On the Applicability of Legal-Dogmatic Methods to Resolving Conflicts of Principles

In modern legal science, a gap has formed between the traditional dogmatic method of conflict resolution, used in resolving most normative conflicts and the concept of weighing or balancing legal principles, which has become widespread in the theory of constitutional law. The problem lies in the lack of clarity of the correlation between the two methods and the boundaries of their application.

The aim of the study is to overcome the methodological gap between the traditional method of resolving normative conflicts and the method of weighing, placing the theory of clash of principles within the framework of the general theory of normative conflicts.

The main methods used in the paper are the general scientific methods of deduction, analysis, synthesis, abstraction, determination and comparison. The general scientific method of measurement is also discussed to formulate a general conclusion.

The article compares the traditional method of resolving normative conflicts based on conflict rules and harmonization of the content of colliding norms, the method of categorization (another method of resolving conflicts of principles identified in the scientific literature) and the method of weighing principles. There are two versions of the latter. The first one considers “weighing” as a strict and mathematically precise measurement procedure, and the second one considers “weighting” as a certain metaphor that cannot be strictly formalized. Using the example of the famous R. Alexy’s weight formula, the main problem of the strict concept of weighing – Incommensurability of the compared principles in the scientific sense – Is shown, and the main counterarguments of the proponents of this approach are critically analyzed. The non-strict concept of weighing, along with categorization, are included in the general framework of the traditional method of conflict resolution as elements of interpretive harmonization of conflicting norms.