|
DOI: 10.7256/2454-0706.2022.1.37376
Received:
22-01-2022
Published:
02-02-2022
Abstract:
This article provides a peer review of the conceptual monographic research of PhD in Law, Docent Valentina Mikhailovna Bolshakova “The Dynamics of Judicial Reforms in Russia in late XIX – early XX centuries (historical-legal research)”. The relevance and timeliness of the monograph are determined by the need to acquire the knowledge on the judicial sphere for the purpose of implementation of the effective and fair justice, as well as establishment of an optimal and modern judicial system. The solution to this problem is requires scientific substantiation. The Russian historical-legal science has accumulated a vast number of works that describe the functionality and social role of the judiciary. However, there are no research within the historical-legal literature dedicated to the dynamics of judicial transformations in the structural, organizational, and functional aspects of the judicial system. The monograph of V. M. Bolshakova successfully fills the gap in the field of studying judicial structures, representing fundamental research on the dynamics of the Russian judiciary, which is well-founded from a general theoretical, applied and historical perspectives. It not only reveals the details of the structure of the judicial system at various stages of its existence, but also the causes and consequences of judicial reforms and transformations. The authorial analysis of the judicial reforms also contains the concept of their dynamics. The examination of judicial institutions is of particular value.
Keywords:
judicial system, the structure of the judiciary, principles of the judiciary, judicial reforms, judicial branch, classical chrono-discrete institute, periodization, judicial institutions, conceptuality, social sensitivity
This article is automatically translated.
"All professions – from people, and only three are from God: teacher, judge and doctor". Socrates (ancient Greek philosopher) Introduction. A modern state is unthinkable without a complex system of organs and institutions. The mechanism of the state differs from a simple set of administrative structures by its internal unity and, at the same time, by the hierarchy of its components. It is characterized by legitimacy, as well as integrity, harmony and completeness of the structure. The judicial system is one of the mandatory components of the mechanism of the modern state. The State exercises power and performs its functions through its mechanism, including through the exercise of judicial power by courts [27]. Each legal system is characterized by uniqueness in the construction of its judicial system, differences in understanding and achieving justice in specific legal cases. Since nowadays it is considered that we are all children of a single civilization (Y. Harari), in recent decades there has been a steady trend towards the unification of national justice systems, with the inevitable partial loss of state sovereignty by such systems. In this regard, it is gratifying that thorough systematic studies devoted to the genesis of domestic legal institutions continue to appear in the historical and legal sciences. The monograph of Bolshakova V.M., devoted to the conceptual study of the dynamics of judicial transformations in Russia in the second half of the XIX – beginning of the XXI century, of course, both in content and in the breadth of the historical review, and in the theoretical elaboration of the main scientific provisions is among those [1]. It is worth noting that in the Russian legal tradition there is a large number of both fundamental and applied legal studies devoted to the phenomenon of the judiciary, its structure, principles of activity and analysis of social functioning [23; 32-34; 36]. These studies largely include the works of the author of this review [25; 26; 28-30], developed in the framework of the study of the judiciary as a general legal phenomenon. At the same time, judicial power is an objective phenomenon, like all other types of power inherent in human society, starting from the organization of relations in the family, ending with state power. The judicial power apparatus is a judicial system, the architecture of which is predetermined by the level of development of society as a whole [31]. In such a question worked out from various points of view, the monographic study of Bolshakova V.M. is an original view, a kind of "breath of fresh air", since it allows the scientific community to look at the judiciary from a different angle – its systemic external and internal organization, the features of the device and its development, mutual social transition from one judicial structure to another. The author has developed a concept of the dynamics of judicial transformations in Russia in the second half of the XIX – beginning of the XXI century, analyzed the principles of the judicial system and carried out the study of social institutions that are traditionally attributed to the judicial sphere – the prosecutor's office, the bar and bailiffs. The research is based on a combination of historical, dialectical and systemic approaches, which together allow us to form fairly objective ideas about Russian judicial transformations. In addition, the method of system analysis was most effectively used by the author in analyzing the evolution of the principles of the organization of the judicial system and its elements. Following the other reviewers of this monograph, who have already presented their opinion about the monograph to the scientific community [24; 35], I will also express my own position on the conducted research. The main part. The historical and legal study of the dynamics of Russian judicial transformations is a conceptual continuation of the comparative analysis of Russian chronodiscret judicial institutions and judicial