The problem of the relationship between the individual and the state. Public opinion: current problems of the state and society. The issue of peace and disarmament

CURRENT STATE AND PROBLEMS OF RELATIONSHIPS

STATES AND PERSONS

I.P. KUIBYSHEVA, Ph.D. in Biology, Department of Law

The relationship between the individual and the state is one of the leading problems of political and legal thought, which has a long history. Whatever the nature of the state, no matter what regime dominates in it, the relationship between man and the state has always been of interest not only theoretical, religious, philosophical, but also practically applied, since without taking into account the interaction between the state and man it was impossible to establish in society the order necessary for the ruling elite or for democratically elected rulers.

The nature of the relationship between the state and the individual is the most important indicator of the state of society as a whole, the goals and prospects for its development.

The relationship between the individual and the state can be very different. In a society dominated by the ideals of justice, humanism, democracy, people seek to harmonize relations between the individual and society as a whole, whose interests the state is called upon to represent. The state is considered as a necessary means of coordinating the interests of various social groups, individuals and society, as an organization subordinate to public interests and controlled by society. A person, his fundamental rights and freedoms is considered as the ultimate goal of state intervention in public life and at the same time is the limit of such interference.

The idea of ​​harmonization of relations between the individual and the state finds expression in the theory and practice of legal statehood. The rule of law state is characterized not only by the unconditional connection of all social subjects, including the state, by law, but also by the ideological, legislative and organizational recognition by the state

the inviolability of fundamental human rights and freedoms, their advantages over other public and state institutions. Another generally recognized feature of legal statehood is the establishment and strict adherence to the principle of mutual responsibility of the state and the individual. This principle is manifested, first of all, in the establishment by the state of legislative restrictions on its activity in relation to the individual and society, in the adoption by the state of specific obligations aimed at ensuring the interests of citizens, in the presence of real measures of responsibility of state officials for failure to fulfill their duties to society and the individual.

In turn, the freedom of the individual in the rule of law is not absolute, since it is limited and regulated by the interests and rights of other persons. A person is required to comply with all legal regulations and fulfill his obligations to the state and society.

The diverse connections between law and personality can be most fully characterized through the concept of legal status, which reflects all the main aspects of the legal existence of an individual: his interests, needs, relationships with the state, labor and socio-political activities, social needs and their satisfaction. This is a collective category. Legislatively established by the state and taken in unity, the rights, freedoms and duties of the individual constitute its legal status. The legal status of the individual, which is the core of the normative expression of the basic principles of the relationship between the individual and the state, includes the rights, freedoms and obligations enshrined in

Constitution and other important legislative acts proclaimed in the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen. This mainly determines the legal status of the individual in society, its role, opportunities and participation in public affairs. The legal status objectively reflects both the advantages and disadvantages of the actual political and legal system, the principles of democracy, the state foundations of this society.

The modern legal status of a person in the Russian Federation is characterized by extreme instability, weak social and legal protection, the absence of reliable guaranteeing mechanisms, the inability of state power structures to effectively ensure the interests of a citizen, his rights, freedoms, life, honor, dignity, property, security. The legal status of an individual bears the stamp of that deep crisis (socio-economic, political, spiritual) that Russia is experiencing today. The material basis of the status has also changed (a variety of forms of ownership, including private ownership, property stratification, the emergence of a labor market, unemployment, a drop in living standards). The unity and stability of the legal status has been undermined by the processes of sovereignization, interethnic and regional conflicts. In a number of former Soviet republics, discriminatory laws have been adopted that violate basic human rights, and ethnic cleansing is being carried out. The legal status of an individual is significantly destabilized as a result of the troubles that are taking place in society today: social tension, political confrontation, a difficult criminal situation, an increase in crime, environmental and technological disasters, shock methods of reform, etc. The legal state of the individual is affected and moral and psychological factors - the loss of social guidelines and priorities by the individual, spiritual support, lack of adaptation to new conditions. The individual experiences deeply

cue social discomfort and uncertainty about the future.

