Law

The given article is an attempt to view the policy of development of rule-of-law state in Russia from the point of view of functional system. The author achieves the goal through analysis of various concepts within system approach.

Introduction. The approach to substantiating legal genesis through social theory suggested by J. Habermas was further developed in the works of A. Honnet, the representative of the later Frankfurt school. His proposed version of the theory of subjectivity led to a rethinking of the concept of freedom, in which the limits of legal freedom are defined in a new way. Theoretical analysis. The concept of recognition developed by Honnet expands the understanding of intersubjective interaction and its social and legal effects. The autonomy of the subject is revised towards recognition, which means that the degree of autonomous behavior depends on the social environment and the success of the individual’s intersubjective strategies in it. Socialization is a process in which a person learns to understand and recognize not only others, but also himself / herself, trusting them and relying on them. In a world where the concrete Self is devalued and rejected by others, the Self is deprived of the strength to assert itself and self-esteem. This model is diametrically opposed to the liberal doctrine based on the idea of an atomicisolated individual. Еmpirical analysis. The author considers the concept of freedom put forward by Honnet and establishes that legal freedom is only one of its elements, unable to independently ensure the realization of social freedom. Results. The concept of Honnet clearly fixes the place and role of legal freedom in ensuring social freedom. On the one hand, it contributes to strengthening the humanistic principles of modern legal understanding, turning it towards social solidarity. On the other hand, the statement of the force of law that is binding on intersubjective institutions opens up new research perspectives for the analysis of legal reality.

Introduction. The Russian Federation is in constant search for new mechanisms to improve the efficiency of the state migration policy. At the same time, the liberalization of migration legislation was chosen as the main vector of transformations, while unconditionally ensuring public safety and observance of national interests. “Loyalty agreement” is a novelty designed to try out the state, public and individual interests of the subjects of migration relations. Theoretical analysis. The legal nature of the institution of “loyalty agreement” is being analyzed. The international functioning of similar institutions is investigated in order to make a conclusion on the possibility of its implementation in the Russian legal reality. Result. The author reached the conclusion about the auxiliary nature of the institution of “loyalty agreement”. It is proposed to consider the “loyalty agreement” as a kind of public “offer” – the proposal of the Russian Federation to enter its territory and stay on the territory provided that the essential conditions for compliance with the law are met. It is noted that, along with the «loyalty agreement», it is necessary to consolidate the institutional conditions for “immigration supervision”, mechanisms for ensuring the special immigration status of “controlled stay” in a single regulatory legal act.

Introduction. At present, an obvious scientific interest in the Soviet historical experience of constructing political institutions and organizing public administration is growing. In this context, there is an urgent need to compare and identify the generic qualities of people’s control in the USSR and public control in the Russian Federation, to clarify the general and specific patterns of their development, to conduct a comparative analysis of the ideological, conceptual, regulatory, legal, and organizational and institutional characteristics of the phenomena under consideration. Theoretical analysis. People’s control in the USSR and public control in the Russian Federation have a lot in common, especially in the context of assessing their social nature and essence. Theoretically, both phenomena characterize the content of the democratic foundations of the constitutional system and are considered the most important guarantee and condition for the implementation of democracy in a political system of a certain type. The authors also single out separate content aspects that characterize the authenticity of both types of control, which are manifested to a greater extent in their essential definition and intended purpose. Public control is an integral feature and, at the same time, a function of civil society - the sphere of self-organization and activity of free citizens and their associations. The theoretical and methodological configuration of people’s control was based on considering it as an auxiliary control function for the state, not of society, but of the people as a political community of all citizens of the USSR. Empirical analysis. It was revealed that people’s control in the USSR and public control in the Russian Federation are characterized by a high degree of legal regulation. The authors highlight the main differences of both types of control. These differences are of an organizational and institutional nature and refer to features of the subject-object composition, forms and results of activities. Results. The retrospective study of the genesis of public control and the practical implementation of the conceptual paradigm at the present stage of the development of the Russian Federation allows us to defi ne it as the result of the institutional historical succession of the forms of democracy that developed during the Soviet period of the functioning of the national political system.