reforms of 1864 in the Russian Empire and the end of the XX – beginning of the XXI century in the Russian Federation previously conducted by Bolshakova V.M. [2; 3]. This monograph is a logical continuation of other scientific research previously conducted by the author and is the conceptual result of the author's developments in the field of the judicial system of Russia [4-20]. The author of the monograph, Candidate of Legal Sciences, associate Professor, Associate Professor of the Department of Constitutional and Administrative Law of the Nizhny Novgorod Institute of Management – a branch of the Russian Academy of National Economy and Public Administration under the President of the Russian Federation Bolshakova Valentina Mikhailovna presents the results of historical and legal conceptualization of judicial transformations in Russia in the second half of the XIX - early XXI century. She managed to conduct such a study on the basis of an "end-to-end" analysis of the dynamics of Russian judicial transformations in the key historical periods for our country (pre-revolutionary, Soviet, modern), which are divided by the author. Bolshakova V.M. has worked out the source base of the study very extensively. Thus, the list of sources used in the monograph is 1027 scientific papers, including dissertations, abstracts of dissertations, monographs, archival and library sources. Based on this, the author's periodization of the history of judicial transformations is proposed, which should be recognized as very successful. The criteria for distinguishing periods of judicial transformations, their causes, essence and problematic aspects, including revolutionary and evolutionary changes within each period, are revealed [22]. Of great theoretical and applied significance is the fact that the author has considered in detail the social institutions that are associated with the activities of the judicial system (prosecutor's office, bar, bailiffs, appeals). The monograph also contains a number of proposals for changing and improving the legislation currently in force on judicial proceedings and enforcement agencies.
The creative scope and theoretical breadth of the issues covered in the monograph can be easily established through the analysis of the content of the monograph. It is presented classically: introduction, conclusion, list of abbreviations and literature, as well as the main part, consisting of five chapters, which structurally consist of fourteen paragraphs. The five chapters of the monograph consistently analyze the theoretical and methodological foundations of the study of the dynamics of judicial transformations in Russia in the second half of the XIX – beginning of the XXI century, the causes and problematic aspects of judicial transformations, trends in the development of the judicial system of Russia and the evolution of the institutions of the prosecutor's office and the bar, as well as a comparative legal analysis of Russian judicial institutions. Chapter I of the monograph, which is called "Theoretical and methodological foundations of the study of the dynamics of judicial transformations in Russia in the second half of the XIX - beginning of the XXI century", is devoted to the study of the historiography of judicial transformations, as well as the analysis of the sources of their study, the construction of the periodization of judicial transformations and the justification of the methodology of research. The author of the monograph in the first chapter concretizes the concepts of "dynamics of judicial transformations", "judicial transformations" and "judicial reform", differentiates such concepts as "judicial reform", "judicial transformations in the narrow sense" and "judicial transformations in the broad sense". The second chapter is devoted to the causes and problematic aspects of judicial reforms in Russia in the second half of the XIX – early XXI century. The author identifies the social, economic, political and legal prerequisites for judicial reforms, their causes and consequences. The third chapter of the monograph is devoted to the trends in the development of the judicial system of Russia in the second half of the XIX – beginning of the XXI century, which highlights the principles of the organization of the judicial system at each stage of judicial transformations. The structure, content and directions of the evolution of the principles of the judicial system are presented, some principles of the organization of the judicial system are analyzed separately (for example, independence and irremovability of judges). According to the results of the chapter, a system of principles of the organization of the judicial system is highlighted, which is conditioned, as in all historical periods, by state and public interests, and depends on the social order and public morality. The principles of the judicial system, which are legally fixed at the present stage, are given. Chapter IV "The evolution of the institutions of the Prosecutor's Office and the bar in Russia in the second half of the XIX – beginning of the XXI century" is devoted to the study of the dynamics of the development of the Institute of the Prosecutor's Office, as well as the dynamics of the development of the Institute of the bar in the Russian Empire, the RSFSR/ USSR and the Russian Federation. The author has established that the dynamics of the development of the prosecutor's office and the bar corresponded to the trends of judicial reforms carried out at that time. The Soviet period of development of the prosecutor's office and the bar was a specific stage in the development of these bodies, since they were associated with the ideology prevailing in the country. Chapter V of the monograph "Comparative legal analysis of Russian judicial institutions in the second half of the XIX - early XXI century" examines the essence of