There are also positive trends. At present, the legal status of the individual is brought under the modern legislative framework (the new Russian Constitution, the Declaration of Human Rights and Freedoms, the Law on Citizenship and other important acts). At the same time, the regulatory framework is created taking into account international criteria in this area. A new concept of the relationship between the individual and the state is being laid with the priority of the individual as the highest social and moral value; the paternalistic principles of these relations are giving way to free partnership and cooperation in accordance with the principles of civil society. The legal status, like many other legal institutions, is cleared of ideological and class dogmatism, apologetics, totalitarian consciousness and the thinking of the individual as the bearer of this status; it has become more adequate to reflect modern realities. A transition is being made from command-prohibitive methods of regulating the legal status of an individual to permissive and irritable ones, from bureaucratic centralism that fetters any initiative and enterprise to reasonable autonomy and independence. The ratio and role of the structural elements of the legal status is changing: such priorities as human rights, dignity of the individual, humanism, freedom, democracy, and justice come to the fore. Many restrictions on the personal freedom of an individual have been lifted, the principle of “what is not prohibited by law is permitted” has been proclaimed, judicial protection of the rights of citizens has been strengthened, and the presumption of innocence is in effect.

Under any democratic system, the rights and freedoms of citizens, as well as their duties, constitute the most important social and political and legal institution, objectively acting as a measure of the achievements of a given society, an indicator of its maturity and civilization. It is a means of personal access to spiritual and material wealth, mechanisms of power, legal

forms of expression of will, realization of their interests. At the same time, this is an indispensable condition for the improvement of the individual himself, the strengthening of his status and dignity.

The search for optimal models of relations between the state and the individual has always been a very difficult problem. These models depended to a decisive extent on the nature of society, the type of property, democracy, the development of the economy, culture, and other objective conditions. But in many respects they were also determined by power, laws, ruling classes, i.e. subjective factors.

The main difficulty lies in establishing such a system and such an order in which a person would have the opportunity to freely develop his potential (abilities, talent, intellect), and on the other hand, national goals would be recognized and honored - that which unites everyone. Such a balance just gets its expression in the rights, freedoms and duties of a person.

That is why highly developed countries and peoples, the world community consider human rights and their protection as a universal ideal, the basis of progressive development and prosperity, a factor of sustainability and stability.

Russia, following the course of reforms, also proclaimed these values ​​as priority and most significant, recognized the need to adhere to generally accepted international standards in this area, enshrined in such well-known acts as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948); International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966); International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966); European Convention for the Protection of Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (1950). The commitment of Russian democracy to these charters is confirmed by the November 1991 Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen, which has become an organic part of the new Constitution of the Russian Federation, the basis of all current legislation relating to the individual. Both

These documents fix a wide range of fundamental ideas, principles, rights and freedoms, as well as duties. Their initial provisions state that human rights and freedoms are natural and inalienable, given to him from birth, are recognized as the highest value and are not exhaustive. Recognition, observance and protection of human rights is the duty of the state.

Everyone has the right to life, health, personal security and inviolability, protection of honor, dignity, good name, freedom of thought and speech, expression of opinions and beliefs, choice of place of residence; can acquire, own, use and dispose of property, engage in business activities, leave the country and return back.

The right of citizens to rallies, street processions, and demonstrations is being consolidated; the right to elect and be elected to state bodies, to receive and disseminate information, to send personal and collective appeals (petitions) to the authorities, to freely determine one's nationality, to unite in public organizations. Appropriate rights are envisaged in the social and cultural fields (to work, rest, education, social security, intellectual creativity).

The equality of all before the law and the court is affirmed. No one is required to testify against himself or close relatives. The accused is considered innocent until his guilt is proven in the prescribed manner (presumption of innocence).

Many of the above rights are new in our legislation, they were not previously in either the former Soviet Constitution or the Constitution of the RSFSR. Also, for the first time, the direct duty of the state is legally fixed - to protect human rights (Article 2 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation). At the same time, it is emphasized that the rights and freedoms of man and citizen are directly applicable. They determine the meaning, content and application of laws,

The activities of the representative and executive authorities, local self-government, are provided with justice (Article 18).

