Abstract: Modern constitutionalism is undergoing a deep crisis of legitimacy, caused by the inability of traditional institutions to respond to the challenges of the digital age and the social transformations that accompany it. The accelerating pace of technological change, climate disasters, and global crises exacerbate the contradiction between the demand for constitutional stability and the necessity for rapid adaptation of the fundamental law. The growing deficit of civic engagement in constitutional processes undermines trust in legal institutions and creates systemic tension in society. The subject of the research is participatory constitutionalism as a theoretical construct that combines the principles of democratic participation, institutional flexibility, and constitutional stability. The article analyzes the mechanisms for transforming the constitution from a static text into an adaptive system capable of self-renewal through dialogue with society. Special attention is paid to the functional potential of civic participation in reducing "constitutional tension" and enhancing the legitimacy of legal innovations. The study examines both foreign practices (Ireland, France, Chile) and the Russian context, where institutions of direct participation face the problem of instrumentalization and lack of institutional guarantees. The research is based on a comprehensive application of theoretical-legal, comparative-legal, and systemic-functional methods, allowing for the analysis of the evolution of constitutional doctrines and institutional practices. The scientific novelty lies in the first systematic development of the concept of participatory constitutionalism in Russian legal science as an independent constitutional-legal construct, highlighting four key functions: legitimizing, innovative, stabilizing, and educational. For the first time, a theoretical distinction has been established between deliberative and participatory constitutionalism, where the former focuses on the quality of discussion while the latter emphasizes legitimacy through engagement. The study identified four systemic challenges to institutionalization: instrumentalization of participation, structural inequality, institutional inertia, and legal uncertainty, proposing principles for their overcoming. It concludes that participatory mechanisms can be adapted to the Russian reality not as an element of the Western model of checks and balances but as a tool for mobilizing society and strengthening public authority through horizontal connections. Participatory constitutionalism does not replace representative democracy but creates a synergistic ecosystem of legal flexibility alongside judicial interpretation and doctrinal adaptation. To overcome the legitimacy crisis, it is necessary to enshrine the principles of participatory constitutionalism at the constitutional level by establishing permanent institutions of civic participation and a secure digital infrastructure.

Abstract: The modern stage of the development of the international legal order is characterized by a profound crisis of multilateralism, manifested in the paralysis of key institutions, the rise of unilateral initiatives, and the erosion of trust in universal organizations. In this context, the adoption of the "Pact for the Future" by the UN General Assembly in September 2024 represents an attempt to restore collective governance of global risks through instruments that go beyond traditional treaty regulation. The relevance of the study is determined by the necessity to understand how acts of "soft law" can influence national constitutional orders in conditions where rigid mechanisms of international enforcement are blocked by geopolitical contradictions. The analysis of the potential of such documents to form long-term legal standards and expectations without direct legal obligation becomes particularly significant. The subject of the study is the "Pact for the Future" as a special type of international act that combines the features of a program document and a normative guideline. The focus is on its ability to set constitutionally significant values, such as intergenerational justice, digital ethics, and sustainable development. The analysis covers both the substantive elements of the Pact, including the "Global Digital Compact" and the "Declaration on Future Generations," as well as its place in the system of contemporary international law. The methodological basis of the study consists of comparative legal, formal legal, systemic, and historical-legal methods, allowing for a comprehensive analysis of the legal nature and transformational potential of the Pact. The scientific novelty of the work lies in the proposition of an original conceptual category of "soft constitutional imperative," adapted from the theory of global constitutionalism by A. Peters. This category allows for the overcoming of the simplified dichotomy of "hard" and "soft" law and reveals the Pact's ability to perform functions comparable to constitutional prescriptions through mechanisms of legal doctrine formation, judicial interpretation, and legislative transformation. The study confirms that, despite the absence of legally binding nature, the Pact has significant indirect potential to influence national constitutional orders. At the same time, its effectiveness is limited by geopolitical fragmentation, resistance from doctrines of constitutional identity, and the absence of enforcement mechanisms. The conclusions emphasize the dual nature of the Pact: on the one hand, it is the "least common denominator" of compromise among 193 states; on the other, it creates a foundation for long-term normative pressure and dialogue.

Abstract: The modern constitutional legal order is undergoing a fundamental transformation of its basic postulates, linked to a qualitative change in the role of executive power within the public administration system. The relevance of this study is determined by an objective shift in the architecture of state power, where administrative bodies, traditionally perceived as instruments for law enforcement, are becoming full-fledged subjects of the constitutional process. Global challenges, rapid digitization of governance, and the need for prompt responses to crises catalyze the process of latent "administrative law-making," which establishes the real boundaries of citizens' constitutional rights. In domestic legal science, the understanding of the phenomenon of administrative constitutionalism is at an initial stage, unlike foreign doctrine, where the discussion is quite intense. The subject of the study is the evolution of the constitutional legal order in the context of the transformation of public power and the strengthening of the role of administrative bodies in interpreting constitutional norms. Special attention is paid to analyzing normative contradictions arising at the intersection of constitutional and administrative law in the implementation of the principles of the rule of law. The research aims to identify institutional mechanisms for harmonizing the relationship between executive power and constitutional guarantees of individual rights in the context of the digital transformation of governance. The methodology of the study is based on a systematic analysis of the functioning of legal institutions in the context of real state governance practices, as well as on a comparative legal method involving data from the judicial practices of the highest judicial bodies and doctrinal concepts. The scientific novelty lies in conceptualizing administrative constitutionalism not as a form of "constitutionalization" of administrative law, but as an independent phenomenon of the post-classical paradigm of constitutionalism. The study identifies and systematizes specific normative contradictions between constitutional principles and subordinate regulation, manifesting under conditions of institutional asymmetry. A theoretical model for the institutionalization of administrative constitutionalism is proposed through the development of a set of legislative, organizational, and doctrinal measures. The necessity of codifying administrative procedures at the constitutional-legal level and forming a mechanism for "constitutional accountability" of executive power is substantiated. It is proven that administrative constitutionalism should be viewed not as a threat to the rule of law but as a way to adapt its principles to the new managerial realities of the 21st century. As a result of the study, the legal foundations of functional constitutionalism are formulated, capable of combining the dynamism of administrative response with solid guarantees of rights and freedoms of the individual.

