<<
>>

§ 3. A problem of "imaginary constitutionalism» and feature of domestic politiko-legal thought of second half XIX - The XX-th century beginnings

After the edition of Organic laws of 1906 to a new political mode of imperial Russia from German scientific M.Vebera's easy hand the label of "imaginary constitutionalism» was pasted. [621 [622] this term for that moment of time any more was not new, and F.Lassalem (if to be exact he spoke about lzhe-constitutionalism) who used it for the characteristic of a political mode of France during Napoleon's epoch III has been entered into a scientific and political lexicon still. However, at it this term had no negative sounding. Existence of such phenomenon as lzhe-constitutionalism was for it only the certificate of that in modern economic and political conditions of the European states the reason thanks to which management without the constitutional forms is more impossible is covered. And, according to known Russian lawyer R.A.Romashova, already French «the Charter of 1814 has accurately formulated for the first time a number of key parametres of imaginary constitutionalism: The monarch as the real head of the state, centre of all authorities and the guarantor of the constitution; substitution of original separation of powers by their fictitious and purely functional division; anarchy of legislature; full dependence of the executive authority (government) on the monarch and absence of the valid control over it from national representations (parliament); dependence of the judicial authority ». [623]

In what the essence of the given phenomenon consists? By definition of academician O.E.Kutafina, the imaginary constitutionalism is such theory and practice of constitutionalism which «differs instability, reference possibility back, obvious probability of transition constitutional by origin and political terminology of phenomena in the contrast - authoritarianism». [624] it is represented, that at such definition we cannot understand, why probably such distortion of principles of constitutionalism. And the most important thing - whether is practice of constitutionalism or it is the imitation pursuing other unconstitutional aims.

Other authoritative researcher of the Russian

Constitutionalism of second half XIX - the beginnings of the XX-th century of A.N.Medushevsky believes, that «the imaginary constitutionalism is some hybrid of new (konstitutsionno-legal) political forms and the old (absoljutisko-monarchic) political maintenance». [625 [626] [627] Main historical feature of the mnimo-constitutional type of board, according to A.N.Medushevsky, is that «the constitution here - not the tool of the social control, and means of legitimation of traditional carriers of the power, on the sample of strengthened already democratic modes». The Russian variant of constitutional monarchy after 1906 is from the point of view of A.N.Medushevsky, a typical example of "imaginary constitutionalism». Its characteristic line is that «political and legal forms of the West European monarchic constitutionalism have been used here for legitimation especially traditsionalistskogo institute - autocracies». In this case on the foreground at studying of a phenomenon interesting us there is a politological aspect of this practice, namely use by dominating elite of institutes of a constitutional law for legitimation of the domination. However thus absolutely there is aside a legal aspect of the given problem which essence it is possible to express as follows: what features of the constitutional sense of justice allow traditional dominating elite to use its institutes in the purposes.

Besides, remains not clear, as probably mechanical connection of the new form and the old maintenance.

From this point of view, I.A.Kravets's opinion which, opposing M.Veberu and A.N.Medushevsky, noticed is of interest, that it «follows return prospect of development of constitutionalism when growth and rooting of the constitutional establishments and sense of justice, as consequence of all-round development of the constitutional ideas and experience of the constitutional practice, is the unique variant of transition from imaginary constitutionalism to original». [628] it is difficult to disagree With this abstract thesis. However thereupon there is already quite concrete question: and who should promote such rooting of archetypes of the constitutional sense of justice? It is obvious, that by itself it does not occur. One example of organic development of the constitutional ideas and institutes is known only is England. And even in this case has not done without execution of the main symbol of traditional sense of justice of king Charles I in 1649. Therefore to proclaim ideas of peace and gradual development of constitutionalism out of concrete (sociological - in respect of a parity of forces and interests; politological - in respect of features of behaviour of various political subjects; and the most important - legal - from the point of view of dominating values of sense of justice and dominating pravoprimenitelnoj experts) the situation analysis in Russia means the XX-th century beginnings to be engaged not in a science, and to become on a certain political position.