Human rights are a value that belongs to the entire international community. Their respect and protection are the duty of every state. Where these rights are violated, serious conflicts arise, hotbeds of tension that pose a threat to peace and often require (with UN sanction) outside intervention. The Constitution provides for a procedure in accordance with which every Russian citizen has the right to apply to international bodies for the protection of human rights and freedoms if all available domestic legal remedies have been exhausted (Article 45). This provision is also enshrined for the first time, and it does not violate the sovereignty of the country. Today, this is the absolute norm.

As a result, we can say that in the field of human rights and freedoms, there is progress, albeit small, but still, especially in terms of their legislative formalization, public attention, political and philosophical understanding of scientific groundwork, etc. At the same time, the reality is that these rights are grossly and everywhere violated, not respected, ignored, poorly protected, not financially secured.

It is known that it is not enough to proclaim certain rights and freedoms; the main thing is to materialize them, to put them into practice. And this is a more difficult task. In the context of the deep economic, political and spiritual crisis that has arisen in the country, this institution itself is subjected to serious tests. On the one hand, society has finally realized the necessity and unconditional value of the natural and inalienable human rights inherent in it from birth, on the other hand, it is not yet able to ensure their full and guaranteed implementation.

This intractable contradiction is becoming more and more acute and painful, it is one of the strongest social irritants, a source of

contentment and protests of the people. This means that a distinction must be made between theory and practice of human rights. Human rights and freedoms are easily postulated on paper, but are very difficult to implement in real life. The President's Address to the Federal Assembly in 1995 notes: “We have succeeded in proclaiming many rights and freedoms of citizens. With the guarantees of these rights, things are much worse.”

Today, few people believe in words written on paper, because high ideas and harsh reality diverge. “It is no secret that Russia is currently far from the first place in terms of living standards, and a number of socio-economic human rights that are included in the international standard cannot be physically provided by the state.” This is the peculiarity of the current situation.

That is why the Declaration of the Rights and Freedoms of Man and Citizen, adopted by Russia, despite its enormous moral and social significance, is perceived by many as a kind of set of little-reinforced general principles or a kind of solemn statement of intentions and desires, and not as a real document. This is not a legal, but rather a political act, a symbol, a sign of change. In it, rights are basically only declared, but not guaranteed. Therefore, the urgent task is to fill the rights listed in the Declaration and the Constitution with the necessary vital content in the course of democratic transformations. It is extremely difficult to do this, because, as stated in the same Message, “our state is not so rich that all the rights and freedoms of a person and citizen, without exception, can be materially ensured at the highest level. Minimum standards of living have not yet been formulated by law.” The state today, in fact, is itself a "bankrupt", a "debtor", unable even to pay its citizens for their work in a timely manner.

Section in the Basic Law of the Russian Federation on the rights and freedoms of man and citizen, is

It is to a certain extent an adornment of the legal system of modern Russia, the most complete normative expression of its democratic aspirations.

In general, it should be noted that the main thing in the problem under consideration at the moment is not the theoretical development of human rights and freedoms, but the creation of the necessary conditions, guarantees and mechanisms for their implementation, i.e. practical area.

In its essence, a guarantee is a system of conditions that ensure the satisfaction of human interests. Their main function is the fulfillment of obligations by the state and other entities in the sphere of realization of individual rights. The object of guarantees is public relations related to the protection and protection of human rights, satisfaction of the property interests of citizens. The new Constitution of the Russian Federation determined the system of guarantees of the rights and freedoms of man and citizen. The term "guarantees" is used in the Basic Law of Russia in at least 18 articles. The Constitution emphasizes that ensuring the rights of the individual is not the exclusive prerogative of the federal authorities. Today, the responsibility for fulfilling obligations in the field of human and civil rights lies largely with the republics and other entities that are part of Russia.

The main principle of building a system of legal guarantees of human and civil rights is the universality of the protection of rights, freedoms and legitimate interests by all means that do not contradict the law.

