics of legal regulation of certain relations. In the competition of general and special (exceptional) rules must be guided by the principle exceptional or special law repealing general effect.

 

5. Acceptable and unacceptable conflicts of laws

In legal doctrine there is classification of conflict of laws on acceptable and unacceptable. Unacceptable conflicts are conflicts that have a harmful, negative impact on legal reality. Unacceptable conflicts give rise to an alternative choice of the most convenient, "favorable" rules in the process of solving the case. Such conflicts are harmful for the proper application of the law and restrict its effectiveness. The existence of such conflicts is the reason for misunderstanding which norm to apply and the situation is no different from the complete unsettled relations. Unacceptableconflicts are mostly conflicts of the time and hierarchical conflicts.

In some cases, conflicts are still needed – acceptable conflicts. For example, substantive conflicts of laws. The risk of incorrect application ofnorms, sometimes is a necessary for a concise summary of the regulatory material. For example, if the general requirements in all cases contain references to the existence of special, legal norm will increase in volume, that will result in difficulty in application. Similarly, there is no negative impact of conflict, for example, when a new rule enforced in order to eliminate the effect of other regulations of lower legal force, which in principle can not be formally cancelled after the adoption of the new act.

 

Недопустимими колізіями є колізії, що справляють шкідливий, негативний вплив на правову дійсність.Колізії дають підставу для альтернативного вибору найбільш зручної, “сприятливої” норми у процесі вирішення конкретної справи.колізії заважають правильному застосуванню законодавства та звужують його ефективність. В умовах, коли через численність колізій невідомо, яку норму застосовувати, ситуація нічим не відрізняється від повної неврегульованості відносин. Колізіями-дефектами є більшість часових та ієрархічних колізій.

У певних випадках вони все ж таки необхідні. Колізії, що не дефектами (шкідливими колізіями), іноді називають доброякісними (тобто нешкідливими) колізіями: це, наприклад, більшість змістовних колізій.Ризик невірного вибору норми, що підлягає застосуванню, іноді є необхідною платою за лаконічний виклад нормативного матеріалу. Наприклад, якби загальні приписи в усіх випадках містили посилання на існування спеціальних (на зразок “крім випадків, передбачених підпунктом 3 пункту 1 частини третьої статті 25 цього Закону”), нормативно-правові збільшилися в обсязі, їх було б важко застосовувати.Аналогічно, на негативний вплив колізії не можна зважати, наприклад, тоді, коли нова норма вводиться для того, щоб виключити дію інших норм нижчої юридичної сили, які в принципі не можуть бути формально скасовані при прийнятті нового акту.

6. Conflicts of laws within the same branch of legislation or laws representing different branches of legislation

In legal literature conflicts of laws are often classified as branch conflicts (conflicts of one filed of law occurring within the same branch of legislation – e.g. Land Code and Law “On land lease”) or inter-branch conflicts (conflicts of one filed of law occurring within different branches of legislation – e.g. Land Code and Civil Code).

The branch conflicts most frequently occur because of the duplicity of certain norms in different legal acts of the same branch of legislation. To overcome these conflicts, the legal regulation must be as general, as possible. Specific provisions may be duplicated only provided there is an absolute necessity to establish a specificity of legal regulation of certain social relations. On the other hand, it is harmful for legal regulation to insert some general provisions into specific legal acts which has a narrow subject of legal regulation. Therefore, the “general” act of certain branch should contain mostly “general” norms, while “specific” acts should be built from “specific” norms without mixture between the former and the latter ones.

As to the inter-branch conflicts, one scholars suggest they shall be resolved by application of conflict principles (lex superior, lex specialis, lex posterior). At the same time, other scholars believe that the so-called prinpile of “branch priority” should be applied in such situation. Under this principle, first of all we shall define the “branch nature” of legal relations and therefore – to choose the legal norm in the act of “its” branch of legislation (e.g. conflicts between tax and military legislation, where military legislation sets certain exemptions from taxation, while tax legislation is silent on such exemptions - scholars believe that legal norms from tax legislation should be applied and, therefore, no exemptions should be made).

At the same time, we find the latter approach as backward one, since the place of legal norm in the legal act of some branch of law doesn’t have any regulation effect. We believe that inter-branch conflicts should be resolved by application of the substantial conflict principles (lex superior, lex specialis, lex posterior).