the evolution of the institute of magistrates in Russia and the institute of jurors in the Russian Empire and the Russian Federation, reveals the development of the institute of bailiffs and the transformation of the institute of appeal. This chapter substantiates the position that the World Court in the Russian Empire and the Russian Federation was and is one of the institutions of civil society. Bolshakova V.M. believes that the conciliatory function of a justice of the peace should be directly enshrined in the current legislation, namely in the Federal Law "On Justices of the Peace of the Russian Federation", the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Code of Civil Procedure, and proposes to amend the current legislation. In this chapter, the author comes to the conclusion that the jury trial can be considered as an element of civil society for the following reasons: 1) the democratic procedure for the formation of the jury; 2) the presence in the trial of two panels (professional judges and jurors) with different competencies and independent of each other; in this situation, neither the crown judges nor anyone else can directly influence the verdict of the jury; 3) when making jurors are guided not by the norms of law (which they do not know and should not know in relation to the specific criminal case under consideration), but by their own ideas about justice, good and evil and other ethical categories, as well as internal beliefs formed during the process. The author proposes a number of constructive proposals to amend Federal Law No. 118-FZ of July 21, 1997 "On Enforcement Agencies of the Russian Federation" (as amended. dated 01.10.2019 No. 328-FZ) by supplementing Chapter I.1 with Articles 1, 2, 3. Discussions. Since in the reviewed monograph, along with traditional methods of scientific cognition, the author used a number of original ways to obtain scientific data, it would be natural to present their comparative characteristics. However, the author of the monograph did not fully use such a technique. The lack of a broad analysis of the institute of judicial investigators in the monograph also raises questions. It is obvious that this institution existed only in certain historical periods, but in the public consciousness its existence is also associated with the judicial system. It seems more logical for the reviewer on the part of the author to devote one of the paragraphs of the monograph to the study of the genesis of forensic investigators. I would also like to see in such a work a more detailed analysis of the driving forces of the development of judicial structures, the social contradictions that generate them and condition the development of the court as a civilizational phenomenon. The wishes indicated by the reviewer are of the nature of a creative search and express only his author's view of the issues under study. They do not reduce the overall impression of the monograph, as well as its high scientific and practical significance. Conclusions and conclusion. Historically, starting with Aristotle and ending with Kant and Hegel, law has been considered within the framework of philosophical and ethical ideas about human nature and in direct correlation with morality. The moral embodiment of law is found through fair enforcement, one of the most important forms of which is judicial proceedings or the administration of justice [21]. As the author of the reviewed monograph correctly notes, the study of the bodies that administer justice is one of the ways to improve it.
To date, there have been no works in domestic and foreign historical and legal science that conceptually studied the dynamics of judicial transformations in the Russian Empire, the RSFSR / USSR and Russia for such a long historical period, although there were prerequisites for such. V.M. Bolshakova in the monograph "Dynamics of judicial transformations in Russia in the second half of the XIX – at the beginning of the XXI century: historical and legal research" this task was solved successfully and in a timely manner. The author rightly comes to the conclusion that the Russian judicial system has been transformed many times since the judicial reform of 1864 and up to the present time. The changes were of a smooth evolutionary nature within each historical period, due to the needs of a specific historical situation, the requirements of adapting legislation to them. The characteristic of the structure of the modern judicial system is that there was a rejection of the administrative-territorial organization of the judicial system. Currently, the judicial system of the Russian Federation is based on the principle of combining administrative-territorial and district organization. It is the result of a combination of legal historical experience, as well as novelties caused by the needs of society and the corresponding level of development of the country, the achievements of legal technology, interaction with other countries and international organizations. It cannot be said that the reform of the structure of the judicial system of Russia has been completed today, and this requires further research of its dynamics based on changes in legislation [7]. It is important to note that the author formulates a new scientific direction in the history of state and law – the study of the dynamics of judicial transformations in a particular state over a long historical period. The formation of this scientific direction makes it possible not only to know the evolution of the domestic judicial system, but also to study the historical and legal dynamics of transformations of other state bodies through the analysis of the causes of these transformations, problems of implementation, the results of reforms, the principles of the organization of the system of state power, its elements and the evolution of individual institutions.