Abstract: Modern constitutional systems are facing unprecedented challenges – pandemics, climate disasters, digital transformation, and erosion of trust in institutions – which call into question the ability of the classical model of constitutionalism to ensure resilience and legitimacy. The traditional approach, based on stability, hierarchy, and limitation of power, proves insufficient in the dynamic, uncertain, and multi-actor reality of the 21st century. In this context, there is an increasing demand for more flexible, responsive, and inclusive forms of constitutional regulation that can swiftly adapt to social changes. The institutions of direct democracy and civil society are becoming particularly significant as they increasingly act not just as external corrections but as internal elements of the constitutional order. Global experience – from Estonia and Iceland to Latin American countries – demonstrates that involving citizens in constitutional processes enhances not only legitimacy but also the resilience of the rule of law. The subject of the research is the theoretical model of adaptive constitutionalism, where civil society and direct democracy are viewed as structural components of the constitutional system rather than peripheral elements. The work employs a comprehensive methodological approach, including a systemic analysis of the constitutional order as an open and dynamic system, a comparative legal method, and an institutional approach. The scientific novelty of the research lies in the proposal of an integrative model of adaptive constitutionalism, where the constitution is understood not as a static text but as a process of continuous dialogue between the state, courts, and civil society. The author shows that adaptability is achieved not only through formal amendment procedures but also through informal yet legally significant forms of participation – citizen assemblies, digital platforms, and public initiatives. The research substantiates the need for the institutionalization of these mechanisms, including the introduction of an obligation for authorities to respond to citizens' initiatives and the establishment of a public ombudsman for constitutional issues. It concludes that the future of constitutionalism is tied to a shift from a "constitution for the people" model to a "constitution with the people" model, where legitimacy is ensured not only by procedure but also by the depth of engagement. It emphasizes that without systemic participation by citizens, any constitutional reforms risk remaining formal and ineffective.

Abstract: Contemporary migration processes represent not merely a demographic phenomenon but a fundamental challenge to traditional constitutional paradigms, which have long been predicated on the assumption of a homogeneous national legal and cultural space. Globalization, armed conflicts, economic instability, and climate crises generate unprecedented population movements that transform not only the social and ethnic composition of host states but also the very understanding of sovereignty, citizenship, and the legal status of the individual. In this context, growing tension emerges between the universal norms of international law—enshrining migrants’ rights as an integral part of human rights—and national constitutional frameworks oriented toward protecting historically established values, identity, and public order. Consequently, the constitution ceases to function solely as an internal state act and enters into dialogue with transnational legal realities, necessitating a rethinking of its role as an instrument not only of legitimizing power but also of managing social complexity. This dilemma is particularly acute in states with recently formed or reconstructed constitutional systems, where the process of constitutionally articulating national identity remains incomplete while migration exerts direct pressure on political stability and legal culture. The methodological foundation of the study is an interdisciplinary approach combining constitutional legal analysis, comparative legal methodology, elements of sociological research on legal consciousness, and doctrinal interpretation. Additionally, the research employs analysis of international and regional migration standards, including the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families (1990), the European Agenda on Migration, and regional agreements within the CIS framework. This comprehensive methodology enables the identification of general trends while accounting for the specificity of legal cultures—a crucial consideration when addressing issues concerning national identity and sovereignty. The scientific novelty of this study lies in the systematic development—within both Russian and international constitutional legal doctrine—of the concept of “adaptive constitutionalism” as a theoretical and normative response to challenges posed, among others, by migratory transformation. Unlike traditional approaches that view the constitution as a static document fixing a once-and-for-all social contract, adaptive constitutionalism is understood as a dynamic model capable of institutional and substantive evolution in response to internal and external factors, including migration flows. The study contributes to the theory of legal identity by integrating it with migration law and constitutional theory—an especially relevant endeavor for the post-Soviet space, where nation-building and constitutional identity formation occur alongside intense migratory exchanges. Comparative analysis reveals that the most effective strategies combine inclusivity with clear legal boundaries, as exemplified by the Canadian model of multiculturalism or the German model of constitutional patriotism. In the Russian context, however, mechanisms for genuine integration remain underdeveloped, and there is a risk of instrumentalizing constitutional identity to legitimize restrictive migration policies. The article concludes that adaptive constitutionalism does not weaken but rather strengthens the constitutional order by enhancing its legitimacy, inclusivity, and capacity for reflexive self-transformation.

Abstract: Modern constitutions are increasingly becoming not only legal acts but also carriers of an ideological message that reflects the cultural, historical, and civilizational identity of a specific society. The confrontation between the universalist values of liberal democracy and the aspirations of states to establish a unique cultural code highlights the relevance of studying constitutional identity as a legal and symbolic category. In this context, constitutional texts are more frequently viewed as dynamic constructs capable of both integrating and excluding various social groups depending on the prescribed ideological paradigm. Against the backdrop of the crisis of universalist constitutionalism, there are growing trends towards the revival of traditional, often exclusionary models of identity based on religion, ethnicity, or historical narrative. This makes it crucial to study the ways in which ideological foundations are enshrined and transmitted through norms of the highest legal force. Constitutional identity becomes the result of the interaction between normative and narrative dimensions, in which the question of the legitimacy of the political order occupies a central place. The subject of this study is the analysis of the mechanisms for forming, expressing, and transforming ideological foundations in the texts of national constitutions. The methodological basis of the study consists of an interdisciplinary approach that includes elements of comparative law, political philosophy, and narrative analysis. The novelty of the research lies in the systematic approach to studying constitutional identity as a multi-level construct that connects legal norm with collective memory and ideological content. For the first time in domestic literature, a typology of models of constitutional identity has been proposed based on the criteria of openness, stability, and symbolic representativeness. The idea that the ideological paradigm of the constitution is not a byproduct but constitutes its structural core has been substantiated. It has been established that the transformation of identity can occur both in textual and practical spheres—through institutional reforms, judicial interpretation, and political narratives. It has been shown that the balance between tradition and transformation is an essential condition for the stability of the legal order. Risks of ideological fragmentation have been identified in the context of pressure from global and digital factors. A methodological framework for analyzing the ideological foundations of constitutions in the era of ideological pluralism has been proposed.

Abstract: The modern stage of state development is characterized by the intensification of processes of institutional dilution of democratic norms and legal constraints that were previously considered an integral part of liberal constitutionalism. In many countries, which formally maintain democratic procedures, there is a consistent trend towards the erosion of checks and balances, the loss of real independence of the judicial power, and the weakening of parliamentary control. These processes are particularly evident in the framework of so-called "soft autocracy," where the external legal shell is used to legitimize anti-democratic practices. These phenomena cannot be reduced solely to internal breakdowns in law enforcement—they represent a systemic transformation of fundamental constitutional principles. In this context, there is a growing interest in studying the transformation of the rule of law and its replacement with mimetic mechanisms. The subject of this study is the crisis manifestations in the functioning of democratic institutions and the degradation of the rule of law as an expression of the transition from substantive to formal constitutionalism. Against this backdrop, the task of conceptually rethinking the role of public authorities, civil society institutions, and legal procedures in the context of a "post-liberal turn" is brought to the forefront. The methodological basis of the study includes comparative legal, institutional, and critical-normative approaches, allowing for the analysis of the evolution of constitutional regimes from the perspective of the sustainability of democratic practices. The novelty of the research lies in the attempt to systematically understand the crisis of democracy and law not as isolated deviations, but as a consequence of a deeper transformation of the political-legal order. It is suggested to view these phenomena through the lens of the concept of adaptive constitutionalism, capable of revealing signs of simulation and hidden de-constitutionalization. It has been established that formal compliance with procedures does not guarantee the genuine implementation of the principles of the rule of law. Moreover, legal instruments are increasingly becoming objects of political instrumentalization. The work emphasizes the role of constitutional courts as potential actors of legal resistance to transformation, provided they maintain institutional independence and social legitimacy. The possibilities of civil society in addressing the deficit of representation and accountability of power are also considered. In conclusion, the necessity of reevaluating traditional models of constitutional analysis in light of the current challenges of democratic erosion is underscored.

