@article {5809,
	title = {Law and Jurisprudence in the Face of Conflict. Between Neutrality and the Politica},
	journal = {Krytyka Prawa. Niezale{\.z}ne studia nad prawem},
	volume = {12},
	year = {2020},
	month = {11/2020},
	pages = {7-31},
	abstract = {In the article, I contrast the contemporary legal dogma with the challenges underlying the political nature of law and judicial practice. Both the Continental jurisprudence and the judicial decisions issued by European courts are dominated by the dogmatic current {\textendash} and treated as politically neutral acts. My intention is to carefully verify this quite common belief in this paper. Making use of H. Berman{\textquoteright}s views, I assume that the present shape of jurisprudence and the judicial practice based thereon have been established as a result of political conflicts and that the legal dogma is capable of neutralising and solving modern-day political conflicts precisely because of the qualities of the said shape. It is therefore both a political and an apolitical activity. But this paradox is only apparent. In its strive to keep its paradigm alive, the dogma should be flexible in reacting to the challenges occurring in its political environment. It can {\textendash} and should {\textendash} modify the {\textquotedblleft}buffer{\textquotedblright} of the theory upon which it is set in order to retain its core. In the article, I try to answer the question about the boundaries of the possible adaptation of jurisprudence and juridical practice with respect to claims raised by the domain of politics {\textendash} claims currently articulated as the strongest by the so-called critical theories of adjudication. The final part of the paper is an attempt {\textendash} based on the example of theses formulated in monograph
by R. Ma{\'n}ko, W stron{\k e} krytycznej filozofii orzekania {\textendash} to outline the said boundaries.},
	issn = {2080-1084},
	doi = {10.7206/kp.2080-1084.393}
}
