talТеоретическая и прикладная юриспруденцияTheoretical and Applied Law3034-2813СЗИУ РАНХиГС10.22394/2686-7834-2023-4-62-67tal-326Research ArticleСТАТЬИARTICLESПрирода права на благоприятную окружающую среду: принцип vs норма праваThe Juridical Nature of the Right to Favorable Environment: Principle vs Norm of LawБахилинаА. К.BakhilinaA. K.

Бахилина Алена Константиновна,  студентка магистратуры 

Москва 

Alena K. Bakhilina, MA-student

Moscow

akbakhilina@edu.hse.ruНациональный исследовательский университет «Высшая школа экономики»РоссияNational Research University Higher School of EconomicsRussian Federation202315012024046267Copyright © Бахилина А.К., 20242024Бахилина А.К.Bakhilina A.K.Данная работа распространяется под лицензией Creative Commons Attribution 4.0.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.https://www.taljournal.ru/jour/article/view/326

Настоящая статья ставит своей целью проверить гипотезу автора о том, что право на благоприятную окружающую среду по своей юридической природе ближе к принципу, нежели к норме права. Рассмотрена теоретическая база разграничения принципа и нормы правы, особенное внимание уделено изучению теории американского юриста и философа Рональда Дворкина. Опираясь на концепцию Дворкина, автор методом аналогии приводит аргументы в поддержку своей гипотезы. Подтверждение выдвинутой идеи обнаружено также в решениях международных судов. В ходе написания статьи проведен серьезный анализ нормативно-правовой базы, доктринальных источников и судебной практики.

The article aims to test the author’s hypothesis that the right to favorable environment by its legal nature is rather closer to a principle than to a legal norm. The theoretical basis of the distinction between principle and norm of law is considered, special attention is paid to the study of the theory of the American lawyer and philosopher Ronald Dworkin. Relying on the concept of Dworkin, the author by the method of analogy provides arguments in support of his hypothesis. The confirmation of the proposed idea is also found in the decisions of international courts. Serious analysis of the legal framework, doctrinal sources and judicial practice was conducted in the course of writing the article.