References
1. Bol'shakova, V.M. Dinamika sudebnyh preobrazovanij v Rossii vo vtoroj polovine XIX – nachale XXI veka: istoriko-pravovoe issledovanie / V.M. Bol'shakova, pod nauchn. red. A.A. Demichev, FGBOU VO «Rossijskaja akademija narodnogo hozjajstva i gosudarstvennoj sluzhby pri Prezidente Rossijskoj Federacii». Tambov: Izdatel'skij dom «Derzhavinskij», 2021. 660 s.
2. Bol'shakova, V.M. Rossijskie hronodiskretnye sudebnye instituty: monografija / V.M. Bol'shakova, pod nauchn. red. A.A. Demicheva. M.: Rusajns, 2019. 180 s.
3. Bol'shakova, V.M. Sudebnaja reforma 1864 g. v Rossijskoj imperii i sudebnaja reforma konca HH – nachala XXI v. v Rossijskoj Federacii: sravnitel'nyj analiz (postanovka problemy): monografija / nauchnaja redakcija A.A. Demichev. M.: Rusajns, 2019. 156 s.
4. Bol'shakova, V.M. Teoreticheskie osnovy sudebnyh preobrazovanij v Rossijskoj imperii v 1864 g. i Rossijskoj Federacii v konce HH – nachale XXI v / V.M. Bol'shakova // Voprosy rossijskogo i mezhdunarodnogo prava. 2018. T. 8. ¹ 8A. S. 12-19.
5. Bol'shakova, V.M. Principy organizacii sudebnoj sistemy Rossijskoj Imperii v 1864-1917 gg. / Bol'shakova V.M. // Vestnik Vladimirskogo juridicheskogo instituta. 2020. ¹ 3 (56). S. 165-170.
6. Bol'shakova, V.M. O nekotoryh voprosah garmonizacii zakonodatel'stva o sudoproizvodstve i predstavitel'stve: sravnitel'no-pravovaja harakteristika / V.M. Bol'shakova, P.Ju. Naumov // Aktual'nye problemy gosudarstva i prava. 2021. T. 5. ¹ 19. S. 373-387.
7. Bol'shakova, V.M. Genezis stanovlenija i razvitija sudebnoj sistemy Rossijskoj Federacii v konce XX-nachale XXI veka: institucional'nye i normativnye harakteristiki / V.M. Bol'shakova // Pravo i politika. 2021. ¹ 3. S. 26-36.
8. Bol'shakova, V.M. Dinamika razvitija sovetskoj sudebnoj sistemy v 1958-1991 gg. / V.M. Bol'shakova // Pravo i gosudarstvo: teorija i praktika. 2021. ¹ 2 (194). S. 60-66.
9. Bol'shakova, V.M. Advokatura kak institut grazhdanskogo obshhestva v Rossii: istorija i sovremennost' / V.M. Bol'shakova // Grazhdanskoe obshhestvo v Rossii i za rubezhom. 2017. ¹ 4. S. 41-44.
10. Bol'shakova, V.M. Prokuratura kak hronodiskretnyj rossijskij institut / V.M. Bol'shakova // Voprosy rossijskogo i mezhdunarodnogo prava. 2018. T. 8. ¹ 6A. S. 12-18.
11. Bol'shakova, V.M. Ogranichenija, pred#javljaemye k kandidatam v prisjazhnye zasedateli v Rossijskoj imperii i Rossijskoj Federacii (hronodiskretnyj aspekt) / V.M. Bol'shakova // Juridicheskaja tehnika. 2018. ¹ 12. S. 96-98.
12. Bol'shakova, V.M. Sravnitel'nyj analiz sudebnyh preobrazovanij v Rossii (na primere sudebnyh reform vtoroj poloviny XIX v. i konca HH – nachala XXI v.) / V.M. Bol'shakova // Vestnik Nizhegorodskogo instituta upravlenija. 2018. ¹ 1 (47). S. 37-40.
13. Bol'shakova, V.M. Sravnitel'no-pravovoj analiz principa sostjazatel'nosti v ugolovnom sudoproizvodstve Rossii na raznyh istoricheskih jetapah / V.M. Bol'shakova // Vestnik Nizhegorodskogo instituta upravlenija. 2018. ¹ 2 (48). S. 54-57.
14. Bol'shakova, V.M. Preobrazovanija otechestvennoj sudebnoj sistemy: istoricheskij opyt vtoroj poloviny XIX veka / V.M. Bol'shakova // Vestnik Nizhegorodskogo instituta upravlenija. 2019. ¹ 2 (52). S. 54-57.
