Autonomy of the will: evolution of juridical doctrine and legal norms

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Open Access Open Access
Restricted Access Access granted
Restricted Access Subscription Access

Abstract

In the article on the basis of statistical methods, the use of the term “autonomy of will” in judicial acts by the law enforcement officer is characterized. It is noted that the meaning of the relevant legal category is not sufficiently defined, which is the reason for its relatively rare (in comparison with “freedom of contract”) use in the texts of court rulings. Amendments made to civil legislation concerning decisions of assemblies, pre-contractual relations and the procedure for changing and terminating multilateral agreements are interpreted as the result of a change in the legal paradigm supported by a legislator. Deeply realized over the years of the functioning of the market economy, reinforced by data from related fields of scientific knowledge, the ability to regulate public relations in a decentralized manner by the will of many people has changed the ideas about the nature of the autonomy of participants in civil turnover, the nature of centralized regulation of public relations and the meaning of legal norms.

Full Text

Restricted Access

About the authors

Vladimir A. Boldyrev

North-Western Branch of the Russian State University of Justice

Author for correspondence.
Email: vabold@mail.ru

Doctor of Law, Associate Professor, Professor of the Civil Law Department

Russian Federation, Saint Petersburg

Vitaly A. Maksimov

St. Petersburg Law Institute (Branch) of the University of the Public Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation

Email: maximovva@mail.ru

PhD in Law, Associate Professor, Associate Professor of the Department of civil law disciplines

Russian Federation, St. Petersburg

References

  1. Antipov A. V. Autonomy of will and freedom of choice in T. Sasa’s antipsychiatric project // Philosophy and Society. 2018. No. 4 (89). P. 122 (in Russ.).
  2. Boldyrev V. A., Svarchevsky K. G. Collective and individual cognition in law enforcement activities // State and Law. 2022. No. 12. Pp. 139–144 (in Russ.).
  3. Boldyrev V. A., Svarchevsky K. G. Reference legal systems: how to predetermine the future by ordering the past // He-rald of the Tomsk State University. 2022. No. 482. P. 233 (in Russ.).
  4. Viner N. Cybernetics and Society. M., 2019 (in Russ.).
  5. Gilmullin A. R. The hypothesis of reasonable equality in freedom: the main provisions // State and Law. 2023. No. 1. P. 166 (in Russ.).
  6. Gruzdev V. V. Autonomous civil law regulation: abstract … Doctor of Law. Kursk, 2021 (in Russ.).
  7. Gruzdev V. V. The civil law principle of equality // Herald of the Tomsk State University. 2017. No. 418. P. 200 (in Russ.).
  8. Ershov V. V. Regulation of legal relations. M., 2020. P. 27 (in Russ.).
  9. Ovchinnikov S. N. The principle of freedom of contract and neurophysiology // International Journal of Humanities and Natural Sciences. 2021. No. 5–4 (56). Pp. 132–137 (in Russ.).
  10. Solovyanenko N. I. Problems of realization and protection of the rights of participants in economic relations in conditions of digital inequality // State and Law. 2023. No. 2. P. 189 (in Russ.).
  11. Bublitz Ch. What Is Wrong with Hungry Judges? A Case Study of Legal Implications of Cognitive Science. The Hague: Eleven, 2020. Pp. 1–30. Available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3741635 (accessed: 01.04.2023).
  12. Braudo-Bahat Ya. Towards a Relational Conceptualization of the Right to Personal Autonomy // Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law. 2018. Vol. 25. Iss. 2. P. 115.
  13. Christman J. Relational Autonomy, Liberal Individualism, and the Social Constitution of Selves. Philosophical Studies. 2004. Vol. 117. Pp. 112–143.
  14. Cohen-Almagor R. Between Autonomy and State Regulation: J. S. Mill’s Elastic Paternalism // Philosophy. 2012. Vol. 87. Iss. 04. Р. 558.
  15. Cvejic Jancic O. Privacy and Autonomy in Serbian Family Law // International Journal of the Jurisprudence of the Family. 2013. P. 13.
  16. Danziger Sh., Levav J., Avnaim-Pesso L. Extraneous Factors in Judicial Decisions // The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2011. Apr. 26. Vol. 108. No. 17. Pp. 6889–6892.
  17. Dworkin G. The Theory and Practice of Autonomy (Cambridge Studies in Philosophy). Cambridge University Press, 1988. P. 62.
  18. Nedelsky J. Law’s Relations. A Relational Theory of Self, Autonomy, and Law. Oxford University Press, 2013. P. 34.
  19. Sellers M. An Introduction to the Value of Autonomy in Law // Autonomy in the Law. Springer, 2008. Pp. 1–10.
  20. Sieckmann J.-R. The Logic of Autonomy: Law, Morality and Autonomous Reasoning (Law and Practical Reason). Hart Publishing, 2012.
  21. Sloman S. A., Patterson R., Barbey A. K. Cognitive Neuroscience Meets the Community of Knowledge // Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience. 2021. October. Vol. 15. Art. 675127. P. 11. doi: 10.3389/fnsys.2021.675127
  22. Therborn G. Ambiguous Ideals and Problematic Outcomes: Democracy, Civil Society, Human Rights, and Social Justice. Democracy Reality and Responsibility // The Proceedings of the Sixth Plenary Session of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences. 23–26 February 2000. Vatican City. P. 121.
  23. Wagner M. Non-State Actors. Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law // Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law, Rüdiger Wolfrum, ed., Oxford University Press, 2009. URL: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2661832 (accessed: 28.05.2023).

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
Download

Copyright (c) 2024 Russian Academy of Sciences