7. Duplicity in legal regulation as a main factor causing conflicts of laws

Duplicity in legal regulation consists in outlining the analogous legal norms in different branches of legislation. This is absolutely unacceptable, since it directly leads to conflicts of laws.

Duplicity should be removed according to the following principle: the legal regulation must be as general, as possible. Specific provisions may be duplicated only provided there is an absolute necessity to establish a specificity of legal regulation of certain social relations. On the other hand, it is harmful for legal regulation to insert some general provisions into specific legal acts which has a narrow subject of legal regulation.

In addition, the abstract correlation of rules of different branches of legislation does not solve the problem with conflicts of laws (e.g. “collision norms” of Article 9 of the Civil Code, Article 4 of the Commercial Code) If the legislation is tailored adequately and correctly (when “special” legislation contains truly “special” norms and “general” legislation – general norms), there will be no need for such “collision norms”. On the other hand, if the legislation is constructed inadequately and “general” legislation contains special norms, then such “collision norm” will only make harm to the legal regulation.

8. Delimiting subject matter of different legislative acts

Traditionally, the cornerstone of differentiation of different legal acts consists in differentiation of material and non-material relations (principle – unique subject matter and method of regulation defines the branch of law as separate).

Regualtion of material relations (commonly – a subject matter of civil law) and governing relations (commonly – a subject matter of administrative law) frequently involves the whole range of other branches of law – land law, labor law, financial law, ecology law, etc. To delimit certain branches of law from other ones we need to define a structure of social relations separating this branch from others. At the same time, the legal regulation is not isolated, hence different legal norms and institutes overlap each other in course of the legal regulation.

Finally, to delimit one legal acts from others under the subject matter criterion, we shall follow the principle of “generalism” in “general” legal acts and “specificity” of legal norms in “special” legal acts.

 

 

9. Codifying laws as a tool to remove their conflicts

Codifying is defined as “a method of the legislation’s systematization consisting in deep and substantial revision of certain group of legal norms with the same subject matter, with further consolidation of these norms in one unified normative act”. In continental law countries the “code” is understood as the code of “Napoleon type”. Its goal is codification of laws, but not the classification, like in case of consolidation or incorporation.

Codifying may be classified under several criteria. For instance, by volume – branch codifying, inter-branch codifying and special codifying; by form – grounds of legislation, code, statute, law, etc. One of the main reasons for the conflicts of law is a low level of systematization. To reduce the amount of conflicts within the effective Ukrainian legislation, the perspective of its codifying shall be used.

Codifying works shall be carried out in the following order: 1) inventory of the effective legislation (discovery and review of the effective laws with the relevant subject matter); 2) defining of conflicts and lacunas; 3) alteration of the normative material in accordance with the conceptual principles of codifying; 4) drafting the normative act text; 5) drafting the text of amendments to the effective laws, preparation of the list of laws which will be cancelled.

10. Dynamic interpretation of law as a tool to remove conflicts of laws

Inevitable feature of people’s language is polysemantics. Moreover, changes in understanding of law are also inevitable. Provided there are different options of interpretation, the practice will firstly choose one option and then – another, often contrary to the first one. Dynamic interpretation means that the law shall be interpreted in accordance with the historical conditions surrounding the atmosphere of the law interpretation and application.

Dynamic interpretation is frequently used by the European Court of Human Rights in form of its doctrine of Convention as a “living instrument”, which takes historical conditions into consideration.

To ensure the possibility of dynamic interpretation in future, it is useful to willfully and knowingly insert certain differently understood provisions into legislation. The text of the legal act shall be a result of compromise between the wish to ensure its uniform understanding and foreseeable application on the one side, and the wish to ensure its flexibility in different conditions on the other side. Therefore, the ability of the written law to be understood differently in different historical conditions, makes it more flexible allowing the legal regulation to be more effective in these different historical conditions.

RULE OF LAW

Meaning

The dictionary meaning of ‘dysfunctional’ is “abnormal or impaired functioning, especially of a system or social group”. Dysfunctional system of justice is a legal system that has turned against itself, within which rule-of-law principles cannot operate, the justice system cannot function and deliver justice as envisaged under international frameworks and standards.

