Следует ли повиноваться несправедливым законам? Моральный выбор в юриспруденции от Б.Н.Чичерина до современности

Российская юстиция. 2025. № 11. С. 14–25.

Medushevsky A. N.

Globalization has exacerbated the eternal conflict between law and ethics: should national laws be respected when they conflict with universal international principles of human rights; should the law-abiding attitude operate in the same way in democracies and authoritarian states, and calls for emancipation take into account the degree of internal freedom of society and its readiness to be free; what should be the attitude of the legal system to acts of disobedience to law and where to draw the line between legitimate and illegitimate acts of civil disobedience? All these questions arise in full force in view of the increasing legal uncertainty, forcing one to decide what a citizen should do if the law is unjust, unclear, or open to diff erent interpretations in society, if he receives convincing arguments both for and against compliance therewith, or if the question goes beyond the law and belongs to the range of political ones. This range of issues, traditionally the subject of moral philosophy, received particularly deep understanding in classical Russian philosophy of law, which was particularly sensitive to questions of morality, so that turning to it allows us to outline ways out of the acute social and legal conflicts of our time, outlining the contours of public law ethics of the future

Keywords: правовой нигилизм, legalism, freedom, public law ethics, legal nihilism, just and unjust laws, публично-правовая этика, справедливые и несправедливые законы, легализм, справедливость