Almanac of law. Issue 15 (2024), pages 164–169.

DOI: 10.33663/2524-017X-2024-15-164-169

Miroshnychenko M. I., Karpichkov V. O.
The terminological problem of rulemaking in the constitutional law of Ukraine (on the example of Article 6 of the Constitution of Ukraine

In the article, on the example of the prescription of Art. 6 of the Constitution of Ukraine raised the problem of terminological conflicts, which is one of the main defects of law-making activity in Ukraine. Emphasis is placed on the special importance of constitutional terms in rulemaking, first of all, at the stage of rulemaking due to the leading importance of constitutional law as the only fundamental branch in the legal system that exerts a systemic influence on the improvement of legislation, the legal system as a whole and lays the legal foundations for the development of a sovereign and independent, a democratic, social, legal state of Ukraine. It is emphasized that the high requirements for the semantic ambiguity of concepts imply the obligation of their scientific study. The principle of scientificity directs a careful study of the nature and content of the concepts used in the rule-making process in correlation with the requirement to observe their semantic compliance with the norms and rules of the Ukrainian language. According to the subject of the scientific analysis, the methodological basis was chosen — the natural legal doctrine with the principles of the rule of law and the distribution of powers. he analysis was carried out within the framework of correlation of the concept of checks and balances, developed on the basis of the idea of legal equality of legislative, executive and judicial powers, with the concept of historical and logical in law. It was concluded that in order to prevent or eliminate terminological and stylistic errors, it is necessary to carry out linguistic examinations of draft laws, to develop language recommendations for the correct use of legal terms and concepts. The Constitution is a source of fundamental terms. Therefore, already at the stage of normative design in constitutional law, key scientifically verified concepts should be defined, since a concept is a concentrated expression of a separate concept, and the practical level of implementation of a concept or theory with positive or negative consequences for society depends on its semantic ambiguity. On the example of the prescription of Art. 6 of the Constitution of Ukraine, a theoretical and methodological substantiation of the content and meaning of the concepts «separation of powers» and «distribution of power» was carried out on the basis of a comprehensive analysis of their nature and content, which made it possible to clarify the essence of the separation of powers as a political and legal doctrine and the essence of the distribution of power as a constitutional principle. The authors came to the conclusion that the concept of «separation of powers» means divided government by interests based on the idea of mixed governance with the aim of ensuring the general interest — political and civil peace in society. The term «separation of power» denotes a mechanism of checks and balances that ensures the stability of the constitutional system, prevents the usurpation of state power and the usurpation of the people’s exclusive right to determine and change the constitutional system in Ukraine. This mechanism is not aimed at taking into account the interests of certain strata, classes, groups or persons in power, but at ensuring a balanced and full-fledged performance by state bodies of their functions and powers within the framework of the legal law.

Key word: rulemaking, linguistic examination of bills, constitution, constitutional law, concept, theory, separation of powers, distribution of power, mechanism of checks and balances, mechanism of checks and balances.

References

1. Tsarova I. V. Teksty normatyvno-pravovykh aktiv: leksychni osoblyvosti: monohrafiia. Dnipro: Dnipropetr.
   derzh. un-t vnutr. sprav, 2022. 148 s.
2. Miroshnychenko M. I. Polityko-pravova doktryna podilu vlad i spivvidnoshennia poniat «podil vlad» i
   «rozpodil vlady» u teorii i praktytsi suchasnoho ukrainskoho konstytutsionalizmu. Problemy penitentsiarnoi
   teorii i praktyky: Shchorichnyi biuleten Kyivskoho instytutu vnutrishnikh sprav / Redkol.: V. M. Synov (holov.
   red.) ta in. Kyiv: KIVS, «MP Lesia», 2002. S. 224–233.
3. Miroshnychenko M. I. Konstytutsiina reforma v Ukraini: problema teoretychnoho zabezpechennia. Aktualni
   problemy konstytutsiinoho prava ta derzhavotvorennia: Zb. nauk. pr. / za zah. red. V. M. Oluika. Khmelnytskyi:
   Vyd-vo Khmelnytskoho universytetu upravlinnia ta prava, 2008. S. 91–95.
4. Kataloh yurydychnykh pozytsii Konstytutsiinoho Sudu Ukrainy (za rishenniamy i vysnovkamy) / 3. Osnovy
   konstytutsiinoho ladu. Zahalni pryntsypy/ 3.8. Podil vlady na zakonodavchu, vykonavchu, sudovu. URL:
   https://ccu.gov.ua/storinka-knygy/38-podil-vlady-na-zakonodavchu-vykonavchu-sudovu (data zvernennia
   21.02.2024)
5. Deklaratsiia pro derzhavnyi suverenitet Ukrainy. Zakony Ukrainy. Kyiv: Pravovi dzherela, 1996. T. 1. S. 5–9.
6. Konstytutsiia Ukrainy: Pryiniata na piatii sesii Verkhovnoi Rady Ukrainy 28 chervnia 1996 r. Kyiv: Presa
   Ukrainy, 1997. URL: https://www.president.gov.ua/documents/constitution (data zvernennia 22.02.2024)
7. Miroshnychenko M. I., Miroshnychenko V. I. Istoriia vchen pro derzhavu i pravo. Navchalnyi posibnyk. Kyiv:
   Atika, 2007. 224 s.
8. Dzhordzh H. Sebain, Tomas L. Torson. Istoriia politychnoi dumky / per. z anhl. Kyiv: Osnovy, 1997. 838 s.
9. Karri D. Konstytutsiia Spoluchenykh Shtativ Ameryky: Posibnyk dlia vsikh / per. z anhl. Kyiv: Veselka, 1993.
   260 s.
10. Usenko I. Problema ukrainskoi pravnychoi terminolohii u svitli istorychnoho dosvidu. Pravova systema
    Ukrainy: teoriia i praktyka. Tezy dopovidei i naukovykh povidomlen naukovo-praktychnoi konferentsii (Kyiv,
    7–8 zhovtnia 1993 roku). Kyiv, 1993. S. 97–100.
11. Slovnyk ukrainskoi movy: v 11 t. / AN URSR. Instytut movoznavstva / za red. I. K. Bilodida. Kyiv: Naukova
    dumka, 1970–1980.

Maria Ivanivna Miroshnychenko,
Professor of the Department of Theory and History of Law and State
Teaching and Scientific Institute of Law
of Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv,
Doctor of Law, Professor
ORCID: 0000-0001-8142-9340
Vitaly Oleksandrovych Karpichkov,
Associate Professor of the Department of Theory and History of Law and State
Teaching and Scientific Institute of Law
of Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv,
Candidate of Law, Associate Professor
ORCID: 0000-0001-8529-1246