Law interpretative reasoning in constitutional judiciary of Ukraine (theoretical aspects)

The relevance of the study is due to the fact that legal argumentation in the judgements of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine is frequently criticized as weak and poorly reasoned. A goal of this article is to suggest a general theoretical view of legal reasoning in constitutional interpretation of law in Ukrainian context. The authors believe it can help to solve the current task of improving law interpretative reasoning. To achieve this goal, a number of conceptual approaches, as well as general scientific and special methods, were used, in particular: dialectical approach, general theoretical approach, method of general theoretical analysis, method of legislation analysis, method of analysis and reconstruction of argumentative practice in the official interpretation of law in Ukraine, logical operations of generalization, abstraction, and formalization. The features of interpretative reasoning were revealed with regard to the official interpretation of law by the Constitutional Court of Ukraine. Law interpretative arguing is considered as a discourse activity, which is carried out by certain tools that ensure the application of methods of legal interpretation. Arguing at various stages of legal interpretation is analysed. The practical value of this article consists in the attempt to outline directions for improving argumentative practice in the official interpretation of law in Ukraine. The Constitutional Court of Ukraine should use a wider range of tools to ensure persuasive force of its law interpretative argumentation.

dialogical character of law interpretative arguing (reasoning), law interpretative argumentation, instruments (tools) of law interpretive argumentation, stages of legal interpretation, rules of law interpretive arguing.