Правовое регулирование систем управления
In this article history of university periodicals is approached as a history of practices of state administration, self-regulation of university corporation, professional self-organization, and normalization of different aspects of the university life. Research for this article has been carried out in the archives of Moscow University and Kazan University, and in the manuscript divisions of these universities’ libraries, as well as in the Archive of the Ministry of Public Education. Documents preserved in these collections reveal intentions of the publishers and circumstances surrounding the appearance of various periodicals in the first half of the nineteenth century. Another group of historical sources analyzed in this article consists of publications in university periodicals themselves. The authors show how the state policies regulating the market of the university press, on the one hand, and initiatives of university professors, on the other, influenced the configuration of the corporation of the university faculty, its internal hierarchies and accepted criteria of academic excellence. The article seeks to answer the question how politics and content of university journalism stimulated academic competition and created reputations.
The article is devoted to historical continuity in the state governing. Issues of existing analogies in the process of forming of system and structure of executive bodies in Russia are considered. The special attention is given to a combination of branch and functional approaches to the organization of executive bodies at different historical stages. In the context of the presumption of "Ideally uniform government" questions of a parity of powers of monarch and ministers in the Russian empire and of the President and the ministries in the Russian Federation are mentioned.
In this article are discussed the limits of application of general theory of systems in legal science. The author criticizes utilization of the notion «systemacity» for description of how legal norms are organized and how legal phenomena are structured. In author’s opinion, the term «system» is charged with a multiplicity of meanings, so that in social sciences this term is sometimes applied for characterization of the fundamentally different phenomena and realities. That is why legal scientists shall be especially careful in using this term. In the Russian jurisprudence the term «system» is applied for both «social reality of law» and for a set of the norms belonging to the positive law of the country. This use is tautological and has no conceptual justification. The author proposes to use the term «legal order» only for description of a structured set of legal rules, reserving the use of «system» for characterization of law from the point of view of comparative jurisprudence, legal sociology and other sciences which examine the relations between the law and other sectors of social reality. Argumentation in favor of «systemacity» of law is theoretically based on philosophy of objectivism. It results in vain illusions about a capacity of norms to produce themselves a legal order which emerges automatically insomuch as law is a functional entity. But this «systemacity» is not given in (the) law a priori. Logical coherence and consistence of norms always remain relative, being the outcome of the purposeful activity of lawmakers, judges, legal scholars. It is naïve to suppose that rules can enter into the law and find their adequate position there without human intervention. Such understanding can lead to apology of irresponsibility of those who create redundant and inconsistent norms in the false hope that these norms will anyways find their place in the law grace to «systemacity» of this latter.