In our opinion, legal research of the given problem also allows to understand a phenomenon interesting us correctly. The imaginary constitutionalism can be defined as such decision of the constitutional question at which, on the one hand, in organic laws the rights and freedom of citizens are proclaimed, and even the cores the constitutional public authorities under the form, and, on the other hand, the people right, and also its representatives in a legislature are formed, not provided by any real (legal) guarantee and by that, are reduced to a minimum. Therefore legal ostensibility (or pritvornost) constitutionalism is result of loan of certain legal institutions without implementatsii values of the constitutional sense of justice in a fabric of social being and government system. From the political point of view, here again A.N. Medushevsky the rights, the lzhe-constitutionalism is not that other as attempt of dominating elite of the Old mode, using achievement of a science of a constitutional law, to extend the stay at the power at the expense of filling of the constitutional institutes by archetypes traditional (in our case - autocratic) sense of justice.

As we have shown above, the Russian constitutionalism in the specific kind has appeared on historical arena as a consequence of the unsuccessful decision the Russian dominating elite of the constitutional question in the seventies XIX centuries. The Russian jurists of that time, carrying out the reception of archetypes of the constitutional sense of justice, as a rule, in the German or French interpretation, have been forced to lead ideological struggle against several serious opponents. In - the first, with representatives of traditional autocratic sense of justice who in the Russian conditions of that time were also carriers of bureaucratic legal culture. For them the emperor All-Russia was the demiurge of all machinery of government, it was set by its will in motion. All state life as though was under construction from top to down: from the autocrat through bureaucratic hierarchy downwards to the organisation of forms of a national life. It turned out, that the power creates and directs (educates) a society. At such approach a unique problem was only that the autocrat did not have not enough direct contact to the people that it is better to know and satisfy its daily requirements and interests. The national representation as the state body for them was related to an officialdom which also would interfere with intimate affinity of the monarch and the people-bogonostsa. As a last resort, they supposed only consultative functions at the national representatives selected from zemstvoes and estates of the earth Russian on principles of the imperative mandate.

The legal nihilism (as underside etatizma autocracies) was the second serious opponent. An extreme conclusion from this theoretical parcel is the anarchism which calls for full liquidation of the state as organizujushchego institute of a national life. But, unfortunately, the society without institutsionalizirovannogo managements in the form of public authority bodies is exposed to disintegration. Also it is connected not only with level of consciousness of separate citizens, but also with a division of labour without which it is impossible mnogotsvetie and development of such historical essence as the people. Representatives of this direction completely denied positive social value of the right, saw in it only the tool for people oppression by imperial officials. They considered as a unique social regulator morals, and model for the permission of all social problems - the mechanisms of self-control developed in a neighbour's country community. Accent on generality of morals and negation of the rights of citizens (and at the same time and their duties) deprived of carriers of legal nihilists of any respect for advantage of the human person. In a case annigiljatsii the authorities as it has occurred after February, 1917, it, on the one hand, led to anarchy revelry when in general there was no legal order, and with another - activity of the irresponsible persons listening only to an internal voice of the morals, promoted creation of atmosphere of fear in a society and melancholy on a firm master's hand.

But the third opponent - socialism and its radical version - communism has appeared the most dangerous. From archetypes of autocratic sense of justice it borrowed an axiom of passivity of the people and has inherited belief that only by means of an officialdom it is possible to force to spin a history wheel in the necessary direction and the necessary rate. Also that only through imposing by the reasonable and educated minority (party) of the will the unreasonable and passive majority can go on a progress way. In other words, a structuring element of the state life for it was the power understood as organised violence. From legal nihilists he has inherited neglect the right as in the peace way of social self-control. For it the right was only means (or accessible to understanding subject language) registrations of imperious commands.

All these three directions also converged that they know national interests and expectations is better, than the people. But negation of generality of moral standards was feature of socialist sense of justice. It substituted abstract moral categorical imperatives for dispersion etosov various social groups, filling moral standards the so-called class maintenance. Losing and citizens of universal criterion of an estimation of behaviour of elite (and also sense of laws or other regulatory legal acts), the socialist sense of justice had only one means for maintenance of social discipline and only one method of the government - continuous spiritual and physical violence over the country population.