Abstract: The relevance of the research topic is determined by the profound transformations of modern constitutionalism amidst the rapid development of digital technologies and their impact on the forms of public power organization. Traditional models of state governance are increasingly giving way to new architectures of power, including hybrid, networked, and non-linear structures, which require a rethinking of constitutional foundations and principles of legitimacy. The subject of the study is modern models of public authority as objects of the transformation of constitutionalism, as well as the challenges associated with their institutionalization and legal regulation in the digital age. The research aims to identify the characteristics and patterns of the development of new forms of power, as well as to analyze their impact on legal stability and democratic processes. The importance of the topic is confirmed by the insufficient development of issues related to the interaction of digital technologies and constitutional institutions in Russian and foreign legal science. Theoretical and practical aspects of the transformation of constitutionalism require a comprehensive analysis that takes into account interdisciplinary approaches. The research aims to contribute to the scientific understanding of new architectures of public power and their constitutional-legal status. The methodological basis of the work is a systematic approach that allows for a consideration of the transformation of constitutionalism in a holistic and multi-dimensional context. The methods used in the research include comparative legal analysis, conceptual and institutional analysis, as well as elements of sociological research to assess the influence of digital technologies on public administration. The scientific novelty of the research lies in the comprehensive analysis of hybrid, networked, and non-linear models of public power as new architectures of constitutionalism, which reveals their institutional and legal features in the digital age. For the first time, the risks and opportunities of digitalization for the legitimacy and effectiveness of public power in the context of transformation have been systematized. The findings of the research confirm the necessity of adapting traditional constitutional institutions to the challenges of the digital age and developing mechanisms of digital democracy. The role of innovative forms of public participation and control is emphasized as a key element of the resilience of modern constitutionalism. Practical recommendations are aimed at improving the regulatory and legal framework and institutional mechanisms, taking into account new models of power. The research lays the theoretical foundations for further scientific inquiries in the field of digital constitutionalism and public administration.

Abstract: Modern constitutional theory and practice face a fundamental challenge posed by the growing gap between the static nature of the fundamental law and the dynamics of global transformations. The traditional model of constitutional lawmaking, historically developed as a reaction to specific crises, demonstrates a systemic inability to proactively ensure the stability of the political order in conditions of chronic uncertainty. This issue is especially relevant in an era of accelerated technological progress, global pandemics, hybrid conflicts, and the erosion of liberal democratic institutions. The central contradiction lies in the tension between the demand for the constitution to be an immutable foundation of statehood and the need for its flexible transformation in response to changing realities. The subject of the study is the concept of "adaptive constitutionalism," which combines elements of proactive constitutional design, the doctrine of the "living constitution," and strategies for constitutional resilience. The article analyzes institutional mechanisms capable of ensuring the adaptation of the constitutional order without undermining its stability and legitimacy. Special attention is given to the dual nature of adaptive mechanisms, which can be used both to strengthen democracy and to legitimize authoritarian transformation. The methodological basis of the research is a comparative legal method supplemented by formal legal analysis, a historical-legal approach, and systemic analysis to study the interconnections between the elements of the constitutional order. The scientific novelty of the study lies in the systemic integration of disparate approaches into a unified theoretical model that views the constitution as a complex, self-organizing system capable of internal transformation without losing its identity. The proposed "concentric structure" of adaptive constitution, in which an immutable constitutional core is surrounded by areas of strategic resilience and operational adaptability, overcomes the artificial opposition between stability and flexibility. The study reveals the dual nature of adaptive mechanisms and develops a system of institutional "safeguards" against their instrumentalization in authoritarian contexts. The practical significance of the paradigm is manifested in the formation of specific tools for legislators, courts, and civil society, including innovative digital technologies for civic participation. Russian constitutional practice demonstrates the potential for developing adaptive mechanisms through the activation of expert institutions and the digitalization of public participation procedures.

Abstract: The relevance of the research topic lies in the significance of judicial constitutional review as a key institution that ensures stability and development of the constitutional order in modern legal systems. In the context of the transformation of constitutionalism, accompanied by globalization, digitalization, and increasing challenges to national sovereignties, the role of judicial bodies in protecting the Constitution becomes increasingly prominent and multifaceted. The issue of harmonizing judicial review within pluralistic legal systems and amid competing jurisdictions remains unresolved, leading to legal uncertainty and risks of legal fragmentation. The topic of judicial review is timely given the rise of judicial activism, as well as the role of courts in law-making and ensuring a balance of interests amidst political and social changes. It acquires special significance in the context of post-classical constitutionalism. In this regard, the study of the problem of harmonizing judicial review aims to identify ways to integrate national judicial systems in the context of global legal standards and regional institutions. The methodology of the research is based on comparative and institutional approaches, allowing for an analysis of various models of judicial constitutional review in different countries and at various levels. To this end, methods of analyzing judicial practice, as well as historical-legal and regulatory approaches, were utilized. The novelty of the research lies in the integration of various theoretical and practical approaches to judicial constitutional review in conditions of globalization and transformation of legal systems. The article emphasizes changes in the role of courts, their interaction with political and social processes, as well as new challenges that require a rethinking of the boundaries of judicial power. It demonstrates how constitutional review becomes not only a tool for protecting the Constitution but also a factor of legal progress and resilience in times of crisis of representation. The necessity of institutionalizing judicial interaction, strengthening the legal responsibility of judges, and enhancing the links between justice and society is substantiated. In conclusion, the importance of digitalization of judicial proceedings for enhancing the accountability of courts and increasing the efficiency of their review is emphasized. The development of proposals for harmonizing judicial review can serve as a foundation for further changes in national constitutional systems and international legal practice.

