Working paper
The Concepts of Fundamental Laws and Constitution in the 18th Century Russia
The author of this article restarts the polemics around the realist theory of interpretation. Examining the thesis of this theory about identity of legal interpretation and jurisdictional decision-making, the author proves that confusion between these two different phenomena is based on incorrect use of the term “interpretation”. In the article are discussed six meanings of this term, at least present in legal interpretation, and each meaning must be used in the appropriate context. Undue confusion between these meanings enables the partisans of the realist theory of interpretation to construct “interpretation” as a notion without clear conceptual limits. This argument is designated by the author as an onomastic sophism, as a rhetoric stratagem based on the idea that a term has the same meaning in different contexts. The author repudiates the thesis forwarded by the realists that it is impossible to cognize meaning of legal texts, and draws on the incoherence of this argumentation which lastly recognizes a possibility to attribute a meaning through a judicial decision. In general, as O. Pfersmann argues, the realist theory of interpretation intends to justify changes in constitution through judicial argumentation without considering the order prescribed by the constitution for changes and amendments.
The article is devoted to the main constitutional principles of Russian social security law.
This publication contains materials of the scientific conference on "The constitutional theory and practice of public authorities: patterns and deviations", held in April 2015 at the initiative of the Department of Constitutional and Municipal Law at the Faculty of Moscow State University Lomonosov.
The publication is addressed to teachers, graduate students, applicants, students of universities, scientists - employees of legal academia. It is lso of interest to those working or studying in the faculties of political science, philosophy and sociology of education, for deputies and members of staff of representative bodies.
The article shows that the formula "multinational people" appears later in the Soviet Constitutions. The formula "the historically established state unity" appears in the text of the current Constitution combined with the formula "the universally recognized principles of equality and self-determination of peoples." "People" here appear in the plural, as if they are nationalities. But generally recognized principle of self-determination is the principle of the free approval of statehood as a territorial and political unity, the old principle of the nation, which finds its full realization is in the state. Thus, the current Constitution contains provisions that could potentially be no less explosive than the more specific provisions of the Soviet constitution on the right to secession.
In the domestic literature with increased attention to such issues as constitutional theory, the protection of individual rights and freedoms, form of the state, the status of head of state regulation of international relations can not find the proper coverage, many issues related to the referendum and its consequences. Meanwhile, a referendum (people's will) — the central institution of direct democracy, it is located at the intersection of law and policy, which makes it advisable to study based on a system-integrated method, which finds more and more widely used in law and political science.
The paper examines the principles for the supervision of financial conglomerates proposed by BCBS in the consultative document published in December 2011. Moreover, the article proposes a number of suggestions worked out by the authors within the HSE research team.