15. Bol'shakova, V.M. K voprosu o finansovom obespechenii sudebnyh preobrazovanij v Rossii vo vtoroj polovine XIX – nachale HH v. i na rubezhe HH–XXI v. / V.M. Bol'shakova // Uchenye zapiski. N. Novgorod: NIU RANHiGS, 2018. T. 16. S. 30-33.
16. Bol'shakova, V.M. Konstitucionnoe pravo rossijskih grazhdan na uchastie v otpravlenii pravosudija / V.M. Bol'shakova // 25 let Konstitucii Rossijskoj Federacii: tradicii i novacii gosudarstvenno-pravovogo razvitija: materialy Vserossijskoj nauchnoj konferencii. 19-20 oktjabrja 2018 goda / otv. red. V.Ju. Stromov. Tambov: Print-Servis, 2018. S. 96-98.
17. Bol'shakova, V.M. Mirovoj sud kak institut grazhdanskogo obshhestva v Rossii: istorija i sovremennost' / V.M. Bol'shakova // Mirovoj sud'ja. 2017. ¹ 12. S. 17–20.
18. Bol'shakova, V.M. Hronodiskretnye rossijskie instituty (na primere sudebnyh preobrazovanij v Rossii vo vtoroj polovine XIX v. i v konce HH – nachale XXI v.) / V.M. Bol'shakova // Juridicheskaja nauka i praktika: vestnik Nizhegorodskoj akademii MVD Rossii. 2018. ¹ 3. S. 51-56.
19. Bol'shakova, V.M. Problemnye aspekty sudebnyh preobrazovanij v Rossii vtoroj poloviny XIX – nachala HH v. i konca HH – nachala XXI v. (finansovoe obespechenie i kadrovaja problema) / V.M. Bol'shakova // Istoriko-pravovye problemy: Novyj rakurs. 2018. ¹ 2. S. 84-90.
20. Bol'shakova, V.M. Normativnaja osnova sudebnyh preobrazovanij v Rossijskoj imperii vo vtoroj polovine XIX v. i Rossijskoj Federacii v konce HH – nachale XXI v. / V.M. Bol'shakova // Juridicheskaja nauka. 2018. ¹ 3. S. 29-35.
21. Gusejnov, A.A. Moral' i pravo: linii razgranichenija // Lex russica (Russkij zakon). 2018. ¹ 8 (141). S. 7-22.
22. Demichev, A.A. i dr. Periodizacija istorii sudebnyh preobrazovanij v Rossii vo vtoroj polovine XIX-XXI vv. / A.A. Demichev, V.M. Bol'shakova, V.A. Iljuhina // Istorija gosudarstva i prava. 2021. ¹ 5. S. 34-45.
23. Demichev, A.A. Principy i perspektivy razvitija nauchnogo napravlenija «Hronodiskretnoe monogeograficheskoe sravnitel'noe pravovedenie» / A.A. Demichev // Juridicheskaja nauka i praktika: Vestnik Nizhegorodskoj akademii MVD Rossii. 2016. ¹ 1 (33). S. 23-28.
24. Isaev, V.I. Na puti k optimal'noj strukture sudebnoj sistemy: Recenzija na knigu V.M. Bol'shakovoj «Dinamika sudebnyh preobrazovanij v Rossii vo vtoroj polovine XIX – nachale XXI veka (istoriko-pravovoe issledovanie)» / V.I. Isaev // Juridicheskie issledovanija. 2021. ¹ 11. S. 108-116.
25. Kolokolov, N.A. O chem ne stoit zabyvat' avtoram sudebnoj reformy / N.A. Kolokolov // Rossijskij sud'ja. 1999. ¹ 2. S. 3.
26. Kolokolov, N.A. Sudebnaja vlast': priroda, sushhnost', soderzhanie i nekotorye problemy reformirovanija rossijskoj sudebnoj sistemy / Kolokolov N.A. // Gosudarstvennaja vlast' i mestnoe samoupravlenie. 2000. ¹ 2.
27. Kolokolov, N.A. Rol' sudebnyh sistem v social'nom i gosudarstvennom upravlenii na sovremennom jetape / N.A. Kolokolov // Pravo i upravlenie. XXI vek. 2008. ¹ 1 (6). S. 38-44.
