IMPORTANCE OF THE LEGAL DOCTRINE IN SYSTEMATIZATION OF THE US LEGISLATION

Nikolaev Boris Viktorovich, Candidate of historical sciences, associate professor, sub-department of legal disciplines, Penza State University (40 Krasnaya street, Penza, Russia), nikolboris@yandex.ru
Emelin Mikhail Yur'evich, Postgraduate student, Penza State University (40 Krasnaya street, Penza, Russia), nikolboris@yandex.ru

340.1:342.56(73)

Background. The American legal system includes features of the two dominant legal systems in each of which the legal doctrine has its place and is endowed with certain traits. Research of a role of the legal doctrine in the American law allows us to consider this legal phenomenon from different perspectives, identify features of the doctrine as a source of law. The research aim is to explore the major mechanisms and ways of influence of the legal doctrine on the American legislation and systematization of the U.S. law.
Materials and methods. Implementation of the research objectives was achieved by the analysis of the legislative process, the process of model codes development, activities of the American Law Institutions. The methodology includes the methods of comparative and historical analysis.
Results. The result of this study is to identify the main ways of influencing the legal doctrine on the U.S. legislation and systematization of the American law.
Conclusions. The role of the legal doctrine in the U.S. legal system has significantly expanded in comparison with the classical common law by participating in the legislative process and systematization of the law. Importance of the legal doctrine consists in creation of abstract statutory norms, generalization of the statutory law, drafting of model legislation and generalization norms of the statutory and case law.

legal doctrine, U.S. legislation, systematization of law. 

1. Marchenko M. N. Istochniki prava: ucheb. posobie [Sources of law: tutorial]. Moscow, 2008, 760 p.
2. Abolonin G. O. Vestnik grazhdanskogo protsessa [Bulletin of civil process]. 2013, no. 6, pp. 157–179.
3. Bogdanovskaya I. Yu. Zhurnal rossiyskogo prava [Journal of the Russian law]. 2006, no. 11, pp. 65–73.
4. Abolonin G. O. Grazhdanskoe protsessual'noe pravo SShA: monogr. [U.S. civil adjective law: monograph]. Moscow: Volters Kluver, 2010, 432 p.
5. Nikolaev B. V. Gosudarstvo, pravo i vysshee obrazovanie v SShA: monogr. [State, law and higher education in USA: monograph]. Penza: PGPU, 2008, 192.
6. Petrova E. A. Vestnik Yuzhno-Ural'skogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta [Bulletin of South-Ural State University]. Chelyabinsk: Izd-vo YuUrGU, 2012, no. 7 (266), iss. 29, pp. 25–28.
7. Sanford H. Kadish. 19 Rutgers L. J. 521 (1987). P. 521–538.
8. David R., Zhoffre-Spinozi K. Osnovnye pravovye sistemy sovremennosti [Basic modern legal systems]. Transl. from French by V. A. Tumanov. Moscow: Mezhdunar. otnosheniya, 1996, 400 p.
9. Adams Kristen D. 40 Ind. L. Rev. 205 (2007). P. 205–270.
10. Robinson Paul H., Dubber Markus D. New Criminal Law Review. Vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 319–34.