Book chapter
States, Bodies and Corona-Crisis: Sociological Notes to Pandemic
It is sociologically significant that the pandemic showed a widespread crisis of
the legal system, and at the same time, changes in the concepts of normal and
emergency situations. The system of international law was not ready for a pandemic,
although what was happening was global. Along with the crisis of international
law, the universal criteria of legality disappeared. It is the legality of
many measures in various countries that can be called into question, albeit some
of them were nearer to the ideal of procedural purity than other.
In book
The book represents the second release of the collection of articles published by faculty of the right of the Nizhny Novgorod branch of National research university "Higher School of Economics" and devoted to the retrospective analysis of interaction of the power and society. The big place is allocated for legal and historical and legal aspects of such interaction. The special attention is paid to history of public institutions and interaction of the power and society from antiquity prior to the beginning of the XX century. A number of problems of the Russian history of this period is considered on materials of the Nizhny Novgorod region. This book is dated for 70-year anniversary of the remarkable scientist, law historian, the famous in Russia bibliophile and the local historian – the doctor of jurisprudence, professor Yury Grigoryevich Galaya. The edition is addressed to the scientists, students, graduate students, teachers of higher education institutions all who are interested in matters of law and managements by history of state and law, study of local lore.
The article describes and analizes the issue of access to all potential legal sources in late imperial Russia as an important component of legality principle. The author investigates how local features of political and administrative culture and legal professionalism determined the specific practical application of this principle.
This book deals with the problem of method in the early modern civil sciences – from the Hermann Conring “statistics” to the Giambattista Vico's “new science”, from the Tacitean political art to the Thomas Hobbes' mathesis politica. The study is focused upon the birth of the political science out of the failure of the humanist ethics and traditional Aristotelianism, and the attempts to overcome the “discursive anarchy” (V. Kahn) in the political theory. The authors of the book demonstrate the ways the central events in the early modern intellectual history – the birth of the scientific fact and the principle of objectivity, the penetration of the mathematical apparatus in the humanities – influenced the Barock political thought, and analyze the pivotal categories of the modern politics – state of exception, reason of State, manipulation – are put forward.
This article is dedicated to analysis and estimations of a place of the subjective public rights in the mechanism of maintenance of a mode of legality. Article contains the author's vision and understanding of legality, the actual problems connected with its maintenance.
The vollume addresses the modern history of legality principle – central to all western legal systems. Contributions provide comparative look at various parts of the Western world, including Argentina, Finland, and Russia, in order to reveal the common path of legality principle development and its local variations.
This article is devoted to the Digest of the Laws of the Russian Empire – an embodiment of the operative legal system in late imperial Russia. Even though the Digest contained the law in force, and thus should be studied as a crucial source on Russian (legal) history, its meaning has been often overlooked. The reason for that is a remarkable difference between the original texts of laws adopted by the legislator, and their published form in the Digest. This difference came from the necessary editing procedures when every new piece of legislation was included in the existing system of the Digest. This strange feature of legal procedure when two different versions of a particular law – the original one and the one codified in the Digest – both remained in force should be considered as a part of official autocratic legality in late imperial Russia. Even though it may seem inefficient and irrational, the practice of obligatory codification of laws in the Digest existed for a rather long time – from 1835 until 1917. My research aims to find possible explanations for the Digest’s prolonged existence in the context of political and legal culture of late imperial Russia. What did Russian ‘official legality’ actually mean on the levels of theory and action?