Abstract: The modern era is marked by a systemic crisis of globalization, affecting not only economic and political but also legal foundations of international interaction. Against this backdrop, the analysis of the transformation of global constitutionalism as a concept that shapes supranational mechanisms for limiting power, protecting human rights, and ensuring legal order becomes particularly significant. The loss of universality of previous global institutions, the weakening role of international norms, and the rising legal pluralism call into question the possibility of maintaining the former normative architecture. Global constitutionalism, previously perceived as a legal ideal of postnational order, is now under pressure from regionalization, civilizational sovereignty, and legal fragmentation. In these conditions, there is an increasing need to rethink its essence and role: from a universal normative order to a more flexible, multi-level system of legal interaction. The subject of the study is defined as the process of redefining the normative foundations, institutional structure, and functional content of global constitutionalism in the context of the crisis of globalization. The author's position is based on an analysis of contemporary trends in the changing global legal order and their impact on the development of the constitutional paradigm in the 21st century. The research relies on structural-functional, comparative-legal, and axiological methods, which allow for a multi-level analysis of transformational processes. Both normative sources of international and national law and conceptual developments by foreign and domestic legal scholars are utilized. The scientific novelty of the research lies in identifying a three-level structure of the transformation of global constitutionalism—normative, institutional, and functional. It is shown that in the context of the crisis of globalization, universalist constitutional constructs are giving way to differentiated and adaptive models of legal regulation. The concept of adaptive constitutionalism is justified as a legal mechanism capable of integrating the diversity of legal systems without losing fundamental values. The changing role of international institutions and the decreasing effectiveness of traditional mechanisms of supranational law enforcement are highlighted. Special attention is paid to jurisdictional conflicts and the refusal of several states to comply with the decisions of international bodies. The conclusion is drawn on the necessity of forming a new balance between global normativity and state sovereignty. The presented findings have not only theoretical significance but also practical value in the context of shaping foreign policy and legal strategies of states.

Abstract: Modern processes of globalization, regional integration, and digitalization create the need to review established approaches to state sovereignty as a key concept of constitutional law. In the context of the transformation of constitutionalism, the importance of studying the mechanisms of redistribution of sovereign prerogatives among the state, international organizations, and other supranational entities increases. The relevance of the topic is determined by the search for a legal balance between preserving national sovereignty and the necessity for effective integration into global processes. The subject of the study is the theoretical and legal foundations and institutional manifestations of the transformation of sovereignty in modern constitutionalism. The forms and limits of "shared" sovereignty are analyzed within the context of contemporary public law. Special attention is paid to the interaction of international and national mechanisms for limiting and reformatting sovereignty. The analysis of the legal positions of the highest judicial instances serves as an empirical basis for substantiating the concept of "shared" sovereignty. The methodological foundation of the research consists of the principles of historicism, systemic and institutional analysis, as well as an interdisciplinary approach that combines legal, political, and philosophical perspectives. The study employs general scientific methods of analysis, synthesis, induction, and deduction, as well as specific legal methods, including comparative legal, formal-legal, and constitutional modeling methods. The novelty of the study lies in the identification of the evolution of the concept of sovereignty from its absolute understanding to the model of "shared" sovereignty within the framework of modern constitutionalism. The work offers an author's vision of the relationship between the national and supranational levels of public authority implementation in the context of legal globalization. It concludes that there is a need for doctrinal and normative rethinking of traditional sovereignty, taking into account modern constitutional practices. The research identifies legal risks and challenges associated with the erosion of the limits of sovereign power. It proposes directions for adapting legal systems to new forms of interstate and supranational interaction. The theoretical basis includes both classical doctrines of sovereignty by J. Bodin and T. Hobbes, and contemporary theories of governance, globalization, and transnational constitutionalism, considering the dynamics of modern legal systems.

Abstract: Modern constitutionalism faces a fundamental challenge: how to maintain the stability of the constitutional order amid accelerating social, technological, and geopolitical transformations, avoiding both conservative ossification and destructive plasticity. In this context, the concept of "adaptive constitutionalism" acquires the status of a key analytical category that requires strict operationalization and systematization. Existing approaches are typically limited to describing institutional mechanisms or appealing to general principles of flexibility without constructing a comprehensive typology. In these conditions, arises the necessity for a theoretical toolkit capable of not only describing but also normatively evaluating the quality of adaptation processes. The subject of the study is the adaptive constitutionalism as a multidimensional and dynamic social institution, whose viability is determined by its capacity for internal evolution without the loss of its normative core. The aim of the article is to develop an original typology of models of adaptive constitutionalism and to formulate criteria for "sustainable legitimacy" as a normative ideal of a viable constitutional order. The methodological basis of this study consists of a systemic-typological approach, supplemented by comparative-legal and hermeneutical analysis. The scientific novelty of the work lies in the proposal of a multidimensional typology, including five models of adaptive constitutionalism – judicial-adaptive, formally-stable, hybrid-adaptive, evolutionary-pluralistic, and imitation-adaptive. For the first time in domestic and foreign doctrine, the concept of "sustainable legitimacy" is introduced and operationalized, synthesizing legal and socio-political legitimacy through five measurable criteria. The study demonstrates that adaptation models are not static but subject to dynamic transformation, including degradation – as observed in Hungary, Poland, and Turkey. The proposed typology possesses not only theoretical but also practical value: it can be used by legislators, constitutional courts, and international organizations to diagnose the resilience of constitutional systems. In conclusion, the necessity for further verification of the typology in a global context and its adaptation to digital challenges and non-colonial concepts of legitimacy is emphasized.

Abstract: The modern stage of constitutional law development is characterized by a rapid increase in the transnational influence of international organizations on the internal legal orders of sovereign states, which necessitates a theoretical rethinking of their role in the process of forming adaptive constitutionalism. International organizations have ceased to be exclusively external subjects of influence and have become active participants in shaping the constitutional and legal environment, capable of altering the parameters of national models of public authority. The subject of this study is a comprehensive understanding of the institutional role of international organizations as drivers of the transformation of the modern constitutional order in the context of globalization and digital restructuring. Particular attention is paid to the collisions between universalist standards and national legal specifics, which give rise to contradictions between the sovereignty of states and the necessity of compliance with transnational norms. At the center of the research is the process of institutionalizing adaptive constitutionalism as a responsive model that can reconcile international influence with the principles of constitutional identity. The methodological foundation of this work consists of modern approaches to comparative analysis, institutional theory, constitutional identity theory, and adaptive governance concepts. Both traditional legal-dogmatic and interdisciplinary methods have been employed: structural-functional, normative-comparative, case analysis, and contextual interpretation of judicial decisions. The scientific novelty of the work lies in the author's conceptualization of international organizations as structural elements in the process of forming adaptive constitutionalism. The necessity of normative recognition of adaptability as a constitutional-legal principle under conditions of multidimensional interaction between national and international actors is justified. For the first time, the institutional forms of participation of parliaments, constitutional courts, ombudsmen, and civil society in the process of reconciling international standards with national legal orders have been analyzed. Key contradictions between the doctrines of constitutional identity and universalization have been identified, and possible mechanisms for overcoming these contradictions have been proposed. The study emphasizes the prospects for digital constitutionalization and the formation of a transnational constitutional space. The research demonstrates that adaptive constitutionalism represents a legal response to the challenges of asymmetric globalization and political-legal polycentrism. The research also touches upon the role of multilevel public authority, judicial dialogue, the digital environment, and new forms of partnership between national and supranational institutions.

