PROBLEMS OF STRUCTURING THE METHODOLOGY OF SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE OF LAW

Abstract

This article focuses on the current state of national jurisprudence, which is characterized by a growing interest in the methodological problems of scientific inquiry. Today, in the field of scientific research into legal reality, a clear trend has emerged toward an active re-examination of its methodological foundations. However, the state of development regarding the methodological problems of national jurisprudence still lags behind urgent needs and has significant shortcomings. In particular, methodological uncertainty and terminological diversity continue to spread, which does not contribute to the effectiveness of scientific inquiry, the depth of its penetration into the essence of the phenomena and processes under study, and generally only complicates the understanding of methodology.

This article is devoted to the problems of structuring the methodology of modern jurisprudence, with particular attention focused on the lack of a unified standardization of the methodological foundation. An analysis of contemporary approaches to structuring the methodology of legal science reveals a lack of consensus regarding the number of its levels. Alongside the three-level model (philosophical, general-scientific, and specialized-legal), a four-level classification is used, which additionally distinguishes private-scientific (concrete-scientific, separate-scientific) methods. The existence of the private-scientific level of methodology is justified as logically necessary, rather than artificially created. Particular attention is paid to the term “private-scientific methods,” which became established in Ukrainian academic discourse in the second half of the 20th century, but in the post-Soviet pe