In these conditions the Russian constitutionalists considered necessary to protect idea of the right in its rationalistic version of "natural death". As model of a state system they have put forward idea of the constitutional state to which features carried presence of body of national representation, separation of powers and a recognition of natural civil and political human rights. The national representation was thought by them as the body selected the people on principles equal, secret, general and direct vote which should carry out functions of legislature and to be as that a core of all government. The government, rukovodimomu the head of the constitutional state, should posess the power of management realised on the basis and within the limits of laws. A guarantee of protection of the rights of citizens and podzakonnosti managements would be the independent court. The recognition and maintenance of the rights and freedom of citizens would guarantee the liability for control of all authorities of the constitutional state to the people, and would be pledge of that the government was carried out in interests of the people. However, not looking that the given type of the Russian sense of justice, apparently, has gone through the moment of the celebration when as a result of the permission of the second constitutional question in 1905 there was a first Russian constitution, nevertheless, it has sustained defeat in October, 1917.

Already in the middle of 1905 V.M.Gessen established statement of a new constitutional question in Russian empire: «the Moral authority of bureaucracy, the right of creative force of modern Russia, is lost by it irrevocably and for ever. It is lost by it in disgraceful war with Japan and even more disgraceful hozjajnichanii in Russia. Bureaucracy domination leans only against force of lashes and bayonets». [629] It understood also the imperial government. Therefore against deployment of the first Russian revolution the autocracy has made from self-preservation attempt samoreformirovatsja. From the end of 1905 Russia has entered the new period of the history of the state and the right which was characterised sinkretizmom the constitutional and autocratic ideas in state law.

Documents 1905 - 1907, oktroirovannye the tsar in general have insignificantly changed the politiko-legal device of the Russian state. As has shown our analysis of the text of Organic laws of 1906 and critical remarks in its address of leading Russian jurists of that time, the first Russian constitution as a matter of fact staged introduction during a life of the state of main principles of constitutionalism. As the known American historian R.Uortman in this occasion has fairly noticed: « The Russian emperors saw the main interest in keeping, by all means the right to grant from above general welfare. It involved their persistent unwillingness to renounce at least a small part of autocratic prerogatives ». [630] In our opinion, Organic laws of 1906 can be qualified as original codification of archetypes of autocratic sense of justice by means of the certain legal technics. All institutions which contained in Organic laws of 1892, such as the autocratic power of the head of the state, distinktsija the Supreme and subordinated management, it is extremely-ukaznoe right not on the basis of the law, and at the discretion of the government and the head of the state, have been kept in edition of 1906.

As we have specified above, the basic archetype of autocratic sense of justice was the understanding of the head of the state as Supreme, sovereign and unlimited monarch. It embodied unity of the government, independence of other social and political actors in the person both in the country, and behind its limits. It also assumed, that such head of the state possesses the constituent power in the constitutional sense of this word, that is only has the right also possibility to solve about a question, both on the form of state, and on ways of realisation of the government in Russia. For this reason, despite the promise of the Manifesto from October, 17th, 1905, that no law will be accepted any more without the State Duma consent, Nikolay II has counted itself has the right to accept new Organic laws of 1906, Establishment of the State Council and the State Duma, and also to define budgetary rules and the time rules regulating realisation of some civil and political rights of citizens.

Limitlessness of the power of the head of the state also amplified full aversion autocratic sense of justice of a principle of separation of powers. As it was the unique founder of the state so far as all public authorities it is necessary followed from its will (it gave them legitimacy) and as a matter of fact they were only the form of delegation by it of the powers to other establishments and persons. In spite of the fact that in organic laws was the State Duma and the State Council as a legislature are provided, their basic function consisted in assistance in acceptance of laws to the head of the state, that is assistance to the autocratic monarch in legislative work. It is obvious, that behind it stood two ideas: (1) concession to the extended constitutional ideas about body of national representation as necessary attribute of the modern civilised state (the German empire under the Constitution of 1871 was the most close and clear example of that); And (2) desire through formal understanding of the law as the regulatory legal act accepted by body of national representation and approved by the head of the state to provide realisation of an ideal of legality of autocracy. The last had important for autocratic sense of justice doktrinalnoe value as allowed to take away from the head of the state of charge in an arbitrariness. The formal understanding of the law, institutsionalizirovannoe in establishment G ossoveta and G osdumy, should issue a unification of the tsar and the people legally.

