Title of the article

Problems of terminology in biolaw

 Authors 

Ekaterina S. Tretyakova — Doctor of Law, Associate Professor, Professor of the Department of Civil and Business Law, Perm branch of National Research University “Higher School of Economics”, 38 Studencheskaya street, Perm, 614070, Russia, etretyakova@hse.ru

 Category 

THEORETICAL AND HISTORICAL LEGAL SCIENCES

Year,.Volume, Number 

2023, Vol. 11, № 3 (43)

 Pages 

59-68

 Article type 

Original article

 Index UDK 

34

 DOI 

10.21685/2307-9525-2023-11-3-6

 Abstract 

Background. In connection with the advancing biotechnologies, bioethics has been developing extremely actively in recent years. However, bioethics does not manage to effectively regulate various relations included in this sphere, and therefore, there is a need to develop biolaw. As a result, problems have arisen related not only to the theoretical and legal justification of the new legal concept, the definition of principles and substantive principles of regulation, but also very acute issues related to terminology, in connection with which this study is devoted to defining the main problems of terminology in biolaw, their characteristics, analyzing and proposing possible solutions, including in the context of the existing theoretical and legal discourse in terms of terminology studies. Materials and methods. The study is implemented on the basis of an analysis of the international documents, regulatory legal acts, provisions of bioethics and biolaw, as well as the foundations of the theory of state and law. The methodology draws on the established tools of the general theory of state and law, as well as specific legal sciences. The author adheres to the principle of pluralism, the dialectical method of cognition, which is directly related to the principle of development, is used to study the problems. The study is conducted using the general scientific and specific scientific methods, scientific methods of legal science (formal legal analysis in the context of various modifications of legal positivism), textual approach, which through hermeneutics allows identifying relevant legal ideas, formulating existing doctrinal, normative and law-enforcement problems, as well as comparative legal method. Results. The article deals with the problems of terminology in biolaw as a new, emerging sphere of legal regulation. The examples of terminological problems are characterized and analyzed from the viewpoint of naming the relevant legal concept, considering somatic (personal) rights as a key category of biolaw, exploring the formation of concepts in certain areas. A theoretical and legal analysis of the existing problems is carried out and the possible solutions are proposed. Conclusions. The study finds that there are serious problems in terminology of biolaw, starting with the name of this area of legal regulation, which creates the need for detailed elaboration of terminology in this area. Thus, special attention should be paid to unifying, harmonizing and overcoming gaps in legal regulation. In addition, the author considers it expedient to develop and publish a handbook based on the doctrinal elaboration of the relevant concepts, which can form a basis for further, including law-making, activity.

 Keywords 

terminology in biolaw, biolaw, somatic (personal) rights, cloning, medical experiments on humans, theoretical problems of terminology

The study was conducted within the project “Mirror Laboratories” of Perm branch of National Research University “Higher School of Economics” and University of Tyumen devoted to the topic “Current aspects of studying human rights in the context of bioethics”.

