Organizational Paradigm of Legal Realism in the Context of Advanced Approaches to Systematization of Legal Values

Introduction. In the context of contemporary scientific research, the theory and practice of legal realism encounter criticism, which focuses on the shortcomings of this approach: non-systemic and inconsistent provisions, analytics naivety, lack of well-structured methodology, etc. This causes doubts in the objectivity of this research paradigm that contributes to the development of legal theory and practice from epistemological, socio legal, and cultural perspectives. The relevance of the problem justifies the aim of the present study, i.e. conducting a system analysis of the possibilities to organise and update the paradigm principles of legal realism striving to strengthen the interdisciplinary interaction of legal practices and socio-political environment.
Materials and Methods. A comparative analysis of different variants of legal realism was performed. A paradigm approach made it possible to reveal the methodological principles and dynamics of legal realism development, and identify the poorly studied areas. By means of modeling, it was possible to reconstruct the legal tools used for understanding the socio-political legal realities.
Results. It has been proved that classical legal realism and its modern branches have a number of disputable aspects, that should be overcome to enable modernization of philosophical and legal content of theory and practice. During legal reforms, the most efficient solution is the integration of the classical and modern legal realism principles into a single organizational paradigm that incorporates the methods of digital sociology, legal psychology, and political ideology and meets the requirements of contemporary Russian society.
Discussion and Conclusion. The obtained results have confirmed the practical efficiency, functionality, and consequentialism of the efforts for legal realism modernization. The development of an empirical research program that would coordinate the work of lawyers, sociologists, and politicians using the current digital technologies, could be promising for further research.

1. Tonkov E, Tonkov D. Russian Legal Realism: Basics (IVR 2024, Special Workshop 055). In: Proceedings of the XXXI World Congress of the International Association for Philosophy of Law and Social Philosophy Evolution of Russian Legal Realism in Theory and Practice: Imperial, Soviet and Modern. Seoul: Soongsil University; 2024. 21 p.

2. Guseva V.Yu. Psychological Concept of Law of L.I. Petrazhitsky. Legal Science. 2016;(6):15–20. (In Russ.)

3. Curtis М. Realism Revisited: Reaffirming the Centrality of the New Deal in Realist Jurisprudence. Yale Journal of Law & the Humanities. 2015;27:157–200.

4. Leeuw FL. American Legal Realism: Research Programme and Policy Impact. Methodology of Legal Research. Utrecht Law Review. 2017;13(3):28–40. https://doi.org/10.18352/ulr.412

5. Shapsugov DYu. Legal Realism as an Ongoing Normative Communication of People and a Kind of Legal Thinking. Reflections on Legal Reality. North Caucasus Legal Vestnik. 2023;(2):7–16. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.22394/2074-7306-2023-1-2-7-16

6. Zagoruiko KF. 2009. 03. 007. Miles TJ, Sunstein CR. The New Legal Realism. University of Сhicago Law Review. 2008;75(2):831–851. Social Sciences and Humanities. Domestic and Foreign Literature. Series 4. State and Law. 2009;(3):27–31. (In Russ.)

7. Didikin AB. Rule-Following and Legal Language: Arguments of Realism and Antirealism. Izvestia. Ural Federal University Journal. Series 3. Social Sciences. 2015:(4(146)):66–72. (In Russ.)

8. Leiter B. Legal Realisms, Old and New. Valparaiso University Law Review. 2013;47:949–963.

9. O’Hear MM. Restorative Justice: Dangers of the Big Tent. Criminal law conversations. In: Robinson PH et al. (Eds.). Marquette Law School Legal Studies. Paper No. 09–28. 2009. URL: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1444961 (accessed: 01.04.2026

10. Chemerinsky E, Fisk C. In Defense of the Big Tent: The Importance of Recognizing the Many Audiences for Legal Scholarship. Tulsa Law Journal. 1999;34(4):667–678.

11. Meshcheryakova NN. Methodology for Cognition of Digital Society. Digital Sociology. 2020;3(2):17–26. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.26425/2658-347X-2020-2-17-26

12. Miles TJ, Sunstein CR. The New Legal Realism. University of Сhicago Law Review. 2008;75(2):831–851.

13. Mertz E, Macaulay S, Mitchel TW (Eds.). The New Legal Realism: Translating Law-and-Society for Today's Legal Practice. Vol.1. Cambridge University Press; 2016. 303 p. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107762336

14. Andreeva IA. Interdisciplinarity in Modern Legal Science: Bases, Forms, Functions. Vestnik of Voronezh Institute of the Ministry of the Interior of Russia. 2024;(4):157–163. (In Russ.)

15. Gorban VS, Gruzdev VS. About the Realism of Legal Realism. Law and Politics. 2023;(10):24–37. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.7256/2454-0706.2023.10.68817