Abstract: In the context of the global influence of Islamic and Confucian legal traditions, the traditional doctrine of the separation of powers developed by Locke and Montesquieu can no longer be viewed as universal and indispensable. Contemporary constitutional systems of several countries demonstrate fundamentally different ways of distributing the functions of public authority that go beyond the classical triad of legislative, executive, and judicial branches. This transformation is particularly evident in Islamic states, where Sharia is integrated into the basis of power, and in China, where Confucian ideals of moral leadership intertwine with the party-state vertical. The theoretical and legal challenge lies in defining the limits of applicability of the Western model and identifying mechanisms for its adaptation or substitution in non-classical conditions. The subject of the study is, in fact, the process of transforming the idea of separation of powers into constitutional and legal mechanisms of Islamic and Confucian traditions. The work analyzes how these legal systems construct a balance of power relying not on the competition of branches but on ethical-religious and moral-philosophical foundations. Special attention is paid to comparing formal constitutional norms and the actual practice of public governance. The study employs a comparative legal method that allows for the identification of universal and local elements of institutional models. A hermeneutic approach is applied to the analysis of philosophical-legal texts of the "Lunyu," Sharia treatises, and constitutional norms. Novelty of the research and conclusions. For the first time, the concept of a "non-classical triad" is formulated, wherein the functions of public authority are redistributed through sacralized mechanisms rather than through formal checks and balances. It is shown that in Islamic states, the supremacy of divine sovereignty (hakimiyya) transforms the notions of legislative and executive power into a single system of divinely ordained legitimacy. In the Chinese paradigm, the role of Confucian principles of "合" (unity) and "德" (virtue) is identified as substitutes for the competition of branches of power. The practice of institutional acculturation is described, allowing for the borrowing of the separation of powers on simultaneously adapted and hybrid grounds. It is established that the lack of formal channels for internal criticism is compensated for by mechanisms of moral control and party discipline. The study confirms that non-classical legal traditions possess their own, self-sufficient tools for balancing power that do not reduce to the Western system of checks and balances.

Abstract: One of the least studied yet simultaneously key aspects of the constitutionalism transformation is the phenomenon of tax constitutionalism. In the context of growing fiscal pressure, asymmetry of tax regimes, and the increasing supranational influence on tax policy, the question of the limits of permissible state intervention in citizens' economic freedom from the perspective of the constitution becomes more acute. Historically formed as a form of expression of the social contract and legitimization of public authority through taxation, tax constitutionalism acquires new significance in the era of the crisis of representative democracy and the rise of executive discretion. The subject of this research is the constitutional and legal foundations, law enforcement practices, and prospects for the institutionalization of tax constitutionalism in the context of the transformation of foundational principles of modern constitutional order. The methodological basis of the study is a systemic approach, which implies considering tax constitutionalism as a complex legal institution located at the intersection of public and constitutional law. Comparative legal, axiological, and institutional methods of analysis are applied to identify the evolution of norms and mechanisms of tax legitimization in various jurisdictions. The scientific novelty of the research consists in substantiating tax constitutionalism as an independent concept reflecting the adaptation of constitutional order principles to new challenges of public governance. The article makes the first attempt to systematize the characteristics and models of tax constitutionalism, taking into account the differences between national and supranational fiscal systems. The author shows that modern tax constitutionalism implies not only compliance with formal procedures but also the realization of values of justice, proportionality, and fiscal sustainability. The necessity of constitutional oversight over fiscal innovations, including digital taxes, climate fees, and platform taxation regimes, is substantiated. It concludes that the further development of tax constitutionalism is only possible under conditions of institutional consolidation of mechanisms for public participation and legal transparency. Overcoming existing contradictions requires the development of balanced models of fiscal sovereignty that are compatible with the principles of constitutional identity. The research aims to develop the theory of adaptive constitutionalism as a foundation for a sustainable tax order in the 21st century.

Abstract: Modern constitutional law is faced with the need to rethink the traditional hierarchy of norms in the context of the transnationalization of legal regulation. The leading challenge to the classical model of law and order is the integration of jus cogens norms, peremptory norms of international law that have the highest legal force and universal obligation. These norms begin to play the role of a kind of transcendent criterion that affects the limits of the permissibility of both legislation and constitutional reforms. This problem is particularly acute in countries with a formalized doctrine of the supremacy of the constitution, where jus cogens begins to compete with fundamental national norms. The appeal to them in the practice of constitutional courts and international instances demonstrates a shift from a vertically sovereign to an axiologically oriented model of law. The examples of Germany, Italy, France, and Colombia indicate the emergence of more flexible, polycentric legal structures in which jus cogens is interpreted as an integral part of the constitutional order. The subject of the study is the transformation of the hierarchy of legal norms and institutions under the influence of jus cogens in the context of the emerging global legal order. The methodological basis of the research includes legal hermeneutics, axiological analysis and a comparative legal approach. These methods make it possible to identify how the structure and logic of constitutional regulation is changing in the context of the interaction of national and international law. An institutional approach has also been applied to evaluate regulatory conflict resolution mechanisms. The scientific novelty of the study lies in the interpretation of jus cogens not only as an international category, but also as the axiological limit of national lawmaking. In the context of the erosion of the classical normative pyramid, a post-hierarchical model is being formed, in which jus cogens becomes a normative reference point that does not fit into the previous framework of sovereignty. This requires not the abandonment of national constitutionalism, but its conceptual renewal. The conclusions of the study are focused on the development of the idea of a legal dialogue between different levels of normativity, including the possibility of quasi-constitutional coexistence of jus cogens and national foundations. It has been established that models allowing for such coordination are already being implemented in a number of legal systems. The proposed concept can be used as a basis for further doctrinal and institutional transformations. The article contributes to the formation of a new ontology of global constitutionalism.

Abstract: The relevance of the study is determined by the necessity to reflect on the dynamics of Islamic constitutionalism in the context of globalization, which affects both internal legal mechanisms and the politico-legal identity of Islamic states. Globalization shapes new parameters for the interaction of traditional legal systems with universal constitutional paradigms, necessitating a rethinking of the essence and functions of Islamic constitutionalism, especially amid the transformation of constitutionalism in contemporary society. The subject of the research is the process of institutional changes in the system of Islamic constitutionalism under the influence of politico-legal challenges. The transformation of both the normative framework and constitutional governance practices in countries predominantly governed by Islamic law is analyzed. The focus is on identifying internal contradictions and points of adaptation between religio-legal and secular-globalized frameworks. The methodological foundation of the research includes comparative law, institutional, and civilizational approaches, which allow for a comprehensive understanding of the multi-level nature of transformation. The application of the historical-legal method has made it possible to trace the evolution of Islamic constitutionalism in the context of post-colonial modernization and integration into the international legal space. The novelty of the research lies in identifying hybrid forms of interaction between Islamic constitutionalism and globalized institutions, as well as in substantiating the independence of Islamic constitutional discourse as an alternative model of politico-legal organization. The author proposes an interpretation of Islamic constitutionalism not as an archaic system, but as a dynamic structure possessing the potential for legal development under global pressure. It is concluded that the integration of Islamic legal concepts into contemporary constitutional practice is possible, provided that their cultural specificity and institutional autonomy are recognized. It is emphasized that the resilience of Islamic constitutionalism depends not on its isolation but on its ability to engage in dialogue with global legal standards. The work opens up prospects for further research in the field of comparative analysis of transformational processes in non-classical legal systems.

