Jeana Sharankova: "Semiotic Aspects of the Transformation of Legal Systems"

410







The rules and procedures of admissibility and control of knowledge make the discussion itself the foundation of the meaning which will "continue on its way" in the development of scientific and practical reasoning as a re-signified significance. For its part, it will __ in the next discussion __ re-signify it as its "bearer" and foundation, and so on: from discussion to discussion the legal significance will be transmitted, rejected or asserted.

The series of discussions __ scientific, including instructional, judicial, political understood as a semiosis of legal communication __ is a phenomenal series of re-signifying which expresses the growth of legal knowledge.

The phenomenological understanding of the rational (theoretical and practical) initiatives for achieving fresh knowledge consists in the fact that their sequence is a sequence of switching-over of rationally and interpretatively incommensurate, semantically unidentical significances, theories and points of view (as a semantic sets) but "having entered" a series through the discussion because the rules and procedures of admissibility and control of knowledge have made commensurate (through re-signifying in the "publicity" and before its control) and by that have connected these significances. The greater the contrast is between the semantic totalities, the more productive is the discussion of results. The closer the semantic totalities are to one another, the greater the risk is of semantic equalization to be the result instead of it being a correlative transformation.

12. The phenomenology of re-signifying as a kind of transformation, which is objectivized in a legal discourse achieves semantic continuity of the legal matter from the point of view of interpretative legal reasoning thanks to the flexibility of the above-mentioned legal construction. This is a positive result insofar as it demonstrates growth of legal knowledge. It is a negative result if __ at the expense of comparability and the sought for compatibility assessment of the results of the interpretations __ the interdependence between the various kinds of legal order is substantivized into semantic equalization. This is an age-old aspiration and tradition of world legal science and practice: the utilization of legislation, e.g. the creation of uniform codes. This utilitarianism I can assess as an original technique for the achievement of a "fit" (in the sense imparted to it by Dworkin) because the utilization of legislation achieves uniform interpretation.

It, for its part, through its elucidating effect achieves: 1/ the advantage of a quasi- institutionalized pre-judicial understanding vis--vis the subjective arbitrariness of individual interpretations; 2/ narrowing the distance vis--vis the "authors" of the code in question with a view to its ultimate practical purpose; 3/ simultaneous increase of the semantic autonomy of the text itself through its examination as a meaningful totality; 4/ a transforming of normative expectations into cognitive ones (it informs, elucidates the uniform and entire meaning). But is the semantic equalization a plus or a minus?

Or, rather let us look at another aspect of the similar and connected with this topic of discussion: the interdependence between the international humanitarian law and the acquis communautaire.










Page - 1     Page + 1


AS/SA Nº 6/7, Article 7 : Page 9 / 11

© 1999, AS/SA

E-mail to the editors
Pour écrire à la rédaction

1999.07.14