Gorban Vladimir
One of the fundamental challenges in delimiting the scope of philosophy – and especially the philosophy of law – lies in the constraints imposed by its own intellectual tradition and the potential for developing new conceptual frameworks for meaning-making. The future evolution of legal philosophy, as well as the broader theoretical foundations of legal knowledge, largely depends on the capacity to understand the dynamic nature of rationality and to critically analyze the alterity of diverse legal cultures. Claims to universality and rationality within the European tradition of legal philosophy deserve skepticism; while it may articulate its own presuppositions, it cannot serve as an absolute justificatory framework, nor can it assume the role of a demiurge. Categorical and logical frameworks vary significantly across different intellectual traditions, manifesting in historically and culturally specific modes of reasoning. In the domain of political and legal historiography, this function becomes instrumental in exposing conceptual fault lines – revealing and critically reassessing false, distorted and falsified trajectories of meaningmaking. Simultaneously, legal historiography serves as a vital tool for uncovering the historical and cultural dimensions embedded in varied semantic logic. Finally, non-semiotic approaches to language – given their intrinsic connection to semantic formation in law – emerge as methodologically promising for legal scholarship.
Keywords: semantic analysis; the boundaries of the philosophy of law; the otherness of legal culture; the history of political and legal thought; legal historiography; philosophy of law; language and logic of legal meanings
Malikov Sergey
,
Chuchaev Aleksandr
This article extends the study of the historical and comparative trend in Russian criminal law doctrine2, with two principal objectives: 1) to reintroduce the scholarly contributions of 19th century legal thinkers into scientific discourse, and 2) to elucidate the defining characteristics of the theoretical legacy left by several key figures in Russian diachronic comparative legal studies – including both scholars and judicial practitioners – alongside the historical-comparative methodologies they developed for analyzing legal sources. The study aims to trace the evolution of the historical-comparative approach within Russian criminal law theory, highlighting the significance of the 19th century compilations of legislative acts, legal customs and judicial practice, as fundamental elements of diachronic comparative legal research. The article provides concise biographical sketches and examines the criminal law perspectives of prominent comparative scholars like A.N. Popov, N.D. Ivanishev, N.I. Lange, Ya.I. Barshev, A.M. Bogdanovsky, V.A. Linovsky, E.S. Tobin and N.V. Kalachov. Their work is distinguished by its reliance on original Russian and foreign legal documents and legal sources. Our key findings include: 1) The 19th century saw the historical-comparative study of Russian criminal law develop along two trajectories: a) the systematic examination and classification by lineage and content; b) the compilation, publication and scholarly refinement of legal source material – i.e. statutes, customs, and judicial precedents – as a normative framework for diachronic comparison. 2) Alexander N. Popov pioneered the systematic classification of Russkaya Pravda (lit. Rus’ Truth) provisions based on their subject matter, demonstrating the connection between its penal norms and the pre-existing system of monetary sanctions. 3) Nikolai D. Ivanishev was the first in Russian criminal law scholarship to trace the roots of the Slavic tradition in diachronic comparative studies revealing the essence of Slavic legal thought; 4) Nikolai I. Lange’s works reflect the general conceptual provisions of the Savigny school with the historical-comparative jurisprudence of Russian criminal law. His analyses advance substantive debates on the origins and nature of the Russkaya Pravda, while also introducing the concept of a person subject to law, particularly the victim of offences against honor and dignity. 5) Yakov I. Barshev addressed criminal law issues only once at the ceremonial meeting of Moscow University, yet his speech included a cogent argument for employing the historical-comparative method in criminal legal scholarship. 6) Alexander M. Bogdanovsky conceptualized punishment as both physical suffering and moral deprivation, framing it as a necessary and rational consequence of crime – a form of retributive justice aimed at upholding legal and ethical order; 7) Vladimir A. Linovsky underscored the indigenous origins of the Sobornoye Ulozheniye (lit. Council Code of 1649), which became the cornerstone of the 17th century Russian legislation. 8) Ewald S. Tobin proposed an initiative periodization of criminal legislation, while Nikolai V. Kalachov developed a comprehensive methodology for a juridical sources analysis, establishing principles for textual and grammatical interpretation of criminal statutes.
Keywords: historical school of law; historical school of Russian criminal law; historicalcomparative approach; Alexander N. Popov; Nikolai D. Ivanishev; Nikolai I. Lange; Yakov I. Barshev; Alexander M. Bogdanovsky; Vladimir A. Linovsky; Ewald S. Tobin; Nikolai V. Kalachov; scholarly legacy; contemporary diachronic comparative studies
Balakaev Viktor
In contemporary international law, states’ efforts to protect historically rooted societal values – often termed “traditional values” – are understandable, representing a response to the increasing universalization of legal standards. While some states perceive these trends as a threat to national interests and hybrid security, justifiable or not, they continue to employ diverse mechanisms to protect their interests, traditional values, and national identity – sometimes at the expense of fulfilling international obligations. A notable manifestation of this tension is a state’s refusal to implement an international court decision that conflicts with its national constitution. Since these mechanisms operate within a dialogical international legal framework, international bodies respond to their use – sometimes more sharply, sometimes more cautiously. To maintain their roles as active participants in global governance, states must refine their approaches to reconciling national imperatives with international legal commitments, avoiding direct confrontation. This study examines how international bodies react when states introduce “traditional values” – as well as societal morality and ethics – within international legal discourse. The analysis traces these reactions on both political and jurisdictional levels. At the political level, it explores the evolution of the concept of traditional values in the UN Human Rights Council debates and legal response to treaty reservations grounded in such values. At the jurisdictional level, it analyzes how the concept of traditional values appears in practice, particularly in international proceedings. This research examines three cases considered by UN human rights treaty bodies where parties invoked value-based arguments. Findings indicate that such arguments currently lack substantive influence on outcomes, not due to inherent weakness, but because of inconsistent methodological framing by states. The author identifies specific reasons for the skepticism of political and quasi-judicial international bodies towards these claims. Ultimately, this research offers insights for refining the invocation of traditional values and moral arguments in international legal practice, thereby strengthening the protection of national interests.