Instead of a principle of division of the power and mutual restriction of its branches in the state the Russian autocratic sense of justice approved distinktsiju the Supreme and subordinated management. According to this archetype, the Head of the state is the unique carrier of the Supreme power, that is has the right to operate the state personally. However, as purely technically it is inconvenient, therefore he creates the whole system of the state bodies. A part of these bodies directly promote the head of the state in performance of functions of management. For example, the State Council and the State Duma participated in legislative process, but only in certain subjects, and still approved by strict rules the budget prepared by the government. The ministerial council supervised

The ministries and departments, prepared and introduced bills, and if necessary offered introduction of state of emergency. Military and Naval Councils promoted the Head of the state in a management of military building and in execution of function of the Supreme leader of army and fleet. And Pravitelstvujushchy the Senate in which the emperor presided, carried out justice. Other state bodies were allocated with the head of the state, on the basis of the law or the decree, a certain discretionary power on the limited circle of questions and on the basis of it concerned sphere of the subordinated management. Supervision of such public authorities carried out

Pravitelstvujushchy the Senate, and direct management of them - ministers and corresponding to them on a rank officials.

It is obvious, that distinktsija the Supreme and subordinated management did not assume any restriction of the power of the monarch. Besides, at such approach to approve, that Organic laws of 1906 provided creation of a separate legislature, in our opinion, it is impossible. Actually instead of a two-chamber legislature of national representation two legislative assemblies equal in rights - the State Council and the State Duma, with rather limited powers in lawmaking sphere have been created. As a matter of fact, the legislative leadership was in hands Supreme and the executive authority. Usual for the constitutional sense of justice law distinction as the regulatory legal act accepted by body of national representation and the decree as subordinate legislation normativnopravovogo of the certificate of the executive authority, in this case could not be realised completely as some questions of the Supreme management have been excluded from terms of reference of a legislature, for example, questions of military building or so-called Establishment of an imperial surname which were regulated by decrees. The constituent power was concretised in manifestos in which the imperial will simply appeared. Besides, by decrees could be regulated and public relations in an extreme order though they and could be carried to the competence of a legislature. Besides deputies of the State Duma and members of the State Council had very insignificant powers in the field of the control over the executive authority. The right of inquiries to ministers had character unessential to last. Budgetary process has been constructed in such a manner that national representatives had no possibility really to influence formation and budget distribution, and in the field of the control over its execution they as a matter of fact only approved actually made State expenditure. Also it has not been provided in the first «the Russian constitution» any mechanisms of impeachment of ministers (for example, through resignation of the separate minister or all government as a whole). And deputies of the State Duma and the selected members of the State Council had rather limited inviolability.

Further. Actually behind national representation the emperor and its environment, following archetypes of autocratic sense of justice, did not recognise any independent value. And in case of the slightest disobedience the State Duma was dismissed, simultaneously even changed ukaznym rather the selective legislation. So occurred until the Russian dominating elite of that time did not manage to generate the obedient and operated State Duma, the truth only by this moment days of autocracy were are already considered. Speaking to legal language, the balance at separation of powers in the first Russian constitution has been seriously displaced in favour of the power executive and heads of the state.

It was shown not only in legislation sphere when the legislative leadership was at the Sovereign and its ministers, and some spheres of legal regulation - the army and fleet structure, state of emergency - has been withdrawn from the competence of body of national representation. Archetypes of autocratic sense of justice have found the fastening and in government sphere (absence of mechanisms of responsibility of the executive authority before legislature, possibility of a country government on the basis of extreme decrees, nekontroliruemost budgetary process); and in sphere of judicial protection (absence of mechanisms of judicial protection of subjective public laws of citizens, giving of civilians to military court). On last aspect has paid special attention still I.A.Kravets. He considered, that the most essential lack of a question on the rights and personal freedoms was their insufficient garantirovannost. It is a question of possibility to protect to everyone the rights, infringement by officials both in civil-law, and in criminally-legal order. Besides administrative arrest, thanks to continuing to operate to "states of emergency", was at that time an everyday occurrence. [631 [632] other researcher of the Russian constitutionalism thereupon underlines the following: « Positions of any constitution, despite its direct action, require that the step to fastening and development of the constitutional norms in corresponding acts of the country has been made. In development of positions of the eighth chapter of the Basic State Laws in edition of 1906 about the rights and freedom of the Russian citizens special laws should be accepted. But the power before February revolution, was guided accepted directly by the Emperor in 1905 and 1906, that is before coming into force of the Basic state laws, nominal decrees ». Besides, according to I.A.Kravets,« Organic laws of 1906 contained [implicitly - Century of Century K] some norms of the feudal law, so, for example, in them