The President of the Russian Federation is the guarantor of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the rights and freedoms of man and citizen. The President of Russia has the right to suspend the acts of the executive power of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation in case they violate the rights of human and civil freedoms until this issue is resolved by the appropriate court (part 2 of article 85 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation).

An important role in the protection and protection of human rights is played by the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, which, upon complaints of violation of constitutional rights and freedoms and at the request of the courts, checks the constitutionality of the law,

applied yuti to be applied in a particular case (part 4, art. 125).

The problem of completeness and guarantee of human rights and freedoms has acquired global significance in the modern world. The world community is striving to develop a single rule in matters of social and legal protection of citizens, trying to unify, adopt uniform standards and procedures that contribute to the recognition of the dignity inherent in all members of the human family.

In this regard, fundamentally important from the point of view of understanding general guarantees is the content of the preamble of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Political Rights, that the ideal of a free person, free from fear and want, can be achieved if only such conditions are created, under which every person can enjoy his economic, social and cultural rights as well as his civil and political rights.

Consequently, the welfare state and its legislation are designed to purposefully improve and protect material well-being, serve the tasks of providing a person with a decent life, and affirm the principles of humanism and justice in society.

Literature

1. The Constitution of the Russian Federation.

2. Dmitriev Yu.A., Zlatopolsky A.A. Citizen and government. - M., 1994. - S. 15.

3. Lukasheva E.A. Legal state, personality, legality. - M., 1997.

4. Matuzov N.I. Personality. Rights. Democracy. Theoretical problems of subjective law. - Saratov, 1972.

5. Matuzov N.I. Legal system and personality. - Saratov, 1987.

6. General theory of human rights / Otv. ed. Lukasheva E.A.-M., 1996.

7. Legal state, personality, legality. - M., 1997.

8. Theory of state and law / Ed. Marchenko M.N. - M., 1996. - Lecture 11.

9. Theory of state and law / Ed. Malko A.V. - M., 1997. Chapter 11.

"Supreme" function of the state.

As already noted, when determining the function of the state, it is necessary to start from its social purpose, that is, by asking the question: why do people need a state. If we follow this scheme of clarifying the functions of the state, then we will inevitably come to the conclusion that the main supreme function of the state, in the terminology of Charles Montesquieu, is the protection of human rights and freedoms. Hence the main problem - to correctly determine the relationship between the state and the individual. All other functions of the state (economic, defense, environmental, etc.) must also be subordinated, commensurate with the needs of the optimal performance of the supreme function. Therefore, the main attention, when determining the function of the state, should be given to the problem of optimizing the interaction between the state and the individual.

The concept of personality to a greater extent, apparently, refers to the subject of philosophy. Personality is an individual person as a subject of social life, communication and activity.

In order to correctly understand the problem of the relationship between the state and the individual in modern conditions and fix these relationships in laws at the level of the requirements of the rule of law, it is necessary to fully understand some concepts that are closely related to the category of "personality". Among them are such concepts interconnected with the concept of "personality" as: "man", "individual", "I", "individuality", "human rights", "citizen's rights".

Human - This concept is biosocial. In the concept of "man" the emphasis is on the difference between man and other living beings. Therefore, they say that man is the highest level of living organisms. It differs from other living organisms in that it is able to produce tools and use them. Hence, man is not only a biological being, but also the subject of socio-historical activity and culture. In short, man is a rational biological being. As for the personality, the personality is a person as a subject of social relations and conscious activity. In the concept of “personality”, the emphasis is on the role of a person in human society, among people. Personality is formed due to its contribution to the development of human society.

Individual - a single representative of the human race with all the signs and attributes of a person.

Individuality - a set of features that distinguish this individual from all others. In totalitarian states, individual personality traits are leveled under the pretext of public interests. A special doctrine called "individualism" appears, which is used to whip up public opinion against the manifestation of individual personality traits. In contrast to individualism, the doctrine of collectivism, that is, of joint social life, is being developed. Individualism is opposed to collectivism, although there is no collective without personality either.