28. Kolokolov, N.A. Jevoljucija sudebnoj vlasti: istoriko-pravovoj aspekt. Sud v uslovijah sovremennosti / N.A. Kolokolov // Istorija gosudarstva i prava. 2016. ¹ 12. S. 60-63.
29. Kolokolov, N.A. Jevoljucija sudebnoj vlasti: istoriko-pravovoj aspekt. Sud v Rossii i SSSR / N.A. Kolokolov // Istorija gosudarstva i prava. 2016. ¹ 15. S. 22-26.
30. Kolokolov, N.A. Sudebnaja vlast': predlozhenija Soveta pri Prezidente Rossii / N.A. Kolokolov // Mirovoj sud'ja. 2017. ¹ 12. S. 11-17.
31. Kolokolov, N.A. Principy organizacii sudoproizvodstva: prichiny permanentnoj konkurencii racional'nogo s irracional'nym / N.A. Kolokolov // Juridicheskaja tehnika. 2020. ¹ 14. S. 177-193. S. 193.
32. Nemytina, M.V. Sudebnaja reforma 1864 g. na sociokul'turnom prostranstve Rossijskoj Imperii / M.V. Nemytina // V knige: Sudebnaja pravovaja politika v Rossii i zarubezhnyh stranah. Kollektivnaja monografija. Sankt-Peterburg, 2019. S. 176-187.
33. Nemytina, M.V. Trehmernaja kommunikativnaja model' pravoobrazovanija / M.V. Nemytina // Izvestija vysshih uchebnyh zavedenij. Pravovedenie. 2015. ¹ 4 (321). S. 59-70.
34. Nemytina, M.V. Samoderzhavie i sudebnye preobrazovanija vtoroj poloviny HIH – nachala HH veka v Rossii / Nemytina M.V. // Istoriko-pravovye problemy: novyj rakurs. 2014. ¹ 9-2. S. 85-103.
35. Holikov, I.V. Harakteristika razvitija otechestvennogo sudoustrojstva. Recenzija na monografiju V.M. Bol'shakovoj «Dinamika sudebnyh preobrazovanij v Rossii vo vtoroj polovine XIX – nachale XXI veka (istoriko-pravovoe issledovanie)» / I.V. Holikov // Juridicheskaja nauka i pravoohranitel'naja praktika. 2021. ¹ 4 (58). S. 114-120.
36. Chernogor, N.N. § 4. Standarty pravosudija v kontekste sudebnoj pravovoj politiki / N.N. Chernogor // Sudebnaja pravovaja politika v Rossii i zarubezhnyh stranah: Kollektivnaja monografija. Sankt-Peterburg: Centr nauchno-informacionnyh tehnologij «Asterion», 2019. S. 48-54
Peer Review
Peer reviewers' evaluations remain confidential and are not disclosed to the public. Only external reviews, authorized for publication by the article's author(s), are made public. Typically, these final reviews are conducted after the manuscript's revision. Adhering to our double-blind review policy, the reviewer's identity is kept confidential.
The list of publisher reviewers can be found here.
REVIEW of the article on the topic "The conceptual way of cognition of judicial transformations in Russia (Review of the monograph by V.M. Bolshakova "Dynamics of judicial transformations in Russia in the second half of the XIX – early XXI century (historical and legal research)". RANEPA, Derzhavinsky Publishing House, 2021. 660 p.)". The subject of the study. The article proposed for review is devoted to the conceptual path of "... cognition of judicial transformations in Russia", i.e. a review of V. M. Bolshakova's monograph "Dynamics of judicial transformations in Russia in the second half of the XIX – early XXI century (historical and legal research)". The author chose a special subject and noted that "The judicial system is one of the mandatory components of the mechanism of the modern state." Not only the monograph is studied, but also many of the works of V. M. Bolshakova preceding it and the practice that developed in the relevant historical and legal studies of the above-mentioned field of science. A certain amount of scientific literature on the stated problems is also studied and summarized. It is quite clear why the scientific literature of V. M. Bolshakova is mainly present. At the same time, the author notes that "In this regard, it is gratifying that thorough systematic studies on the genesis of domestic legal institutions continue to appear in the historical and legal sciences. Bolshakova V.M.'s monograph devoted to the conceptual study of the dynamics of judicial transformations in Russia in the second half of the XIX – early XXI century, of course, both in content and in the breadth of the historical review, and in the theoretical elaboration of the main scientific provisions, belongs to those", "...Bolshakova V.M.'s monographic study is an original view, peculiar "a breath of fresh air", because it allows the scientific community to look at the judiciary from a different perspective – its systemic external and internal organization, the features of the device and its development, mutual social transition from one judicial structure to another ...". Research methodology. The purpose of the study is determined by the title and content of the work "... it seems very important to determine the socio–psychological nature of the formation of certain "rules" of the "thieves' law", since without knowledge and understanding of the nature of the formation of certain rules of the "thieves' law" it is impossible to successfully counteract it." It can be designated as the consideration and resolution of certain problematic aspects related to the above-mentioned issues and the use of certain experience (which is also missing in the article). Based on the set goals and objectives, the author has chosen a certain methodological basis for the study. In particular, the