There was no principle of equality of all citizens before the law. During realisation of Organic laws of 1906 of their position were often broken by the monarch, the government, and it is frequent also the deputy case. The rights and freedom fixed in their norms, but not provided with the special legislation, were regulated by "time rules» ». [633 [634]

However, from the point of view of autocratic sense of justice, all was logical and lawful, as the Russian monarch granted the civil and political rights to the citizens, instead of recognised them as natural and integral. Oktroirovannyj character of human rights, of course, did not assume, that this gift can be withdrawn. But the donator in case of wrong, in his opinion, usings the granted rights could them or limit (as it occurred, for example, in case of warships and management realisation in an extreme order) or to change an order of their realisation (as it happens with order of election of deputies of the State Duma in June, 1907). From same weakness of body of national representation resulted also: it represented only citizens of the autocratic monarch which has founded the State Duma for assistance to in legislative process. People's sovereignty negation, as is known, directly leads to weakness of legislature.

According to modern Russian researcher L.Baltovskogo, «... Symbiotic existence of republican parliamentarism and« false constitutionalism »autocracies became the main result of the first Russian revolution: new political norms could not replace recognised as all legal political forces and the constitution operating in full.« The false constitutionalism »was shown and that the power itself has made an attempt to dress the constitutional clothes».2 In due time in this occasion the leader of cadets P.N.Miljukov so has ironically noticed in one of articles in the newspaper "Speech": «It [the government — Century of Century K] Will give the constitution, at least for this purpose it was necessary to plant in prison of all constitutionalists: all the same the constitution others will protect «loyal and steady elements of Russian society». For now these elements will not learn "true" constitutionalism, the liberal ministry will continue to "extinguish" "svetochi" false constitutionalism «the same constitutional order» what has made it concerning the first thought ». [635] it also has doomed to failure the first attempt konstitutsionalizatsii the Russian power.

I.A.Kravets believes thereupon, that «the constitutional system in Russia in the XX-th century beginning was not kept, not so much thanks to lacks of Organic laws of 1906, how many because possibilities which gave to the monarch, to Ministerial council, the State Duma, the State Council, political parties and party fractions in legislative chambers, have not been used by them for the statement konventsialnyh constitutionalism bases». [636] However our analysis of an estimation the Russian jurists of that time of legal nature of Organic laws of 1906 has shown, that any the general konventsialnyh bases of constitutionalism except formal understanding of the law in Russia that time it was not simple.

In the conditions of an aggravation of the constitutional question in the XX-th century beginning it was important to define the nature of the constitutional state as that to formulate correct political problems. Besides, it is necessary to mean, that in second half XIX - the beginning of the XX-th centuries all Russian liberals and constitutionalists were the statesmen on the sights, dreaming to realise the programs by means of the state and its institutes. They tried to adapt borrowed of an arsenal of the western jurisprudence the constitutional principles with reference to Russia. The basic constitutional ideas of that period were: restriction of autocracy and introduction of representative board, definition of a source of the sovereignty of the power, declaration of the political and civil rights and freedom of citizens, the statement of the supremance of law and legality, and also the general suffrage, that is an establishment of real democracy in the conditions of constitutional monarchy. The Russian constitutionalists have made an attempt to comprehend and prove these ideas in the theory of "the constitutional state».

They understood such state system at which the national representatives selected in a parliament of two houses, have the exclusive right as the constitutional state to publish laws, to supervise through various legal mechanisms the executive authority and to support independence of court which only and can provide real protection of the rights and freedom of citizens. But thus parliament presence was a leading element of the given concept. Owing to it the Russian constitutionalists of second half XIX - the XX-th century beginnings recognised imaginary constitutionalism of Organic laws of 1906 so, they have lost possibility in essence for the constitution to develop to it theoretical alternative and to inform it to citizens. As a result the Russian people in October, 1917 have denied Organic laws of 1906 together with constitutional by country development.