Abstract: The current constitutionalism transformation significantly influence the dynamics of implementing international humanitarian law (IHL) norms into national legal systems. In the context of globalization, the erosion of traditional notions of state sovereignty, and increasing interactions between international and domestic law, new forms of adaptation of humanitarian norms are observed. The transformation of constitutional frameworks generates both additional guarantees for the adherence to IHL and risks of weakening its provisions during periods of constitutional reforms or political instability. The subject of this research is the processes of interaction between international humanitarian law norms and the transforming constitutional systems of contemporary states. Constitutionalism, traditionally viewed as an expression of state stability and legal order, is currently undergoing substantial transformations influenced by both internal and external factors. These changes affect not only the structure and functions of state institutions but also the mechanisms of perceiving and implementing international obligations, including in the field of international humanitarian law (IHL). The impact of the transformation of constitutionalism on the processes of implementing IHL norms becomes particularly significant in the face of growing challenges associated with globalization, regionalization, and the changing nature of modern armed conflicts. The methodological foundation of the research comprises systemic, comparative-legal, and historical-legal approaches, allowing for a comprehensive examination of constitutionalism evolution in the context of the development of international humanitarian law. The novelty of the research lies in identifying stable patterns of transformation of constitutional mechanisms for the implementation of international humanitarian law across various legal systems. It is shown that changes in the constitutional structure of states can both facilitate and hinder the effective fulfillment of humanitarian obligations. The research findings emphasize the need for the establishment of stable constitutional guarantees for the protection of IHL norms. The significance of constitutional justice in maintaining international humanitarian standards during reforms is underscored. During this research, a deep analysis of the transformation of national constitutional systems in the context of implementing international humanitarian law (IHL) norms was conducted, identifying key regularities and factors determining the effectiveness of these processes across different legal systems. Based on the conducted analysis, it was concluded that constitutional law, in its current form, is insufficiently effective in addressing the issue of implementing IHL norms.

Abstract: Modern transformations of the global order have revealed the limits of universalist models of legal regulation and have emphasized the problem of the relationship between national constitutionalism and the changing forms of global and supranational legal order. In a post-globalization context, there is a noticeable return to ideas of sovereignty, constitutional identity, and legal pluralism, which places the need for states to rethink their normative autonomy at the forefront. The subject of this research is the relationship between national models of constitutionalism and post-globalization trends in the development of public law and legal institutions. Special attention is given to conflicts between international and national law norms, issues of the legitimacy of supranational institutions, and the adaptation of human rights to cultural diversity. The ability of constitutional systems for institutional self-reflection and legal dialogue in the face of uncertainty in the global legal landscape is also analyzed. The methodological basis of the study is the synthesis of institutional and comparative legal approaches with elements of political and legal analysis. The systemic method allowed for tracing stable interconnections between the structures of national constitutional orders and transnational normative constructions. Elements of the constructivist paradigm, which fix the role of law as a mediating space between the global and the local, have gained heuristic significance. The scientific novelty of the research lies in the conceptualization of a coupled legal order as a phenomenon of legal interaction between constitutional systems and transnational normative structures. It is shown that modern constitutionalism is not confined to the liberal universalist model and manifests itself in a variety of forms—from social to adaptive and strategic. The emphasis is placed on a polycentric approach as a possible alternative to a hierarchical legal order in the conditions of post-globalization. Institutional mechanisms and legal forms through which universal values can be reconciled with constitutional specificity are established. The analysis of constitutional judicial practice, including precedents from national and supranational courts, substantiates the dynamics of interpreting the principles of sovereignty and human rights. The necessity of rethinking the role of the state as an active subject in forming a flexible model of public law, capable of integrating global challenges without losing legitimacy and democratic content, is justified.

Abstract: Modern transformations of global and domestic order necessitate a rethinking of traditional frameworks of constitutional regulation, particularly in the aspect of ensuring security. In the context of permanent threats—from cyberattacks to hybrid conflicts—national security acquires the status of a foundational element of constitutional legality. The subject of this research is to identify the mechanisms through which the principles and institutions of constitutionalism adapt to these challenges. The relevance of the topic is determined by the need for legal formalization of long-term responses to threats that were previously viewed as temporary. Special attention is given to how the role of the state is changing: from a mechanism for restraining power to a guarantor of resilience and stability. This shift in emphasis requires the development of a new theoretical and normative construct. Constitutionalism must be capable of not only limiting power but also sustaining the viability of the system in the face of existential risks. Methodologically, the work is based on systemic and comparative legal approaches that allow for the exploration of adaptive mechanisms in different jurisdictions. Formal legal and hermeneutic analysis is employed to reveal the transformation of key concepts within the legal field. The scientific novelty of the research lies in the conceptualization of security as an internal constitutional category, rather than an external phenomenon relative to the legal system. For the first time, an attempt is made to systematically consider the institutionalization of security within the structure of modern constitutionalism. It is shown that the legal establishment of security measures must be accompanied by the creation of stable institutions, rather than being reduced to temporary states of emergency. It is argued that only through such institutionalization is a new balance possible between rights and protective measures. The research also pays attention to transnational legal trends affecting national constitutional practices. The conclusion is made about the necessity for a flexible, yet normatively defined approach to security as a constitutional category. The presented provisions contribute to the development of adaptive constitutionalism as a responsive form to the challenges of the 21st century.

