Тема 2. Основные понятия о праве
This paper characterizes importance and the principal possibilities of application of the theory of normative systems to the problems of legal theory and of logic of norms.
In this article the author examines a recent turn in European legal history from the postwar consensus to European legal history in global perspective. He explains the two types of legal histories though the relevant ideological background and reviews the basic concepts. Also he evaluates the consequences of this turn for the inter-disciplinary interaction of legal historians with comparative law, anthropology, socio-legal studies, legal theory. Finally, he reviews the first results of the new approach, including the discovery of legal diversity and hybridity in European legal histories.
The author differs several approaches to law in classical eurasianism. These distinctions, on his opinion, are based on metalegal grounds – on «alleinheit» theory in the writings of L.P. Karsavin and on «phenomenological method» in the works of N.N. Alexeev
The article discusses a little-studied aspect of the history of the Russian émigré Eurasianist movement of the 1920s and 1930s: namely, an attempt to develop holistic “Eurasianist” jurisprudence. The task proved to be much more complex than merely applying Eurasianist ideology to the field of law, as the latter was not a single phenomenon, and had different institutional and especially conceptual dimensions. Eurasianists themselves differed in their approaches to law. These distinctions were based on metalegal grounds, whether in phenomenological sources of the works of Nikolai Alekseev, who argued for legal individualism, or alleinheit theory in the writings of Leo Karsavin, or positivist theory informing the approach by Nikolai Dunaev. Based on Eurasianists’ published works and unpublished archival materi- als, this article argues for the fundamentally contradictory legal views by members of the Eurasianist movement. These contradictions suggest that it was impossible to create a particular “Eurasianist” legal theory on the basis of their writings.
The author analyzes the features of the Russian law school, in particular, considering the difference in the interpretation of the "rule of law" and "law-bound state" concepts , the differences in lawyers mentality and circumstances of the experts selection process in competent state bodies.
As an example of the interpretation differences the author provides a detailed analyzes of the Russian Constitutional Court decision on the constitutionality of the treaty between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Crimea on the adoption of the Republic of Crimea to the Russian Federation and the formation of new subjects within the latter.
The paper examines the history and evolution of legal reforms in Russia, describes the basic principles and approaches to its formation, the development of certain institutions
The book consits of the articles on the history, theory and philosophy of comparative law in Ukrainian and Russian.