Interpretative strategies for resolving conflicts of legal principles

The article is dedicated to the study of methodological problems in resolving conflicts between legal principles in the context of the dominance of a value-oriented approach to the interpretation of normative legal acts. The subject of the research includes theoretical and practical aspects of applying interpretative strategies when competing legal principles of equal legal status collide. The aim of the study is to identify and systematize effective interpretative strategies developed by doctrine and judicial practice, contrasting with the prevailing value-oriented approach, which leads to a paradox in law enforcement: despite the proclaimed orientation towards values, courts often lack effective tools for harmonizing conflicting principles, resulting in an increase in judicial discretion and a decrease in the predictability of decisions made. The research analyzes both classical conflict rules (lex superior, lex specialis, lex posterior) and modern methodologies for resolving legal contradictions. The methodological foundation consists of comparative law, formal legal analysis, and critical analysis of the theories of R. Alexy, R. Dworkin, and J. Habermas. The empirical base is formed by a systematic analysis of 450 judicial decisions in cases concerning compensation for moral damage, which allowed for the identification of real practices for resolving conflicts. As a result of the study, terminological ambiguity and methodological inadequacy of R. Alexy's "balancing" theory of principles were revealed, leading to subjectivism and legal uncertainty in judicial practice. Critical analysis showed that this method lacks clear criteria for rationally justifying decisions in cases of competing principles. At the same time, the limited applicability of classical conflict rules (lex superior, lex specialis, lex posterior) to conflicts of principles was established due to their equal legal force and absence of hierarchy. Based on the systematic analysis of 450 judicial decisions, a stable hierarchical model for resolving conflicts has been unveiled, in which the principle of proportionality systematically limits the principle of full compensation for harm. The empirical analysis revealed a clear structure of priorities: the principle of the inevitability of state liability serves as the basic principle, the principle of legal certainty fulfills a procedural function, and the principle of proportionality dominates in determining the amounts of compensation for moral damage, acting as the main limiter of the plaintiff's financial claims.