право на благоприятную окружающую средублагоприятная окружающая средапринцип праванорма праваright to favorable environmentfavorable environmenthealthy environmentprinciple of lawnorm of lawReferencesДворкин Р. О правах всерьез. М., 2004.Dvorkin, R. On Rights Seriously [O pravah vser’ez]. М., 2004.Коваль С. В. Разграничение принципов и правовых норм в философии права Р. Дворкина. Вестник Моск. Ун-та. Сер. 7: Философия. 2020. № 2. С. 63–71.Koval, S. V. Distinguishing Principles and Legal Norms in the Philosophy of Law by R. Dvorkin [Razgranichenie principov i pravovyh norm v fi losofi i prava R. Dvorkina]. Moscow University Bulletin [Vestnik Moskovskogo Universiteta]. Ser. 7. Philosophy, 2020. No. 2. Pp. 63–71.Кремнев П. П. Общепризнанные принципы общего международного права в системе российского права. Вестник Моск. ун-та. Серия 11: Право. 2018. № 6. С. 19–33.Kremnev, P. P. Generally Recognized Principles of General International Law in the System of Russian Law [Obshhepriznannye principy obshhego mezhdunarodnogo prava v sisteme rossijskogo prava]. Moscow University Bulletin [Vestnik Moskovskogo Universiteta]. Ser. 11. Law, 2018. No. 6. Pp. 19–33.Ромашев Ю. С. Общие принципы права в системе международного права. Право. Журнал Высшей школы экономики, 2021. № 3. С. 148–174.Romashev, Yu. S. General Principles of Law in the System of International Law [Obshhie principy prava v sisteme mezhdunarodnogo prava]. Law. Journal of the Higher School of Economics [Pravo. Zhurnal Vysshej shkoly jekonomiki], 2021. No. 3. Pp. 148–174.Douglas-Scott S. Environment Rights in the EU-Participatory Democracy or Democratic Defi cit? In: Human Rights Approaches to Environment protection. eds. A. E. Boyle, M. Anderson. Oxford: Clarendon press, 1998. Pp. 177–197.Douglas-Scott, S. Environment Rights in the EU-Participatory Democracy or Democratic Defi cit? In: Human Rights Approaches to Environment protection. eds. A. E. Boyle, M. Anderson. Oxford: Clarendon press, 1998. Pp. 177–197.Dworkin R. A matter of principle. N. Y., 1986a.Dworkin, R. A matter of principle. N. Y., 1986.Dworkin R. Freedom’s law: The moral reading of the American constitution. N. Y., 1996.Dworkin, R. Freedom’s law: The moral reading of the American constitution. N. Y., 1996.Dworkin R. Law’s empire. Cambridge, 1986.Dworkin, R. Law’s empire. Cambridge, 1986.Dworkin R. Social rules and legal theory. The Yale Law Journal, 1972. Vol. 81. No. 5. Pp. 855–890.Dworkin, R. Social rules and legal theory. The Yale Law Journal, 1972. Vol. 81. No. 5. Pp. 855–890.Dworkin R. Taking rights seriously. Cambridge, 1977.Dworkin, R. Taking rights seriously. Cambridge, 1977.Dworkin R. The model of rules. University of Chicago Law Review, 1967. Vol. 35. Nо. 1. Article 3. Pp. 14–46.Dworkin, R. The model of rules. University of Chicago Law Review, 1967. Vol. 35. Nо. 1. Article 3. Pp. 14–46.Hart H. L. A. Concept of law. Second ed. N. Y., 1994.Hart, H. L. A. Concept of law. Second ed. N. Y., 1994.Hart H. L. A. The conce pt of law. Oxford, 1961.Hart, H. L. A. The concept of law. Oxford, 1961.Hershovitz S. The end of jurisprudence. Yale Law Journal, 2015. Vol. 124. Pp. 1160–1204.Hershovitz, S. The end of jurisprudence. Yale Law Journal, 2015. Vol. 124. Pp. 1160–1204.Leiter B. Beyond the Hart / Dworkin debate: The methodology problem in jurisprudence. American Journal of Jurisprudence, 2003. Vol. 48. Pp. 17–57.Leiter, B. Beyond the Hart / Dworkin debate: The methodology problem in jurisprudence. American Journal of Jurisprudence, 2003. Vol. 48. Pp. 17–57.Raz J. Legal principles and the limits of law. The Yale Law Journal, 1972. Vol. 81. No. 5. Pp. 823–854.Raz, J. Legal principles and the limits of law. The Yale Law Journal, 1972. Vol. 81. No. 5. Pp. 823–854.Shapiro J. S. Hart — Dworkin Debate: A short guide for the perplexed. Ronald Dworkin / A. Ripstein (ed.). Cambridge, 2007. Pp. 22–55.Shapiro, J. S. Hart — Dworkin Debate: A short guide for the perplexed. Ronald Dworkin / A. Ripstein (ed.). Cambridge, 2007. Pp. 22–55.Shelton D. Human Rights and the Environment: Jurisprudence of Human Rights Bodies / Joint UNEP-OHCHR Expert Seminar on Human Rights and the Environment, 14–16 January 2002. Background Paper. No. 2. University of Notre Dame. Geneva [Электронный ресурс]. URL: https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Issues/Environment/BP2_TBjurisprudence.pdf (дата обращения: 24.10.2023).Shelton, D. Human Rights and the Environment: Jurisprudence of Human Rights Bodies / Joint UNEP-OHCHR Expert Seminar on Human Rights and the Environment, 14–16 January 2002. Background Paper. No. 2. University of Notre Dame. Geneva [Электронный ресурс]. URL: https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Issues/Environment/BP2_TBjurisprudence.pdf (дата обращения: 24.10.2023).Stavropoulos N. The Debate that never was. Harvard Law Review. 2017. Vol. 130. No. 8. Pp. 2082–2095.Stavropoulos, N. The Debate that never was. Harvard Law Review. 2017. Vol. 130. No. 8. Pp. 2082–2095.Weiss E. B. Environmental change and international law: New challenges and dimensions / Ed. by E. B. Weiss. – Tokyo, 1992.Weiss, E. B. Environmental change and international law: New challenges and dimensions / Ed. by E. B. Weiss. – Tokyo, 1992.

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.