They considered, that the constitutional state arises

Natural-historical by. Also that a problem of a science of a constitutional law is the explanation of this necessity to unreasonable representatives of elite and the people. Such position led to that any other possibilities of social development (country socialism eserov or the Bolshevism) were considered as not representing serious interest so, it did not contrast theoretical alternatives. Moreover, some of constitutionalists agreed and that, in general the socialism is inevitable, and that it has accepted legal character is important only. The constitutional state thereupon acted in the form of a preparatory stage of socialism. In practice it has led to that during the period before February revolution constitutionalists acted as an united front together with socialists and Bolsheviks against autocracy. And after February, 1917 nobody hastened with convocation of the Constituent assembly and with development of the new constitution. While absence of the legitimate power led to chaos in system of the government and to military failures at the front, that promoted radikalizatsii broad masses and, finally, to surprisingly easy capture by Bolsheviks of the power in October, 1917.

Putting forward the thesis about people's sovereignty as a source of any power and about national sense of justice as a lawmaking source in the constitutional state in general, they completely ignored that fact, that the sense of justice of the concrete Russian people did not accept obscure to it a constitutional law design. As has resulted the Russian constitutionalists of second half XIX - the XX-th century beginnings in a separation from interests of peasantry of the earth, from interests of workers of social rights, from interests of national minorities of federalizatsii the Russian empire. As we remember, the answers to these inquiries have given left esery and Bolsheviks in October, 1917, but these answers considerably differed from the constitutionalism theory.

The Russian constitutionalists of second half XIX - the XX-th century beginnings at all did not study questions of legal regulation of transition from an absolute monarchy to a monarchy limited. Being on a position of the theory of the natural death and having possibility deontologicheski to estimate the Russian validity, they at all did not consider a problem of interrelation of political and legal processes in the concrete country. In other words, in their works behind brackets there was an answer to a question as from due to pass to the real. Shady sides of the constitutional democracy and parliamentarism to which have paid attention of JA.M.Ostrogorsky and K.N. The Sokolov has not got to focus of their attention.

At first identifying, and then, discriminating the constitutional and legal states, they professed, proceeding from a priority of legislature and formal definition of the law, a principle of leadership of laws. Though in the law form, as is known, can be dressed and an arbitrariness. Ignoring distinctions between the law as the rationalised will of the government, and the right as the rationalised justice, they lost material criterion of branch of the legal law from not legal normative act. That, basically, also assumed exclusively formal understanding of the law, following of understanding of the constitutional state as, first of all, narodnopredstavitelskogo institute. Theoretically this collision could resolve, by an example of the USA, a certain Supreme Court on the basis of interpretation of norms and spirit of the constitution. But this question in details and has not been worked in their theories. And how to be in the conditions of imaginary constitutionalism, where to search for the right for an estimation of such laws, they owing to the above-stated restrictions at all were not puzzled with this question.

And the last, but not on value. Reducing all doctrine of constitutionalism to the theory of the constitutional state, they essentially impoverished the given paradigm. Fairly believing, that protection of the rights and freedom of citizens is the immanent purpose of the constitutional state, they ignored, that a recognition of value of human rights should occur both citizens, and representatives of dominating elite. Without aspiration fairly to follow hostel rules in the constitutional state all and, first of all, representatives of elite, any, even the most remarkable and theoretically worked juristic institutions of the constitutional state will be dead. And even worse that, they will undermine legitimacy of such state that will promote coming to power of the most radical opponents of freedom.

All above-stated fundamental problems of the Russian constitutional practice became complicated and aggravated with unwillingness of dominating elite to lead the country on a constitutionalism way that led to loss by the power of any legitimacy in the opinion of a society. One of ideological monarchists of that time of A.I.Guchkov so described the situation which has developed by 1917: «the Historical drama which we now worry, consists that we are forced to defend a monarchy against the monarch, church against church hierarchy, army against its leaders, authority of the governmental power from carriers of this power». [637] practices of imaginary constitutionalism also has led Russian empire to crash of 1917. By the way speaking, one year later the same fate has comprehended also other bastions of imaginary constitutionalism in Europe that time - the German and Austro-Hungarian empires.