Features

1. The shift from “the rule of law” to a law, that justifies any arbitrary means to keep order by a ruling regime

Under this approach any illegality can be treated as legitimate if the government thinks it needs to be done to maintain order. For example, the extrajudicial killing of those who are considered bad criminals may be considered as a means to be used for achieving order. However, this runs against the rule-of-law approach.

2. Placing the head of the state above the law

by constitutional provisions / having no constitution at all/ treating the constitution itself as an unimportant

3. Limiting the power and the scope of judiciary

excluding the court’s jurisdiction over public lawor on matters relating to the constitution.

4. Creating a system of punishment without trial

This may be by way of extrajudicial killings followed by media statements that the person who was killed is a bad criminal. This kind of punishment is accompanied by failure to investigate crimes.

5. Manipulation of powers of arrest and detention for reasons of corruption

Where police powers are heavily manipulated, they are accompanied by the rise of mafia and the underworld, working in conjunction with police agencies.

6. Political control of institutions

Politicization is accompanied by loss of authority in key institutions, like the prosecutor’s office, and the absence of an effective system of command responsibility within the police, since officers increasingly develop relationships with outside patrons that serve their interests independent of their standing in relation to superiors.

7. Mishandling of cases under trial

Vast delays in litigation lead trials in some places to take five or 10 years on average. On the other hand, sometimes cases are administratively speeded up and due process is completely ignored. ‘Judgements’ arrived at in this manner only reflect the version of events given by executive officers, ignoring requirements of procedural justice and often manipulating the process. Some do not give reasons for their orders.

9. Absences of witness protection laws and programmes,

absence of budgets for administration of justice: policing, prosecution and prisons,

absence of effective mechanisms to investigate and prosecute in cases of violations of human rights.

absence of a perception of justice in society. Replaced by cynicism and negative comments about justice.

10. Professional decline

Threats are made to the independence of lawyers, which lower their morale generally, weakening professional associations, as more lawyers begin to adjust to negative systemic changes. Consequently, professional bodies fail in their supervisory responsibilities, further lowering esteem of the profession among the general public and encouraging the withdrawal of talented lawyers.

 

Stages of public policy

1) Emergence of the problem – emergence; perception of the problem; definition of the problem and identification of possible causes; representation of the problem; request for public action

2) Agenda setting – selection of the emerging problems; outline and formulation of causality model, response of public powers to problems recognized as being object of the policy

3) Formulation and adoption of the policy programme – definition of the causality model; definition of a suitable and acceptable solutions; filtering between ideal solutions and available resources; selection of instruments

4) Policy implementation –application of the selected solutions; action of the administrative implementation agents

5) Policy evaluation – determination of eventual policy effects; evaluation of extent of impacts, effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, with respect to the original problem.

 

Actors of the public policy

Empirical actors

Actor - either an individual (a minister, member of parliament, specialist journalist etc), several individuals (constituting for example an office or a section of an administration), a legal entity (a private company, an association, a trade union and so on) or a social group (farmers, drug users, the homeless etc).

A group of several individuals constitutes a single actor insofar as, with respect to the policy under consideration, they are in broad agreement and share a common approach as far as the values and interests that they represent and the concrete aims that they pursue are concerned. Every individual, legal entity or social group is considered as an actor once, by virtue of their very existence, they belong to the social field regarded as being relevant to the analysis: An individual in a given field does not qualify as an actor by virtue of his understanding of, or control over, events, nor on the basis of his awareness of his interests and scope for action, nor, a fortiori, because he is aware of his place in history or in the process of social change, or because he participates in the production of society.

In this way, every individual or social group concerned by the collective problem addressed by a policy can be considered as a potential actor capable of being part of the arena of this policy. In fact, the actor’s — more or less active — behaviour influences the way in which the public intervention in question is devised and implemented.

This broad definition of the actor concept means that the analyst must consider all individuals and social groups concerned by a specific collective problem. Such a viewpoint has the advantage of taking account of the fact that public and private actors do not all intervene actively and visibly at all stages of a policy: their behaviour is sometimes directly tangible, but equally it is sometimes hard to identify directly. This depends on, among other factors, the process by which they become aware of their own interests, their capacity to mobilise resources and form a coalition to defend their rights and interests and, finally, their strategic decision either to take action or to remain voluntarily outside the decision-making arena.

