Malikov Sergey
, Chuchaev Aleksandr
This article, which serves as a continuation of the work The Historical School of Law: Reflection of Ideas in Russian Criminal Law (Part One)2, is motivated by two key imperatives. First, it seeks to address gaps in the history of criminal law scholarship caused by its fragmentation and the exclusion of certain schools of thought – particularly the historical school of criminal law in Russia – from academic discourse. Second, it aims to reintroduce the works of 18th century legal scholars who laid the foundations of law, and criminal law in particular. Such reintegration will enable a more profound understanding of contemporary criminal law theory, its philosophical roots, and the unique national characteristics of Russian legal doctrine. The study aims to trace the emergence of the historical-comparative approach in Russian criminal law theory as a component of the Russian historical school of criminal law – itself shaped by Friedrich Carl von Savigny’s historical school of law. It further seeks to identify key contributors to this approach, examine their scholarly legacy, and demonstrate its enduring relevance today. The article provides brief biographical details of the forerunner of the historical-comparative direction in the Russian historical school of criminal law and characterizes the criminallegal views of Alexey Ya. Polenov and the founder of diachronic comparative law, Semyon E. Desnitsky, as well as Imperial Kharkov University professors Ilya F. Timkovsky and Capiton Ph. Mikhalovsky. Their works not only reflect the ideas of these scholars but also advanced them further in both theoretical and applied dimensions. The study’s key conclusions are as follows: 1) The historical-comparative direction in Russian criminal law is distinguished by its unique conceptual foundations. Emerging from Savigny’s school, it incorporated both Russia’s established traditions of historical legal studies and the scholarly legacy of Polenov and, especially, Desnitsky. 2) Polenov, convinced that each nation’s law is a unique one, shaped by diverse circumstances, advocated for examining foreign legal systems. However, he firmly opposed the direct transplantation of alien legal elements into Russian law. 3) Desnitsky, a polymath scholar, developed methodology of comparative jurisprudence, he approached history as the study of legal institutions across nations in their development to “uncover the laws of their evolution”. His progressive criminallegal ideas on individual criminal behavior, jus puniendi, differentiated legal responsibility, equality before criminal law, penal justice, capital punishment, remain relevant to this day. 4) Limited in volume, the scholarly contributions of Timkovsky and Mikhalovsky within the historical-comparative doctrine of criminal law are no less significant. They attest to the continuity of Desnitsky’s school and its influence on the formation and development of the historical-comparative direction in Russian criminal-legal thought.
Keywords: historical school of law; historical school of Russian criminal law; historical-comparative approach; Alexey Ya. Polenov; Semyon E. Desnitsky; Ilya F. Timkovsky; Capiton Ph. Mikhalovsky; scholarly legacy; contemporary diachronic comparative studies
Korsakov Konstantin
The study undertakes an examination of the philosophical and legal conceptions on criminal punishment as articulated by eminent philosophers and jurists from Antiquity through the zenith of German idealism. Employing historical-comparative, retrospective and analytical approaches, it traces the evolution of penal theories within their respective socio-political and intellectual environments. The analysis emphasizes the emergence of sophisticated philosophical reflections on the purpose, objectives and essence of criminal punishment in ancient Greek pre-Socratic thought, contextualizing them within mythological worldviews and prevailing ethical paradigms of the time. Particular emphasis is placed on the seminal contributions of Plato and Aristotle, whose doctrines have exerted enduring influence upon subsequent philosophical discourse and legislative praxis. The study elucidates the attribution of foundational status to Plato by proponents of both classical penological traditions and scientific positivism. Furthermore, it delineates distinctive features of medieval penological doctrines as formulated by representatives of patristics, scholastic and Thomistic schools. It also highlights the progressive ideas on criminal punishment introduced during Enlightenment and the early Modern period by notable educators, encyclopedists, utopian thinkers and pioneers of scientific utilitarianism. A critical analysis of the penal theories formulated by German classical philosophers – namely Immanuel Kant, Georg W. F. Hegel and Johann G. Fichte – is presented, with particular attention to refuting those prevailing interpretations that erroneously associate their absolute theories with the lex talionis or view them as philosophical justification for archaic retributive principles. In conclusion the article contends that, notwithstanding their historical origins, the absolute theories of punishment retain significant relevance in contemporary theoretical debates. Amid intensified controversies surrounding the dichotomy of absolute and utilitarian principles, as well as the intentions and components of criminal punishment, these theories provide robust logical frameworks that continue to inform and challenge prevailing penological paradigms.