Abstract: The modern model of constitutionalism is undergoing profound transformations under the influence of global economic and political-legal changes. One of the key challenges that accentuates the need to rethink theoretical and legal foundations is the growing crisis of fiscal sustainability, exacerbated by the consequences of globalization, digitalization, and climate changes. In these conditions, the concept of financial constitutionalism takes on special significance, representing not merely a form of budgetary regulation but a comprehensive institutional mechanism for ensuring the sustainability of public finances. The subject of this research is the legal foundations, institutional manifestations, and transformational trends of financial constitutionalism in the context of the evolution of the modern constitutional order. The analysis focuses on the relationship between financial sovereignty, public accountability, and legal limitations on power in conditions of layered and fragmented governance. The methodological basis of the research includes an interdisciplinary approach that combines doctrines of public law, theories of institutionalism, and economic-legal analysis. Comparative legal analysis methods, formal-legal methods, and a systemic approach have been applied to reveal the interconnection between fiscal and constitutional transformations. The use of historical-legal methods allowed tracing the evolution of fiscal control. The scientific novelty of the research lies in establishing financial constitutionalism as an independent and promising paradigm of modern constitutional governance, capable of serving as the core of institutional resilience in conditions of legal uncertainty. The study identifies the main principles and potential development vectors of financial constitutionalism in the legal systems of Global South countries and the post-Soviet space. The necessity of constitutional enshrinement of parameters for sustainable public finances as a tool for balancing economic rationality and social justice is justified. It is shown that the new paradigm requires a transformation of ideas about the role of the constitution as an instrument of macroeconomic governance. This framing of the problem goes beyond the traditional approach to financial law, which is limited to the instrumental role of the budget. Within the article, public finances are proposed to be viewed as a sphere possessing not only economic but also political-legal content, capable of directly influencing the structure, functioning, and legitimacy of state institutions.

Abstract: Contemporary processes of globalization and the expansion of transnational legal interactions intensify the discussion about the limits of sovereignty and the legitimacy of power in the context of increasing international normativity. The focus is on the international legal order, which gradually loses the features of exclusively intergovernmental regulation and increasingly influences domestic legal systems. Constitutionalism, traditionally relying on the idea of internal sovereignty, undergoes a qualitative transformation under the influence of international law norms, including soft law and the practices of international jurisdictions. The subject of this research is the paradigmatic shift in the understanding of constitutionalism: from a closed state form to an open model oriented towards universal principles of human rights, legal justice, and global legitimacy. Special attention is paid to the reconsideration of the relationship between national and international law in the practice of constitutional courts in European countries. The relevance of the topic is determined by the need for theoretical understanding of the ongoing changes and the development of new approaches to assessing legitimacy and sovereignty in the context of post-national legal order. The methodological basis of the study comprises dialectical and systemic-structural approaches, allowing for the analysis of the interaction between different levels of legal regulation. Comparative legal, historical-legal, and formal-legal methods, as well as case analysis of the practices of international and national courts, were employed. The novelty of the research lies in the conceptualization of the international legal order as a form of post-sovereign regulation, where constitutionalism acquires supranational characteristics. It has been revealed that international law norms become not only external limitations but also internally significant elements of national justice. For the first time, the role of soft law in shaping a transnational constitutional canon that influences the domestic legal order outside formal implementation mechanisms has been demonstrated. The author concludes that a model of "open constitutionalism" is emerging, suggesting a dialogue of legal systems based on universal standards. The need to rethink the concept of sovereignty in terms of interaction rather than opposition is substantiated. The study shows that international argumentation becomes an integral part of the legitimization of constitutional decisions. The results can be used in legislative and expert activities aimed at harmonizing national legal systems with international standards.

Abstract: The current state of political-legal systems is characterized by the increase of turbulence caused by global, digital, ecological, and social challenges. In these conditions, the traditional model of constitutionalism, based on stability, hierarchy, and normative rigidity, is losing its capacity for effective legal and institutional adaptation. The task arises to rethink the theoretical and practical foundations of constitutional order, taking into account new forms of legal dynamics. The subject of this research is the phenomenon of adaptive constitutionalism, viewed as a paradigm capable of ensuring flexibility and resilience of public authority in conditions of instability. The relevance of the topic is determined by the necessity to develop legal mechanisms that ensure a balance between the variability of the external environment and the internal normative coherence of the constitutional order. The article examines the conceptual foundations of adaptive constitutionalism as well as the institutional forms of its implementation in various legal systems. The methodological basis of the study includes system-structural, comparative-legal, institutional, and contextual methods of analysis. The use of an interdisciplinary approach allowed for the identification of correlations between political instability, legal transformation, and institutional adaptability. The scientific novelty of the research lies in the introduction and justification of the category "adaptive constitutionalism" as an independent direction in the development of modern constitutional-legal thought. The work reveals the theoretical principles underlying it: flexibility, responsiveness, legal pluralism, digital legitimacy, and institutional resilience. Institutional mechanisms ensuring the adaptation of the constitutional order have been defined: flexible forms of the separation of powers, digitization of public procedures, and the evolution of control and participation mechanisms. The necessity of transitioning from normative rigidity to legal adaptability without losing legitimacy and predictability of the legal system has been substantiated. It is shown that adaptive constitutionalism acts as a legal response to the challenges of political-legal turbulence while preserving the principles of the rule of law, human rights, and institutional balance. The conclusion is made about the prospects for applying the concept in transforming and post-crisis societies. The proposed concept can be used as a theoretical model and practical guideline in designing resilient legal orders.

Abstract: In the context of increasing global instability and accelerating processes of transformation of political and legal systems, the question of maintaining state stability through the lens of modernization of constitutional mechanisms has become particularly pressing. Constitutional systems, which traditionally served as stabilizing frameworks of state power, are increasingly facing challenges brought about not only by internal socio-political contradictions but also by external transnational factors. Contemporary constitutionalism, undergoing qualitative changes, is encountering challenges arising from the hybridization of forms of government, the strengthening of executive power, and changes in the nature of political legitimacy. The subject of this study is modified forms of constitutional mechanisms aimed at ensuring state stability in a changing normative and institutional environment. Special attention is paid to the institutional, normative, and functional aspects of the transformation of constitutional stability. The analysis covers both general patterns and the peculiarities of individual legal systems that demonstrate alternative models of stability. The methodology of the research is based on an interdisciplinary approach that combines doctrinal analysis, a comparative legal method, and elements of political and legal hermeneutics. The emphasis is placed on identifying stable trends and varied forms of modernization by comparing constitutional practices of different states. The novelty of the study lies in revealing the hidden mechanisms of adaptation of constitutional governance to the changing conditions of socio-political existence. The author proposes a conceptual distinction between formal stability and functional resilience, highlighting the non-linearity of these processes. The work substantiates that the modification of constitutional mechanisms is not merely a reaction to challenges but a form of institutional evolution, linked to a change in the paradigm of constitutionalism. It concludes that hybrid models of stability are being formed, combining elements of traditional and innovative solutions. Alongside this, the significance of political adaptability is increasing as the ability of legal and institutional systems to respond to challenges without undermining the legitimate basis of power. Political adaptability implies not only the flexibility of norms but also the capacity of institutions for internal restructuring, maintaining functionality in times of crisis, and incorporating new actors and meanings into the legal framework.