If analysts only focus on the behaviour of the most dynamic and enterprising actors, stipulating that passive groups are 'non-actors', they run the risk of overlooking certain factors that are central to an understanding of how a given policy is developed. Analysts sometimes adopt too elitist approach to the actors' game, not taking into account sufficiently the effects induced by the passivity of certain social groups or political-administrative actors who are concerned by the collective problem under consideration. However, that for obvious reasons connected to empirical observation, analysts tend naturally to focus on the behaviour of the most active actors within the context of a policy. It is certainly easier to identify individuals, informal groups and formal organisations who, having access to the necessary resources, participate on an ongoing basis in the conception, adoption and implementation of a policy.

Intentional actors

An actor always disposes of a greater or lesser margin of discretion and of maneuver, depending on the situation in question. Our thesis here is that no social or political field is perfectly structured, controlled or regulated. Actors possess, therefore, a certain degree of freedom but also resources, which enables them to develop strategies and tactics, or even to adopt "goal-oriented behaviour". Thus, we do not seek to deny the influence - that is sometimes quite considerable - that the actors’ institutional and social context has on their decisions and actions. It is proposed that policies should be interpreted as the result of the behaviour of actors who are (partially) autonomous. The area of uncertainty is particularly significant in the context of unforeseen crises (for example, the accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power station, natural disasters).The actors who have to intervene in such circumstances are unprepared and have to cope as best they can with no system to fall back on. This in no way implies that we interpret actors as totally rational beings, motivated only by the maximisation of their personal utility (both material and non-material) and omniscient. For example, for cognitive, emotional and cultural reasons, the rationality of individuals and social groups remains necessarily limited.

We take the view that actors are rational in the sense that they care about the consequences of their own decisions and actions, even if they are unable to anticipate and control all of the effects that stem from these, and especially the adverse or undesirable effects that derive from the cumulative actions and behaviour of individuals. At the same time, we propose a very broad interpretation of the intentions and interests that underlie all human activity: an actor's motivations are manifold, especially because they depend on the experiences and past history of the individual or social group concerned and also on the situation that pertains at a given moment in time and which entails certain constraints as well as opportunities for action.

Policy actors can be described in the following terms:

1) Actors rarely define clear, explicit or coherent objectives. They change them as they go along, if only because the unanticipated consequences of their own actions and those of other actors in the domain of policy compel them to readjust their objectives or re-evaluate their positions. What was a means to an end at one moment becomes an end in itself at another, and vice versa.

2) Although it may sometimes appear erratic, actors' behaviour always has a meaning and a logic of its own. Instead of being necessarily rational in relation to predetermined objectives, it is sometimes quite reasonable given the constraints and opportunities afforded by a given situation.

3) An actor’s “strategic instinct” is characterised by two complementary aspects. On the one hand, an actor tends to go on the offensive when taking advantage of opportunities to improve a position and further immediate interests. On the other hand, an actor adopts a more defensive approach when seeking to maintain and broaden a margin of freedom, that is, the capacity to act in the way wanted at a later stage (indirect intervention on the institutional components of policy).

 

Types of actors

Private and public (political-administrative actors) actors form the triangle of actors

Private actors:

1) Target groups - the actors whose behaviour is politically defined as the [in]direct cause of a problem or who are able to take action to deal with it

2) End beneficiaries - actors who experience the negative effects of a particular problem and whose situation should be improved following the implementation of public intervention.

3) Third-party groups - who are affected indirectly by the policy (negatively = negatively affected third parties, positively = positively affected third parties)

Public actors (political-administrative system) comprise all of a country's governmental (parliament/government) administrative and legal institutions, which have the capacity, legitimised by the legal establishment, to structure any sector of society through decisions of an authoritarian nature.

Main features:

1) sovereignty of public actors: the state is supposed to be the only entity entitled to exercise power of restraint over all other sub-systems and over citizens

2) The administrative organisations of the political-administrative system form an important and relatively independent centre of gravity (for example, in relation to governments and parliaments) in the body of a state's institutions.

3) Relationships between the sub-systems. The political-administrative sub-system transforms 'societal' demands (inputs) into restrictive state actions (outputs).

4) External interactions and internal interactions.

 

The operational elements

The operational elements define the detailed forms of intervention to fulfil the objectives of public policy. For example< policy order, the direct offer of the services, creation of social structures).

The PAA

This is the competent authorities and administrative authorities responsible for the fulfilment of public policy.