author uses a set of general scientific methods of cognition: historical, dialectical and systemic. In particular, the methods of historical, dialectical cognition made it possible to collectively form fairly objective ideas about Russian judicial transformations. In particular, it is noted that in the monograph "... the author's periodization of the history of judicial transformations is proposed, which should be recognized as very successful. The criteria for the allocation of periods of judicial transformations, their causes, essence and problematic aspects, including revolutionary and evolutionary changes within each period, are revealed." Thus, the methodology chosen by the author is fully adequate to the purpose of the article (review), allows you to reflect all aspects of the topic. The relevance of the stated issues is beyond doubt. This topic is one of the most important in the world and in Russia, the work proposed by the author can be considered relevant, namely, he notes that "The creative scope and theoretical breadth of the issues covered in the monograph can easily be established through an analysis of the content of the monograph. It is presented classically: introduction, conclusion, list of abbreviations and literature, as well as the main part, consisting of five chapters, which structurally consist of fourteen paragraphs." The author also cites "Discussions. Since in the reviewed monograph, along with traditional methods of scientific cognition, the author used a number of original ways to obtain scientific data, it would be natural to present their comparative characteristics. However, the author of the monograph did not fully use this technique." Thus, scientific research in the proposed field should only be welcomed, and the review should be noted as positive with certain wishes to the author of the monograph, which "... are in the nature of a creative search and express only his author's view of the problem under study. They do not reduce the overall impression of the monograph, as well as its high scientific and practical significance." Scientific novelty. The scientific novelty of the proposed article is beyond doubt. It is expressed in the author's specific scientific conclusions, despite the fact that she herself is a review of the monograph. Among them, for example, are the following: "Historically, starting with Aristotle and ending with Kant and Hegel, law was considered within the framework of philosophical and ethical ideas about human nature and in direct correlation with morality." Thus, the materials of the article as presented may be of some interest to the scientific community in terms of contribution to the development of science. Style, structure, content. It should be noted that there is an epigraph that describes the essence of the study and the belonging of the profession of a judge to those who are "from God", which incidentally refers to the professions of a doctor and a teacher. The subject of the article (review) corresponds to the specialization of the journal "Law and Politics", as it is devoted to the conceptual path of "... knowledge of judicial transformations in Russia" (reviews of the monograph ...". The content of the article corresponds to the title, since the author has considered the stated problems and has fully achieved the goal of his research (peer review). The quality of the presentation of the study and its results should be recognized as well-developed. The design of the work generally meets the requirements for this kind of work. No significant violations of these requirements were found. Bibliography. The quality of the literature used should be highly appreciated. The author actively uses the literature presented by various authors, including the research of the author of the monograph, which is especially important in the context of the purpose of the study. Thus, the works of the above authors correspond to the research topic, have a sign of sufficiency, and contribute to the disclosure of all aspects of the topic. Appeal to opponents. The author conducted a serious analysis of the peer-reviewed monograph and the current state of the problem under study. The author describes different points of view on the problem, argues for the correct position with the judicial system and its role in society and the mechanism of the state, and offers solutions to individual problems identified by him in the monograph. But he does it kindly and suggests continuing research in this area, and moreover, "... the author formulates a new scientific direction in the history of state and law – the study of the dynamics of judicial transformations in a separate state over a long historical period." Conclusions, the interest of the readership. The conclusions are logical, specific, benevolent, they are obtained using a generally accepted methodology. The article in this form may be of interest to the readership. Based on the above, summing up all the positive (and lack of negative) sides of the article, I recommend that you "publish" it.
|
© 1998 – 2024 Nota Bene. Publishing Technologies. NB-Media Ltd.