 Download PDF

References

1. Krylatova I.Yu. Importance of the Constitutional Category of Personal Dignity in Bioethics and Biomedicine. Aktualnye problemy rossiyskogo prava = Current Problems of Russian Law. 2022;17(10):46–53. (In Russ.). doi: 10.17803/1994-1471.2022.143.10.046-053
2. Umnova-Konyukhova I.A., Aleshkova I.A. Biolaw as a Branch of Law of the New Generation. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Pravo = Bulletin of Tomsk State University. Law. 2021;(41):98–118. (In Russ.). doi: 10.17223/22253513/41/9
3. Romanovskiy G.B. Problems of the Formation of Medical Law. Sotsialno-politicheskie nauki = Social and Political Sciences. 2012;(3):75–77. (In Russ.)
4. Sergeev Yu.D. Bio-Medical Law of Russia. Meditsinskoe parvo = Medical Law. 2006;(4):3–4. (In Russ.)
5. Kravets I.A. Russian Public Law and Biolaw in Search o Bioethical Well-Being: Ethical and Legal Aspects in the Process of Constitutionalization. Nauchnye trudy. Rossiyskaya akademiya yuridicheskikh nauk: sb. st. = Scientific Works. Russian Academy of Legal Sciences: Collection of Articles. Moscow: Yurist. 2023;23:147–158. (In Russ.)
6. Tokarczyk R. Connections of biojurisprudence with other currents of jurisprudence. Studia Iuridica Lublinensia. 2012;17:37–63. (In Russ.). Available at: https://www.bazhum.muzhp.pl/media/files/Studia_Iuridica_Lublinensia/Studia_Iuridica_Lublinensia-r2012-t17/Studia_Iuridica_Lublinensia-r2012-t17-s37-63/Studia_Iuridica_Lublinensia-r2012-t17-s37-63.pdf
7. Kravets I.A. Bioneuroconstitutionalism and Dignity: Theoretical Foundations, Dialogue of Ethical and Legal Requirements and Prospects for Interaction (Part II). Zhurnal rossiyskogo prava = Journal of Russian Law. 2022;26(6):5–31. (In Russ.). doi: 10.12737/jrl.2022.059
8. Kruss V.I. Personal (“Somatic”) Human Rights in Constitutional and Philosophical-Legal Dimensions: Towards the Formulation of the Problem. Gosudarstvo i parvo = State and Law. 2000;(10):43–50. (In Russ.)
9. Nesterova E.M. On Legal Nature and Essence of Personal Human Rights. Vestnik Tambovskogo universiteta. Seriya: Gumanitarnye nauki = Bulletin of Tambov University. Series: Humanities. 2015;(8):71–77. (In Russ.)
10. Starovoytova O.E. Legal Mechanism for Implementing and Protecting Somatic Human and Citizen Rights in the Russian Federation: Historical, Legal and Theoretical Analysis. DSc dissertation. Saint Petersburg, 2006:453. (In Russ.)
11. Turyanskiy Yu.I. Somatichni prava lyudini v suchasniy doktrini konstitutsionalizmu: teoretiko-pravove doslidzhennya. DSc abstract. L'viv, 2020:482.
12. Istamova-Fayzullaeva D.O. Inson ҳuқuқlari tizimida somatik ҳuқuқlar: nazariy-ҳuқuқiy taҳlil. Ekonomika i sotsium = Economy and Society. 2022;(4–1):593–596.
13. Abashidze A.A., Solntsev A.M. New Generation of Human Rights: Somatic Rights. Moskovskiy zhurnal mezhdunarodnogo prava = Moscow Journal of International Law. 2009;(1):69–82. (In Russ.)
14. Potseluev E.L., Danilova E.S. Concept and Types of Personal (Somatic) Human Rights. Nauka. Obshchestvo. Gosudarstvo = Science. Society. State. 2015;3(1):124–133. (In Russ.)
15. Krylatova I.Yu. On Somatic and Bioethical Dignity of an Individual. Konstitutsionnoe i munitsipalnoe parvo = Constitutional and Municipal Law. 2022;(12):22–25. (In Russ.). doi: 10.18572/1812-3767-2022-12-22-25
16. Kravets I.A. Bioethical Vectors of Dignity and Cultural Diversity in Constitutional and International Biolaw: Prospects for Constitutionalizing Security and Achieving Bioethical Well-Being. Konstitutsionnoe i munitsipalnoe parvo = Constitutional and Municipal Law. 2023;(1):7–17. (In Russ.). doi: 10.18572/1812-3767-2023-1-7-17
17. Bolatbekova L.A. Legal Aspects of Human Cloning. Nauchnye trudy YuKGU im. M. Auezova = Scientific works of M. Auezov South Kazakhstan University. 2015;(4):179–182. (In Russ.)
18. Besedkina N.I. Constitutional and Legal Protection of Rights of the Unborn Child in the Russian Federation. PhD dissertation. Moscow, 2005:203. (In Russ.)
19. Fomina L.Yu. Unification of Normative Legal Terminology. PhD dissertation. Saransk, 2006:187. (In Russ.)

For citation

Tretyakova E.S. Problems of terminology in biolaw. Elektronnyy nauchnyy zhurnal "Nauka. Obshchestvo. Gosudarstvo" = Electronic scientific journal "Science. Society. State". 2023;11(3):59–68. (In Russ.). doi: 10.21685/2307-9525-2023-11-3-6