The procedural elements

The form of the realization of the actions by state bodies. For instance, the administrative decisions, public law contract, various types of plans).

 

Explicit or implicit APs.

Even though the AP in most case is formolized as a separate legal document is is still may be highly formolized (explicit) or not (implicit). The fact that it will be officially presented and published should positively effect all the actors of public policy. It is a tendency to provide formal action plans nowadays.

Open or closed APs.

Besides the level of formalization it is necessary to add the openness of action plan. Establishment of priorities of policy realization may be closed from public and performed inside the public authorities, or it can be presented to other actors even to the target groups and end beneficiaries. This will make an advantage to a policy.

CONFLICTS OF LAWS: PREVENTION, REMOVAL AND RESOLUTION

QUESTIONS

 

1. Definition of conflicts of laws

An integral feature of the language, including legal language, is polysementic. The term "conflict" (Lat. - "Collisio") comes from the Latin "collide" and means a battle.

The term "conflict" in the law in the legal doctrine is used in the broad and narrow sense. The broad understanding of the legal conflict is virtually any conflict, dispute in the legal field, that includes 1) a conflict between normative legal acts or separate legal norms; 2) conflicts of law-making; 3) conflicts in law enforcement; 4) conflict of powers and status. In a narrow sense prof. Miroshnichenko considers the concept of "conflict of law" as a difference between legal provisions which leads to impossibility to apply provisions.

 

Невід’ємною ознакою мови, у тому числі юридичної, є багатозначність. Термін “колізія” (лат. – “collisio”) походить від латинського “collide” і означає зіткнення, сутичку. У доктрині вказується на вживання поняття “колізія” в праві у широкому та вузькому розуміннях. За широким розумінням юридична колізія розглядається фактично як будь-який конфлікт, суперечка у правовій сфері. За широкого розуміння колізій до них включають: 1) колізії між нормативно-правовими актами або окремими правовими нормами; 2) колізії у правотворчості; 3) колізії у правозастосуванні; 4) колізії повноважень та статусів. У вузькому значенні Мірошниченко А. М. вважає за потрібне розглядати поняття “правова колізія” як розбіжність між двома або більше приписами правових актів, що поширюються на ті самі відносини і не можуть бути застосовані одночасно.

2. Legal conflicts, conflicts of legislative acts, conflicts between rules on liability, differences between legislative provision

Legal conflicts - "conflict" in the law is virtually any conflict, dispute in the legal field, that includes 1) a conflict between normative legal acts or separate legal norms; 2) conflicts of law-making; 3) conflicts in law enforcement; 4) conflict of powers and status.

Conflictsoflegislativeacts. In a narrower sense synonymous with the term "conflict of law" is the concept of "conflict of legislative acts", that is regarded by prof. Miroshnichenko as a difference between legal provisions, which leads to impossibility to apply provisions.

Conflictsbetweenrulesonliability. In legal doctrine remains controversial question of the relationship of conflict and competition. In view of prof. Miroshnichenko, today the term "competition" is used mainly to the application of security criminal law provisions, establishing liability for specific offenses. Competition rules - is condition, which occurs in the application of criminal law, when one of theseveral penal provisions should be applied. The question of which legal norm should be applied refers to the principle that no one shall bear twice legal liability of the same type for the same offense. Non bis in idem, no legal action can be instituted twice for the same cause of action; double jeopardy doctrine found in common law jurisdictions.

 

Conflictsoflegislativeacts - У більш вузькому розумінні синонімами терміну “юридична колізія” є поняття “колізія законодавства”. У вузькому значенні Мірошниченко А. М. вважає за потрібне розглядати поняття “правова колізія” як розбіжність між двома або більше приписами правових актів, що поширюються на ті самі відносини і не можуть бути застосовані одночасно.

Conflictsbetweenrulesonliability - У правовій доктрині залишається спірним питання про співвідношення колізії та конкуренції. На погляд Мірошниченко А. М., слід враховувати, що сьогодні термін “конкуренція норм” вживається переважно у зв’язку із застосуванням охоронних кримінально-правових норм, які встановлюють відповідальність за конкретні склади злочину. Конкуренція норм – це “стан, що виникає в процесі застосування кримінально-правових норм, коли з кількох кримінально-правових норм, застосуванню підлягає лише одна з них”. Вирішення питання про те, яку норму слід застосовувати, у таких випадках відбувається з урахуванням правового принципу, за яким «ніхто не може бути двічі притягнений до юридичної відповідальності одного виду за одне й те саме правопорушення».

