Везде
Law and religion in an interdisciplinary interpretation
Table of contents
Annotation Estimate Publication content
References Comments
Share
QR
Metrics
Law and religion in an interdisciplinary interpretation
Annotation
PII
S013207690000780-0-1
DOI
10.31857/S013207690000780-0
Publication type
Article
Status
Published
Authors
V. Smirnov 
Affiliation: Sector of the theory of the law and state, Institute of State and Law of RAS, Moscow
Address: Russian Federation
K. Agamirov
Affiliation: Sector of the theory of the law and state, Institute of State and Law of RAS, Moscow
Address: Russian Federation
E. Gabrelyan
Affiliation: Sector of the theory of the law and state, Institute of State and Law of RAS, Moscow
Address: Russian Federation
A. Didikin
Affiliation: Sector of the theory of the law and state, Institute of State and Law of RAS, Moscow
Address: Russian Federation
E. Dorovskih
Affiliation: Sector of the theory of the law and state, Institute of State and Law of RAS, Moscow
Address: Russian Federation
V. Egorov
Affiliation: Sector of the theory of the law and state, Institute of State and Law of RAS, Moscow
Address: Russian Federation
V. Lapaeva
Affiliation: Sector of the theory of the law and state, Institute of State and Law of RAS, Moscow
Address: Russian Federation
A. Mihailov
Affiliation: Sector of the theory of the law and state, Institute of State and Law of RAS, Moscow
Address: Russian Federation
O. Orlova
Affiliation: Sector of the theory of the law and state, Institute of State and Law of RAS, Moscow
Address: Russian Federation
V. Pligin
Affiliation: Sector of the theory of the law and state, Institute of State and Law of RAS, Moscow
Address: Russian Federation
S. Polenina
Affiliation: Sector of the theory of the law and state, Institute of State and Law of RAS, Moscow
Address: Russian Federation
E. Skurko
Affiliation: Sector of the theory of the law and state, Institute of State and Law of RAS, Moscow
Address: Russian Federation
M. Supataev
Affiliation: Sector of the theory of the law and state, Institute of State and Law of RAS, Moscow
Address: Russian Federation
Edition
Issue 8
Pages
5-20
Abstract

Article is devoted to search and justification of an optimum ratio of the right and religion in modern societies and the states. The factors defining legal policy of the state for religions, and developed in various state and legal systems of the present of approaches to cross-disciplinary interpretation of religious doctrines and the practician are  onsidered. Merits and demerits inherent in concepts of various state and legal systems, ways of optimum interaction of the right and religion, in particular in the Russian Federation are investigated the place of the right, morals and religion in the system of sotsionormativny regulation. 

Keywords
law, religion, state, church, legal system, religious system, secularity, theocracy, rule of law, interaction of law and religion
Received
26.10.2018
Date of publication
29.10.2018
Number of purchasers
13
Views
2629
Readers community rating
0.0 (0 votes)
Cite   Download pdf

References

1. Law and Religion in Public Life: The Contemporary Debate / ed. N. Hosen, R. Mohr. London and New York, 2011. P. 1.

2. Podrobnee sm., napr.: Law and Religion in Theoretical and Historical Context / ed. P. Cane, C. Evans, Z. Robinson; Law and Religion in Public Life: The Contemporary Debate / ed. N. Hosen, R. Mohr; i drugie issledovaniya po probleme.

3. Podrobnee sm.: Saunders D. Anti-Lawyers: Religion and the critics of law and state. London and New York, 1997; Koselleck R. Critique and Crisis: Enlightenment and the Pathogenesis of Modern Society. Cambridge, 1988; i dr.

4. Sm.: Law and Religion in Public Life: The Contemporary Debate / ed. N. Hosen, R. Mohr. P. 34.

5. “Fundamental'noe vtorzhenie sekulyarizma na granitse mezhdu religiej i publichnoj sferoj obschestvennoj zhizni mozhet byt' uspeshnym i rezul'tativnym tol'ko v sluchae, esli on kategoricheski otvergaet vse religioznye soobrazheniya” (sm.: Law and Religionin Public Life: The Contemporary Debate / ed. N. Hosen, R. Mohr. P. 35).