Abstract: In recent decades, state power has become a multilayered, multi-component, and multilevel system in which various structures and mechanisms interact with each other and sometimes compete for influence. This requires a revision of traditional approaches to the analysis of public power and is associated with the necessity of developing new theoretical and practical models capable of adequately reflecting the real picture of state activity in the context of modern political and legal transformations. Constitutionalism, in its classical interpretation, is based on universal and abstract principles such as the rule of law, separation of powers, protection of human rights, and guarantees of legal order. However, in light of the growing complexity of the modern state apparatus, the universality of these principles is undergoing adaptation and specification, which necessitates reflecting on specialized forms of constitutionalism, such as judicial, administrative, financial, and others. These specialized forms become not just technical means of implementing a general constitutional order but also important indicators of deeper transformations occurring within the constitutional framework. In this regard, the subject of research is the specificity of the emergence and functioning of these specialized forms in the context of adapting universal principles of constitutionalism to changing conditions and the differentiated structure of modern state power. The methodological foundation of the work consists of systemic, institutional, and comparative-legal approaches that allow for the identification of patterns in the evolution of public legal mechanisms. The application of methods of legal dogmatics and critical analysis ensures a theoretical depth in the understanding of specialized forms of constitutional regulation. The novelty of the research lies in the conceptualization of specialized forms of constitutionalism as stable adaptive mechanisms that support the integrity of the constitutional order in conditions of its complexity. It is indicated that these specialized forms are not opposed to classical constitutionalism, but represent its institutional development. Emphasis is placed on the fact that such forms contribute to strengthening legal guarantees, improving the balance of powers, and increasing the flexibility of the public governance system in modern society. Their manifestations in various legal systems are analyzed. Within the framework of the research, the thesis is substantiated that functional specialization is a necessary condition for actualizing the basic values of the constitutional legal order. It is concluded that specialized forms of constitutionalism should be considered as indicators of the maturity and adaptability of public authority.

Abstract: Contemporary processes of globalization, digitalization, and political changes exacerbate the problem of ensuring human rights at the international level, while the transformation of constitutionalism serves as a crucial context for rethinking the mechanisms of their protection. The international legal protection of human rights becomes an integral part of evolving constitutional systems, necessitating an analysis of not only legal norms but also political-legal paradigms. In the context of fragmentation of state sovereignty and the growing influence of transnational actors, the significance of universal and regional mechanisms of legal protection increases. In this regard, the subject of the study is the relationship between international legal guarantees of human rights and the processes of constitutionalism transformation in various states. Special attention is paid to the legal and institutional interaction between national and supranational levels of the legal protection system. Methodologically, the work relies on a comprehensive approach that combines principles of legal, political, and comparative legal analysis. Both general scientific methods (analysis, synthesis, induction, deduction) and specialized methods (comparative legal, formal-legal, institutional) are used. The empirical basis includes documents from the UN, regional human rights organizations, decisions of international courts, and national constitutional courts. The scientific novelty of this study lies in its attempt to examine the international legal protection of human rights not from a static perspective, relying solely on legal norms and institutions, but in dynamics — through the lens of a transforming constitutional order. This approach allows for the identification of the internal logic of legal development in the context of global legal pluralism and institutional instability. Furthermore, the work proposes the concept of an "integrative human rights protection approach," oriented towards a flexible combination of universal international standards with local forms of legal culture and institutional organization of power. Thus, the aim of the article is not only a legal analysis of existing norms but also the formulation of guidelines for a possible transformation of human rights protection mechanisms in the context of post-classical constitutionalism.

Abstract: The subject of this article is the model of educational-pedagogical activity in political-legal sphere, which takes into consideration the research data on optimization of educational process in this field. The author outlines the parameters that impact the effectiveness of implementation of the model of educational-pedagogical activity in political-legal sphere. It is substantiated by the fact that the content of education gives knowledge and experience, which promote civic and social activism. The researchers widely acknowledge that education serves as the engine of economic growth due to accumulation of human capital; education is also closely related with the increase of social capital as a result of the advancement of education. The author comes to the conclusion that the formation of students’ attitude towards political-legal sphere is based on the logical interrelatedness of the indicated components. It is worth noting that each structural component, which affects the formation of attitude towards political-legal sphere, depends on the particular activity of the subjects involved, including the peculiarities of organization of educational space and competence of pedagogues. The author underlines that engagement in extracurricular activities has a positive impact upon all aspects of the organization of educational process in political-legal sphere, except for the intention to participate in civic activity, which is assessed by attending organizational meetings.

Abstract: The subject of this research is the conceptualization of political education in educational science. Political education functions as a privileged point of intersection of various political discourses. It is claimed that different versions of political education comply with different ontological and epistemological assumptions, normative approaches towards democracy, and concepts of correlation between education, humanistic knowledge, and politics. It is noted that in majority of historical and philosophical concepts of democracy, there is a tacit link between politics and education. Recommendations for educational practice contain the definition of pedagogy within the framework of the theory of political education, as well as specific pedagogical methodologies with consideration of humanistic knowledge. The author describes the versions of political education that emerged as a result of analysis of the material. The corresponding political discourse and its philosophical principles, educational consequences for politics and practice, as well as debates and criticism, are viewed for each version. Thus, the elitarian version of political education and political pedagogy is associated with the elitarian democratic discourse. The supporters of liberal political education need education for political, epistemological, and moral reasons. Political equality can be guaranteed only in the society of informed and rational citizens; therefore, democracy requires the universalization of education. Neoliberals, in turn, recommend substituting public education with practice of competitive market, while debating pedagogues understand the education of democratic civic consciousness as cultivation of skills and values for the public discussion.

Abstract:  
 
This article gives special attention to examination of the existing approaches towards the category of “constitutionalism”. Absence of the universal definition of this category became the result of such multiplicity. The author expresses an opinion that despite the dominance of natural law in establishment of the concept of constitutionalism, which allowed the legal experts speak of the exclusiveness of constitutionalism as a legal category, the moment of considering the philosophical and political prerequisites of its establishment and development remains necessary. Thus, particular attention is focused on the review of this category from the positions of political science. The author highlights the necessity of development of the category of constitutionalism in politological discourse based on its perception as a sociopolitical phenomenon, the purpose of which consists in existence of the demand of society in the rational development of modern state. Such demand can be satisfied due to the development of the current political mechanism of political power relations based on the theory of constitutionalism.
 
 

Abstract:  
 
This article gives special attention to examination of the existing approaches towards the category of “constitutionalism”. Absence of the universal definition of this category became the result of such multiplicity. The author expresses an opinion that despite the dominance of natural law in establishment of the concept of constitutionalism, which allowed the legal experts speak of the exclusiveness of constitutionalism as a legal category, the moment of considering the philosophical and political prerequisites of its establishment and development remains necessary. Thus, particular attention is focused on the review of this category from the positions of political science. The author highlights the necessity of development of the category of constitutionalism in politological discourse based on its perception as a sociopolitical phenomenon, the purpose of which consists in existence of the demand of society in the rational development of modern state. Such demand can be satisfied due to the development of the current political mechanism of political power relations based on the theory of constitutionalism.