 

3. Conflicts of laws in international private law

Conflict of laws in Private international law concerns relations across different legal jurisdictions between persons, and sometimes also companies, corporations and other legal entities.

Courts faced with a choice of law issue have a two-stage process:

1 the court will apply the law of the forum (lex fori) to all procedural matters (including, self-evidently, the choice of law rules); and

it counts the factors that connect or link the legal issues to the laws of potentially relevant states and applies the laws that have the greatest connection, e.g. the law of nationality (lex patriae) or domicile (lex domicilii) will define legal status and capacity, the law of the state in which land is situated (lex situs) will be applied to determine all questions of title, the law of the place where a transaction physically takes place or of the occurrence that gave rise to the litigation (lex loci actus) will often be the controlling law selected when the matter is substantive, but the proper law has become a more common choice

 

European Court of Justiceto justify their decisions use next principles to resolve legal conflict: lex specialis, lex generalis, a fortiori, a contrario.

A fortiori - Latin for "with even stronger reason," This phrase is used in logic to denote an argument to the effect that because one ascertained fact exists, therefore another which is included in it or analogous to it and is less improbable, unusual, or surprising must also exist. (Завідсутностінорми, щобезпосередньорегулюєпевнівідносини, вважається, що “якщодозволенобільше – дозволеноіменше”; “якщозабороненоменше – забороненеібільше”)

A contrario - Used especially of arguments reasoning from an accepted conclusion to the rejection of its contrary. (Якщоупевнійситуаціївідсутняякасьзобставин, зякоюіснуючийприписспеціальнопов’язуєправовінаслідки, доцієїситуаціїзастосовуютьсяправовінаслідки, протилежнітим, щопередбаченіцимприписом)

The international legal doctrine suggests that traditional principles of resolving conflicts (lex superior, lex posterior, lex specialis) arise from the structure of the legal system, and therefore do not require to be established by legal provisions. United Nations Commission on International Law also suggested that there is no need for formal rules of application of lex specialis. Moreover, there is no such possibility, as application of the principle depends on the circumstances of the particular situation. However, there are other examples. Hierarchical, temporal and substantive principles of solving conflicts enshrined in Articles 1-15 of Italian Civil Code (Codice Civile).

 

Узарубіжнійправовійдоктринівисловлюєтьсядумка, щотрадиційніпринципивирішенняколізій (lex superior, lex posterior, lex specialis) знеобхідністювипливаютьізсамоїструктуриправовоїсистеми, ітомунепотребуютьпозитивногоправовогозакріплення. КомісієюООНзміжнародногоправатакожбулависловленадумка, щопотребиуформальномувикладенніправилзастосування, наприклад, принципу lex specialis, немає; більштого, немаєітакоїможливості, оскількизастосуванняпринципузалежитьвідобставинконкретноїситуації. Протеєйіншіприклади. Ієрархічний, темпоральнийтазмістовнийпринципивирішенняколізійзакріпленіуст.ст. 1–15 ЦивільногокодексуІталії (Codice Civile).

 

4. Hierarchic, temporal, substantive conflicts of laws

The most common conflicts of laws are temporal, hierarchical and substantive conflicts.

Temporal (time) conflict - a conflict arising from publishing at various times in the same issue of at least two of the law. The general principle of conflict of temporal used to overcome these conflicts are the rule, the next law on the same subject cancels the previous action.

Hierarchical (Subordinate) collisions occur when the settlement of some actual relationship claim rules at different levels in a hierarchical (vertical) structure of the law and therefore have different legal force. The general principle of conflict, which is used to overcome the hierarchical conflicts, is: in case of conflict, the rules that have a higher legal force. Overcoming hierarchical conflicts is impossible without clarification of hierarchical (vertical) structure of the legislation of Ukraine. This structure is determined by the legal force of regulations, which, in turn, depends on the place that occupy agencies that issue these acts in the mechanism of the state. Place an act in the hierarchy of legislation also defined specific content of the sources of law, which distinguishes it from other acts adopted the same law-making body. Conflicts between domestic law and the norms of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine ratified international treaties are considered a kind of hierarchical and conflicts should be resolved in favor of international treaties (other than collision norms of international treaties with the norms of the Constitution of Ukraine).

