Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń

English abstract: This article concerns Robert Alexy’s conception of legal principles, which conception he builds on the basis of an analysis of constitutional norms. The main assumption of his conception of rights is that in this field it is necessary to use the theory of principles as the basis. He created his own theory of principles as norms which require realization to the greatest extent possible in the light of legal and actual possibilities. Consequently, he defines principles as optimisation commands, capable of different degrees of realization depending on the actual and legal possibilities. The dimension of the legal possibility depends on the contrasting principles and rules. R. Alexy treats rules and principles as reasons of different kinds. While principles are always prima facie reasons, rules are definitive reasons until an exception to them is provided for. R. Alexy claims also that the nature of principles implies the existence of the principle of proportionality in the sense that the principle of proportionality with its three “sub-principles”: adequacy, necessity and proportionality in the strict sense, logically follows from the nature of principles and can be inferred from them

Keywords: Robert Alexy, legal principles, principle of proportionality
(keywords supplied by the editors)

Language: Polish

Published: Number 1(1)/2010, pp. 48-63.

Download file: Download

Number od downloads: 1,375

References:

1. Alexy R., A Theory of Constitutional Rights, Oxford-New York 2002.
2. Alexy R., Constitutional Rights, Balancing, and Rationality, „Ratio Juris” 2003/2.
3. Alexy R., Jürgen Habermas’s Theory of Legal Discourse, ”Cardozo Law Review” 1995–1996/17.
4. Alexy R., On the Structure of Legal Principles, ”Ratio Juris” 2000/3.
5. Alexy R., On the Thesis of a Necessary Connection Between Law and Morality: Bulygin’s Critique, „Ratio Juris” 2000/2.
6. Alexy R., The argument from justice. A reply to legal positivism, Oxford 2002.
7. Alexy R., The Nature of Legal Philosophy, „Ratio Juris” 2004/2.
8. Alexy R., W obronie niepozytywistycznej koncepcji prawa, „Państwo i Prawo” 1993/11.
9. Dworkin R., The Model of Rules, ”The University of Chicago Law Review” 1967-68/35.
10. Dworkin R., Imperium Prawa, Warszawa 2006.
11. Gizbert-Studnicki T., Zasady i reguły prawne, „Państwo i Prawo” 1988/3.
12. Habermas J., Between facts and norms, Cambridge 1996.
13. Hart H.L.A., Pojęcie prawa, Warszawa 1998.
14. Klatt M., Taking rights less seriously. A structural analysis of judicial discretion, „Ratio Juris” 2007/2.
15. Korycka M., Zasada proporcjonalności – refleksje na gruncie aksjologicznych podstaw konstytucji z 1997 roku i orzecznictwa Trybunału Konstytucyjnego, w: Morawski L. (red.), Wykładnia prawa i inne problemy filozofii prawa, Toruń 2005.
16. Korycka M., Zasady prawa, „Jurysta” 2007/8.
17. Morawski L. (red.), Wykładnia prawa i inne problemy filozofii prawa, Toruń 2005.
18. Płeszka K., Reguły preferencji w prawniczych rozumowaniach interpretacyjnych, w: Stelmach J. (red.), Studia z filozofii prawa, Kraków 2003.
19. Raz J., Autorytet prawa, Warszawa 2000.
20. Stelmach J. (red.), Studia z filozofii prawa, Kraków 2003.
21. Stelmach J., Sarkowicz R., Filozofia prawa XIX I XX w., Kraków 1998.
22. Tuleja P., Normatywna treść praw jednostki w ustawach konstytucyjnych RP, Warszawa 1997.