So, we have considered development of ideas of constitutionalism in domestic politiko-legal thought of second half XIX - the XX-th century beginnings. Unfortunately, they can be characterised as imaginary constitutionalism with all consequences following from given definition. Now we in a condition to sum up our research and to plan possible prospects which appear at use of the theoretical results received by us.

<< | >>
A source: KOCHETKOV VLADIMIR VALEREVICH. IDEAS OF CONSTITUTIONALISM IN DOMESTIC POLITIKO-LEGAL THOUGHT OF SECOND HALF XIX - The XX-th century BEGINNINGS. The dissertation on competition of a scientific degree of the doctor of juridical science. Moscow 0000. 0000

More on topic § 3. A problem of "imaginary constitutionalism» and feature of domestic politiko-legal thought of second half XIX - The XX-th century beginnings:

  1. § 2. A problem of a parity constitutional and a lawful state in domestic politiko-legal thought of second half XIX - The XX-th century beginnings
  2. KOCHETKOV VLADIMIR VALEREVICH. IDEAS OF CONSTITUTIONALISM IN DOMESTIC POLITIKO-LEGAL THOUGHT OF SECOND HALF XIX - The XX-th century BEGINNINGS. The dissertation on competition of a scientific degree of the doctor of juridical science. Moscow 0000, 0000
  3. § 1. Problems of the theory of the constitutional state in domestic politiko-legal thought of second half XIX - the XX-th century beginnings
  4. § 2. The constitutional problems of parliamentary democracy and the state system form in domestic politiko-legal thought of second half XIX - the beginnings of the XX-th century [306]
  5. THE CHAPTER II. THE CONSTITUTIONAL STATE AS STATE SYSTEM MODEL IN DOMESTIC POLITIKO-LEGAL THOUGHT OF SECOND HALF XIX - THE BEGINNINGS OF THE XX-TH CENTURY BEFORE ACCEPTANCE OF ORGANIC LAWS OF 1906
  6. § 4. Value of domestic constitutionalism of second half XIX - the beginnings of the XX-th century for modern Russian statehood
  7. THE CHAPTER III. DEVELOPMENT OF IDEAS OF CONSTITUTIONALISM IN DOMESTIC POLITIKO-LEGAL THOUGHT OF THE BEGINNING OF THE XX-TH CENTURY AFTER ACCEPTANCE OF ORGANIC LAWS OF 1906
  8. THE CHAPTER I. TEORETIKO-METHODOLOGICAL AND ISTORIKOPRAVOVAJA THE BASIS OF RESEARCH OF THE RUSSIAN CONSTITUTIONALISM OF SECOND HALF XIX - THE BEGINNINGS THE XX-TH CENTURIES
  9. CHAPTER 1. FEATURES OF DEVELOPMENT OF METHODOLOGY OF THE RUSSIAN LEGAL THOUGHT IN SECOND HALF XIX - THE XX-TH CENTURY BEGINNING
  10. development of methodology of the right and istoriko-theoretical crisis of second half XIX - the XX-th century beginnings: the right encyclopaedia, legal philosophy and the general theory of law
  11. § 1. Development of methodology of the right and istoriko-theoretical crisis of jurisprudence of second half XIX - the XX-th century beginnings: the right encyclopaedia, legal philosophy and the general theory of law
  12. BAJGUSHKIN Alexey Ivanovich. CONSERVATIVE politiko - LEGAL VIEWS In Russia IN SECOND HALF XIX - the BEGINNING of the XX-th century Moscow - 1998, 1998
  13. the Appendix 7. The comparative table of textbooks on general and domestic history of the Russian classical grammar schools of second half XIX - the beginnings of XX centuries
  14. factors of formation and development of conceptual bases soyoderzhanija gymnasia formation in Russia of second half XIX - the XX-th century beginnings
  15. Ikonnikov Sergey Anatolevich. PARISH CLERGY of the VORONEZH DIOCESE of SECOND HALF XIX - the XX-th century BEGINNINGS. SOTSIOKULTURNAJA the CHARACTERISTIC, 2015
  16. § 2. Legal bodies in trading (enterprise) activity in second half XIX century - the beginning of XX century
  17. § 1.3. Change of an order of acquisition by police shots in second half XVTTT century - first half XIX century