Відповідність приписів ст. 66 і ч. 1 ст. 68 Конституції України теорії реалізації норм права: аргументи за і проти

Abstract

Проаналізовано положення ст. 66 і ч. 1 ст. 68 Конституції України на предмет їх відповідності постулатам теорії реалізації норм права. Наведено аргументи на підтвердження некоректності формулювання законодавцем приписів цих норм, а також запропоновано їх нову редакцію, що узгоджується з теорією реалізації норм права.

Проанализированы положения ст. 66. и ч. 1 ст. 68 Конституции Украины на предмет их соответствия постулатам теории реализации норм права. Приведены аргументы в подтверждение некорректности формулирования законодателем предписаний этих норм, а также предложена их новая редакция, согласующаяся с теорией реализации норм права. Учитывая необходимость корректировки нормативно-правовых предписаний, закреплённых в ст. 66. и ч. 1 ст. 68 Конституции Украины, предложено внести в них изменения и дополнения, изложив ее в следующей редакции: «Статья 66. Причинение вреда природе и культурному наследию запрещено. Каждый, в случае причинения такого вреда, обязан возместить причинённые убытки.»; «Статья 68. Каждый обязан неукоснительно выполнять обязанности, возложенные на него Конституцией Украины и законами Украины. Посягательство на права и свободы, честь и достоинство других людей запрещено. Незнание законов не освобождает от юридической ответственности».

While processing this paper the author put an aim to evaluate pros and cons concerning accordance of the normative and legal breves of the art. 66 and p. 1 of the art. 68 of the Constitution of Ukraine with the generally known in domestic legal doctrine provision of the theory of legal norms implementation and also to prepare suggestions as to amending these articles of the main law of our state. The analysis of the following definitions of the general and theoretical categories as «legal norms implementation», «legal norms use», «legal norms fulfillment» and «legal norms abidance» allows the author to distinguish general functional regularity that is a connection objectively existing between different by their breves’ character legal norms, forms of their direct implementation and varieties of lawful behavior of subjects by the character of their act. This regularity may be reflected as the following judgments: 1) authorizing legal norms that fix subjective legal rights, are put into practice in the form of the use by a person of his/her possibilities by means of his/her active lawful behavior (activity); 2) binding legal norms, entrusting a person with an obligation, are put into practice in the form of fulfillment by him/her subjective legal obligations by means of active lawful behavior (activity); 3) forbidding legal norms containing prohibitions are put into practice by a person in the form of their abidance by means of passive lawful behavior (inaction). Considering these theoretical provisions the author came to the following conclusion: judgments of Rabinovich as to that that any forbidding norm can be formulated as a binding norm and contrariwise any legal duty may be reformulated as a prohibition and also the conclusion of the scientist as to spreading of the commented breve not only to forbidding but also to binding legal norms witnesses about at least insufficient technical and legal perfection of normative and legal breves, fixed in art. 66 and p. 1 of art. 68 of the Constitution of Ukraine and also about the necessity to correct them basing on aforementioned provisions of the theory of legal norms implementation. With this aim the following changes and amendments to articles 66 and 68 of the Constitution of Ukraine are suggested: “Article 66. Infliction of harm to nature and cultural heritage is prohibited. Each person in case of infliction harm to nature or cultural heritage must repay inflicted harm”; “Article 68. Everyone must fulfill duties, entrusted by the Constitution of Ukraine and laws of Ukraine. Encroachment on rights and freedoms, honor and dignity of other people is prohibited. Ignorance of laws does not release from legal liability”.