Content (substantive) conflict - a conflict arising if the overlap volume of regulation, due to specific nature of relations. The specifics of these impacts associated with the division of the law in general, special and exceptional. General law is known to be extended to relationships in general; Special operating only within certain kind of relationship and establish it for certain characteristics compared to the general rule; exceptional (which is a special kind of law) set a completely different order than the general rules. In other words, the objective cause of the conflict is usually the specifics of legal regulation of certain relations. In the competition of general and special (exceptional) rules must be guided by the principle exceptional or special law repealing general effect.

 

5. Acceptable and unacceptable conflicts of laws

In legal doctrine there is classification of conflict of laws on acceptable and unacceptable. Unacceptable conflicts are conflicts that have a harmful, negative impact on legal reality. Unacceptable conflicts give rise to an alternative choice of the most convenient, "favorable" rules in the process of solving the case. Such conflicts are harmful for the proper application of the law and restrict its effectiveness. The existence of such conflicts is the reason for misunderstanding which norm to apply and the situation is no different from the complete unsettled relations. Unacceptableconflicts are mostly conflicts of the time and hierarchical conflicts.

In some cases, conflicts are still needed – acceptable conflicts. For example, substantive conflicts of laws. The risk of incorrect application ofnorms, sometimes is a necessary for a concise summary of the regulatory material. For example, if the general requirements in all cases contain references to the existence of special, legal norm will increase in volume, that will result in difficulty in application. Similarly, there is no negative impact of conflict, for example, when a new rule enforced in order to eliminate the effect of other regulations of lower legal force, which in principle can not be formally cancelled after the adoption of the new act.

 

Недопустимими колізіями є колізії, що справляють шкідливий, негативний вплив на правову дійсність.Колізії дають підставу для альтернативного вибору найбільш зручної, “сприятливої” норми у процесі вирішення конкретної справи.колізії заважають правильному застосуванню законодавства та звужують його ефективність. В умовах, коли через численність колізій невідомо, яку норму застосовувати, ситуація нічим не відрізняється від повної неврегульованості відносин. Колізіями-дефектами є більшість часових та ієрархічних колізій.

У певних випадках вони все ж таки необхідні. Колізії, що не дефектами (шкідливими колізіями), іноді називають доброякісними (тобто нешкідливими) колізіями: це, наприклад, більшість змістовних колізій.Ризик невірного вибору норми, що підлягає застосуванню, іноді є необхідною платою за лаконічний виклад нормативного матеріалу. Наприклад, якби загальні приписи в усіх випадках містили посилання на існування спеціальних (на зразок “крім випадків, передбачених підпунктом 3 пункту 1 частини третьої статті 25 цього Закону”), нормативно-правові збільшилися в обсязі, їх було б важко застосовувати.Аналогічно, на негативний вплив колізії не можна зважати, наприклад, тоді, коли нова норма вводиться для того, щоб виключити дію інших норм нижчої юридичної сили, які в принципі не можуть бути формально скасовані при прийнятті нового акту.

6. Conflicts of laws within the same branch of legislation or laws representing different branches of legislation

In legal literature conflicts of laws are often classified as branch conflicts (conflicts of one filed of law occurring within the same branch of legislation – e.g. Land Code and Law “On land lease”) or inter-branch conflicts (conflicts of one filed of law occurring within different branches of legislation – e.g. Land Code and Civil Code).

The branch conflicts most frequently occur because of the duplicity of certain norms in different legal acts of the same branch of legislation. To overcome these conflicts, the legal regulation must be as general, as possible. Specific provisions may be duplicated only provided there is an absolute necessity to establish a specificity of legal regulation of certain social relations. On the other hand, it is harmful for legal regulation to insert some general provisions into specific legal acts which has a narrow subject of legal regulation. Therefore, the “general” act of certain branch should contain mostly “general” norms, while “specific” acts should be built from “specific” norms without mixture between the former and the latter ones.

As to the inter-branch conflicts, one scholars suggest they shall be resolved by application of conflict principles (lex superior, lex specialis, lex posterior). At the same time, other scholars believe that the so-called prinpile of “branch priority” should be applied in such situation. Under this principle, first of all we shall define the “branch nature” of legal relations and therefore – to choose the legal norm in the act of “its” branch of legislation (e.g. conflicts between tax and military legislation, where military legislation sets certain exemptions from taxation, while tax legislation is silent on such exemptions - scholars believe that legal norms from tax legislation should be applied and, therefore, no exemptions should be made).