6. Podrobnee sm., napr.: Polenina S.V., Skurko E.V. Pravo, gender i kul'tura v usloviyakh globalizatsii. M.,2009; sm. takzhe: Krotkova N.V. Rets.: O vzaimodejstvii v usloviyakh globalizatsii prava, gendera i kul'tury. S.V. Polenina, E.V. Skurko. Pravo, gender i kul'tura v usloviyakh globalizatsii. M.: Formula prava, 2009. 192 s. // Grazhdanin i pravo. 2009. № 6.

7. Sm.: Nazaretyan A.P. Nelinejnoe buduschee. Megaistoriya, sinergetika, kul'turnaya antropologiya i psikhologiya v global'nom prognozirovanii. M., 2015. S. 105.

8. Imeyutsya v vidu lyudi, sovershivshie neumyshlennye ubijstva, kotorym predpisyvalos' zhit' v spetsial'nykh gorodakh (chto pozvolyalo “spasti ubijtsu ot ruki mstitelya za krov'”) (Chisla, gl. 35).

9. O razlichii mezhdu dvumya chastyami Svyaschennogo Pisaniya v rasstanovke prioritetov mezhdu pravovym printsipom ravenstva lyudej i moral'nym imperativom lyubvi sm.: Gusejnov A.A. Velikie moralisty. M., 1995. S. 84, 85, 112–117.

10. Sm.: Didikin A.B., Ogleznev V.V. Ontologiya i ehpistemologiya prava: analiticheskaya traditsiya. Novosibirsk, 2012. S. 23, 24.

11. Sm.: Chetvernin V.A. Sovremennye kontseptsii estestvennogo prava. M., 1988. S. 36–51.

12. Sm.: Finnis Dzh. Estestvennoe pravo i estestvennye prava. M., 2012. S. 56.

13. Sm.: Finnis J. Aquinas. Moral, Political and Legal Theory. Oxford, 1998. P. 304–327.

14. Sm.: Finnis J. Law as Co-ordination // Ratio Juris. Vol. 2. 1989. №. 1. P. 102, 103.

15. Finnis Dzh. Ukaz. soch. S. 43.

16. Prakticheskie printsipy v interpretatsii Dzh. Finnisa – ehto sovokupnost' osnovnykh metodologicheskikh trebovanij prakticheskoj ratsional'nosti, kotoraya otdelyaet logichnoe prakticheskoe myshlenie ot nesostoyatel'nogo, i predostavlyaet kriterii razlicheniya “mezhdu moral'no pravil'nymi ili moral'no oshibochnymi sposobami povedeniya, – i, takim obrazom, pozvolyaet sformulirovat' nekoe mnozhestvo obschikh moral'nykh standartov” (sm.: tam zhe).

17. V traktovke znaniya kak blaga Dzh. Finnis fakticheski vystupaet protiv protsedurnogo podkhoda L. Fullera o znanii kak sredstve dostizheniya tselej, schitaya znanie samotsennym, a poluchenie znaniya – samoochevidnym (sm.: tam zhe. S. 93); sm. takzhe: Arkhipov V.V. Lon Fuller o sootnoshenii prava i morali // Pravovedenie. 2004. № 6. S. 145–152.

18. Sm.: Murphy M.C. The Common Good // The Review of Metaphysics. Vol. 59. 2005. No. 1. P. 139.

19. Otsyuda vazhnoe utverzhdenie Finnisa s tochki zreniya estestvenno-pravovoj traditsii: “Soderzhanie lyubogo pozitivnogo prava dolzhno byt' dedutsirovano iz moral'nykh printsipov lyubym, kto mozhet osoznat' obstoyatel'stva i ikh moral'nye sledstviya vo vsej ikh polnote” (sm.: Finnis J. The Truthin Legal Positivism // The Autonomy of Law. Essays on Legal Positivism. Oxford, 1999. P. 197.).

20. Sm.: Gardner J. Finnis on Justice // Oxford Legal Research Paper Series. 2012. № 29. P. 2, 3.

21. Sm.: Finnis J. Natural Law and Legal Reasoning // Natural Law Theory. Contemporary Essays. Oxford, 1994. P. 137.

Comments

No posts found

Write a review
Translate