Interpretative Norms (the Main Theoretical Characteristic)

The attitude to the question of the possibility of the existence of interpretative norms in Soviet and modern Russian jurisprudence has always been ambiguous – from full support to complete denial. The article analyzes the existing approaches to the concept, signs and types of interpretative norms, and offers the author’s vision of the problem. In particular, the main quality that should be inherent in the interpretative norm and distinguishes it from other acts of interpretation is a fundamentally new provision with normative significance, which is the result of interpretative activity. The interrelation of interpretative norms and interpretative acts is shown. If such an act is the result of concretizing law-making or law-making interpretation, and these acts are normative, then their content forms interpretative norms. Attention is drawn to the fact that not every official interpretation creates an interpretative norm. It is emphasized that it is not necessary to absolutize the role of the court in the process of creating interpretative norms, belittling the importance of other subjects of interpretative activity. With regard to the types of interpretative norms, it is argued that the correctly chosen classification criterion and compliance with the principle of dichotomy make classification stable and in demand by both legal science and practice. Some of the existing classifications are analyzed. It is concluded that the problem of interpretative norms still represents an extensive field for general theoretical, sectoral and practice-oriented legal research. It is proposed to move away from the well-established cliche, according to which the interpretation of law, and therefore interpretative acts and interpretative norms, are auxiliary in the mechanism of legal regulation.