At the same time, we find the latter approach as backward one, since the place of legal norm in the legal act of some branch of law doesn’t have any regulation effect. We believe that inter-branch conflicts should be resolved by application of the substantial conflict principles (lex superior, lex specialis, lex posterior).

7. Duplicity in legal regulation as a main factor causing conflicts of laws

Duplicity in legal regulation consists in outlining the analogous legal norms in different branches of legislation. This is absolutely unacceptable, since it directly leads to conflicts of laws.

Duplicity should be removed according to the following principle: the legal regulation must be as general, as possible. Specific provisions may be duplicated only provided there is an absolute necessity to establish a specificity of legal regulation of certain social relations. On the other hand, it is harmful for legal regulation to insert some general provisions into specific legal acts which has a narrow subject of legal regulation.

In addition, the abstract correlation of rules of different branches of legislation does not solve the problem with conflicts of laws (e.g. “collision norms” of Article 9 of the Civil Code, Article 4 of the Commercial Code) If the legislation is tailored adequately and correctly (when “special” legislation contains truly “special” norms and “general” legislation – general norms), there will be no need for such “collision norms”. On the other hand, if the legislation is constructed inadequately and “general” legislation contains special norms, then such “collision norm” will only make harm to the legal regulation.

8. Delimiting subject matter of different legislative acts

Traditionally, the cornerstone of differentiation of different legal acts consists in differentiation of material and non-material relations (principle – unique subject matter and method of regulation defines the branch of law as separate).

Regualtion of material relations (commonly – a subject matter of civil law) and governing relations (commonly – a subject matter of administrative law) frequently involves the whole range of other branches of law – land law, labor law, financial law, ecology law, etc. To delimit certain branches of law from other ones we need to define a structure of social relations separating this branch from others. At the same time, the legal regulation is not isolated, hence different legal norms and institutes overlap each other in course of the legal regulation.

Finally, to delimit one legal acts from others under the subject matter criterion, we shall follow the principle of “generalism” in “general” legal acts and “specificity” of legal norms in “special” legal acts.

 

 

9. Codifying laws as a tool to remove their conflicts

Codifying is defined as “a method of the legislation’s systematization consisting in deep and substantial revision of certain group of legal norms with the same subject matter, with further consolidation of these norms in one unified normative act”. In continental law countries the “code” is understood as the code of “Napoleon type”. Its goal is codification of laws, but not the classification, like in case of consolidation or incorporation.

Codifying may be classified under several criteria. For instance, by volume – branch codifying, inter-branch codifying and special codifying; by form – grounds of legislation, code, statute, law, etc. One of the main reasons for the conflicts of law is a low level of systematization. To reduce the amount of conflicts within the effective Ukrainian legislation, the perspective of its codifying shall be used.

Codifying works shall be carried out in the following order: 1) inventory of the effective legislation (discovery and review of the effective laws with the relevant subject matter); 2) defining of conflicts and lacunas; 3) alteration of the normative material in accordance with the conceptual principles of codifying; 4) drafting the normative act text; 5) drafting the text of amendments to the effective laws, preparation of the list of laws which will be cancelled.

10. Dynamic interpretation of law as a tool to remove conflicts of laws

Inevitable feature of people’s language is polysemantics. Moreover, changes in understanding of law are also inevitable. Provided there are different options of interpretation, the practice will firstly choose one option and then – another, often contrary to the first one. Dynamic interpretation means that the law shall be interpreted in accordance with the historical conditions surrounding the atmosphere of the law interpretation and application.

Dynamic interpretation is frequently used by the European Court of Human Rights in form of its doctrine of Convention as a “living instrument”, which takes historical conditions into consideration.

To ensure the possibility of dynamic interpretation in future, it is useful to willfully and knowingly insert certain differently understood provisions into legislation. The text of the legal act shall be a result of compromise between the wish to ensure its uniform understanding and foreseeable application on the one side, and the wish to ensure its flexibility in different conditions on the other side. Therefore, the ability of the written law to be understood differently in different historical conditions, makes it more flexible allowing the legal regulation to be more effective in these different historical conditions.

RULE OF LAW