Keywords: criminal punishment; philosophy of punishment; penology; theories of punishment; essence of punishment; grounds of criminal punishment; purposes of criminal punishment; absolute concepts of punishment; utilitarian concepts of punishment
Vinogradova Elena
, Rattur Maria
The state structure, political regime, and form of government, collectively determine the organizational and functional foundations of state power. Studying their legal nature remains a research imperative with enduring scholarly significance. The evolution of territorial state organization is contextually shaped by the development of constitutional-legal doctrines that define the modern political and legal order. Constructing a historiographic framework for political-legal knowledge facilitates a refined analysis of the principles underlying state formation, in particular, legitimism – an institution seldom examined in legal scholarship. Addressing this gap predetermines several key tasks, including the redefinition of chronological parameters and the identification of influential figures in politicallegal thought, both domestic and international. Utilizing rigorously verified sources – previously inaccessible for systematic study – this research reveals previously overlooked dimensions of Russia's impact on global political and legal processes. Certain aspects of this influence stem from the principle of legitimism, manifest in various constitutional and legal institutions. Consequently, examining the interplay between legitimism and constitutionalism yields significant scholarly results. This study employs a retrospective analysis of Swiss statehood formation in the early 19th century, to scrutinize the principle of legitimism. It explores Switzerland’s constitutional development, with particular attention to Russia's role. The study indicates that key features of Switzerland's state-legal identity – its confederate structure and direct democracy – were preserved under Alexander I of Russia’s influence, while armed neutrality emerged through a Russian-proposed resolution. The contemporary relevance of comparing Swiss and Russian constitutional provisions arises from broader global transformations in political and legal models of statehood, exemplified by the 2020 amendments to the Constitution of the Russian Federation, and the imperative of their legitimization. As states reassess the interplay between domestic and foreign policy, research of this nature assumes heightened relevance and scholarly importance.
Keywords: statehood; federation; confederation; Switzerland; historiographic analysis; identity; Congress of Vienna; Russian Empire; legitimism
Filippova Natalya
, Kolos Yana
The article examines the legal aspects of institutionalizing public associations established with the participation of the Russian state, analyzing their legal nature, and role in the relationship between the state and the “third sector”. It examines the historical development of Russian legislation in this field, its unique national characteristics, and recent regulatory changes. The study summarizes the practical aspects of registering such associations in the Ministry of Justice’s Public Associations Registry, including state involvement in their formation and activities, such as initiation, establishment, governance representation, and support measures. A comparative analysis of legislation and enforcement practices across post-Soviet republics identifies three approaches to institutionalizing state-involved associations: 1) prohibiting state participation in their creation (The Republic of Kazakhstan); 2) integrating them into state-structures as form of non-profit organization (The Republic of Belarus); 3) maintaining their public association status while allowing state participation in their formation and goal-setting (The Russian Federation). The article also examines debates in Russian legal scholarship regarding the legal nature of state-affiliated public associations. The authors argue for the necessity of a federal law systematically regulating their unique legal status. They propose that such associations’ mobilizing function – distinguishing them from both traditional public associations and socially oriented non-profits – should be central to future legislation. Adopting such a law could resolve inconsistences in their registration and classification within the Registry of Public Associations.
Keywords: public authority system; public associations; non-profit organizations; public associations with state involvement; public-state associations; state-public associations