Keywords: human rights; international human rights law; Human Rights Council; Human Rights Committee; Committee on the Rights of the Child; reasoning and argumentation; reasoning in international court; traditional values; morality and ethics
Vasilev Anton
,
Pechatnova Yulia
The article presents a critical analysis of the status of human rights as a self-sufficient scientific theory. Given that human rights primarily constitute a political and ideological construct emerging from a specific European historical context, the question arises as to whether rational scientific foundations underpin the broader framework of human rights ideas. The study addresses the historiographical challenge of constructing reliable and verifiable politico-legal knowledge by examining a complex of factors behind the conception, evolutionary development, and semantic content of human rights discourse. The authors provide extensive arguments highlighting the theoretical and methodological vulnerabilities in applying this framework. Key critiques include the tension between civilizational pluralism, and the clash of universal versus local values, leading to sociocultural barriers in adopting the Eurocentric human rights model; the misuse of human rights as a tool for political pressure; the bourgeois undertones of the concept, primarily tied to the defense of private property. Despite these criticisms, the authors acknowledge the positive contributions of human rights theory in fostering the humanization of European political and legal thought, and its enduring practical relevance. However, they emphasize the need for its reconceptualization through a civilizational lens. The article pays particular attention to the distinctiveness of the Russian human rights tradition, rooted in the principles of solidarity, collective rights protection, national-cultural dialogue, and the balance between rights and duties, - contrasting with Western economized legal paradigms. The conclusion underscores the necessity of advancing human rights discourse in alignment with of socio-cultural diversity and unique civilizational experiences.
Keywords: human rights; ideologization of law; civilizational approach; historiography; philosophy of law
Chekharina Valentina
In recent years, the conceptual foundations of European “culture of remembrance” have undergone significant re-examination. While an orientation toward the past and the cultivation of a collective historical consciousness are acknowledged as its defining features, this paradigm is overwhelmed with complexities. Historical memory is tasked with a functional role, making it not merely an object of European Union memory policy, but also a source of contemporary threats and challenges. Consequently, the effective governance of historical memory through regulatory mechanisms has become imperative to forge a unified legal landscape for the “Europeanization of remembrance” and the formation of a pan-European identity. This article analyzes the challenges inherent in legally regulating the European “culture of remembrance” against those consolidated efforts to manage historical memory within the framework of common European values. Over the past two decades, the legal management of historical memory across Europe has grown exponentially. Its trajectory, however, is neither linear nor harmonious – mirroring instead tensions at the national level – particularly following the accession of postcommunist states in 2004, where national identity is often instrumentalized for revisionist interpretations of the past. Furthermore, the EU’s principal requirement to uphold the rule of law has introduced novel contradictions into the region’s mnemonic governance. The paradigm of memory management in Western Europe has been predominantly shaped by the Holocaust as a foundational European narrative, which in turn structures all rationale behind legal regulation. Although the mnemonic legal framework continues to reflect this traditional, Holocaust-centric approach – exemplified by German remembrance culture – it faces growing critique from various political forces advocating for more pluralistic and diversified memorial approaches. Particular attention is paid to a specific regulatory mechanism of memory laws (memorial laws) as a typical form of legal intervention in European states. These laws, which aim to criminalize interpretations of specific historical events, frequently incite “memory wars”, generating scholarly disputes and political disagreements. In this context, memorial legislation, “memory wars”, and the European “culture of remembrance” are inevitably interconnected, constituting integral parts of a larger mnemonic system. Ultimately, the policy of legally regulating and legitimizing the European “culture of remembrance” reflects the political struggle for the monopoly to define a singular, authoritative narrative of the past. This narrative is subsequently imposed upon social and cultural spaces by influential political institutions. This process forms part of the European broader response to contemporary civilizational challenges and an attempt to create a unified, continent-wide civilizational identity.
Keywords: European culture of remembrance; legal regulation of the European memory culture; the Holocaust; Europeanization of the culture of remembrance; historical memory; collective memory; memory wars; memorial laws
Konopiy Anna
The article critically examines key issues in Chinese historiography, with a specific focus on political and legal thought. This inquiry is motivated by a persistent lacunae in the scholarship on Chinese political and legal history. Although existing research has produced a substantial corpus, Russian academia remains underdeveloped in this domain – and primarily due to uncritical application of Eurocentric methodologies, which fail to adequately capture the nuances of traditional Chinese political and legal philosophy. This study establishes that proper interpretation requires: 1) situating analysis within China’s unique cultural and historical matrix; 2) accounting for the diversity of classical Chinese texts and genre conventions; 3) understanding indigenous historiographical methods; and 4) decoding the distinct conceptual and categorical apparatus of Chinese jurisprudence, with its aphoristic style and metaphorical density. Crucially, all analysis must contend with the linguistically embedded particularities of classical Chinese discourse.
Keywords: historiography; Chinese historiography; political and legal thought; philosophy of law; Confucianism; legalism