Modern jurisprudence deals mainly with the concept of "citizen's rights", "human rights". So, about the person in the Constitution of the Russian Federation it is said only in Article 21. It says here that "the dignity of the individual is protected by the state." But such protection in real life is carried out through the institutions of human rights and civil rights. If we talk about the legal status of the individual, then it consists of: human rights; citizen's rights; the rights of stateless persons; the rights of foreigners; refugee rights, etc. However, despite such a branching of the legal status of the individual in specific jurisprudence, in the theory of jurisprudence it is possible and necessary to talk about the relationship between the individual and the state. Such a paired consideration (the state and the individual) makes it possible to better understand the role and place of both the state and the individual, to correctly emphasize issues related to the activities of the state. In addition, it should be said that the problem of the relationship between the state and the individual has a long history and has always been important for characterizing the democratic nature of the state.

In historical terms, the role of a person, an individual in society, began to be consciously comprehended in the Renaissance. It was at this time that the doctrine of the natural law of people, elevating the role of the individual, appeared. This doctrine declared the basis for the interaction of the state and the individual with the role and desire of the individual. Personality is the basis of statehood and power, the state is created by the association of individuals to manage the affairs of individuals. The individual does not cede his rights to the state, since they are natural, but only transfers (delegates) to the state certain powers to manage the affairs of united people. This doctrine was intended not only to free itself from the divine origin of the state, but also contributed to the improvement of statehood.

The doctrine of the natural right of people to create a state was not destined to flourish for a long time. Real states did not really take into account people and their associations. As a rule, states rose above the individual, above the interests of peoples. Against the background of these realities, a historical school appeared, which began to explain everything by spontaneous historical development. In the essence of this school, the state is formed in the process of social development, and the individual does not matter at all. As a result of this doctrine, it turned out that the state is everything, and the individual is nothing.

Of course, the noted two views on the interaction of the state and the individual were extremes. Therefore, in the following centuries, socio-political thought mainly tried to remove the contradictions between the state and the individual and reconcile their interests. In this regard, state scientists and jurists have become more and more interested in problems related to such concepts as "freedom of the individual", "duties of the individual." It should be noted that the concepts of "freedom of the individual", "duties of the individual" historically arose in the process of resolving the problem of interaction between the state and the individual.

The ancients understood freedom as the possibility of collective, but direct exercise of supreme power, public discussion of issues of war and peace, voting of laws, passing sentences, checking reports and actions of higher statesmen, bringing them to justice. In essence, it was collective freedom, the direct participation of people united in one community in the exercise of power. Despite some attractiveness, such freedom was not civil freedom. Moreover, private civic activities were very tightly controlled, the authorities could interfere in the most intimate relationships of people. Therefore, as civilization developed, people began to demand civil, that is, personal freedom in relation to the authorities, that is, the state.

Today, the very concept of "freedom" is used to a greater extent as a legal concept. It is known that the legal concept is mainly aimed at designating how it should be according to the law. But this is by no means a fiction, not a paper formality, but a legal reaction to reality, to the behavior of people in the process of public life. Legal concepts are formed as a result of a "comprehensive understanding of the world of human interests and actions. Human interests that usually develop in life in jurisprudence are formed as the subjective rights of an individual. The subjective right of an individual is a measure of his possible behavior. Knowing about the fullness of subjective rights, a person learns what he can do, commit, etc. The wider the legal possibilities, the wider the freedom of the individual.Today, real freedom is not conceivable except through legal rights, through legal institutions.Therefore, in modern conditions, the problem of individual freedom arises in terms of interaction between the state and the individual.

To talk about the freedom of the individual today means to find out the limits of state intervention in human affairs. At a certain stage of historical development, it began to be considered that the state is an intermediary between a person and his freedom. Therefore, the whole history of mankind can be considered as a struggle of people for freedom. Individual freedom depends on the nature of the state, on the regime that the state establishes.

Of course, there is no absolute freedom of the individual. The unlimited freedom of people in society can only lead to chaos, arbitrariness. Therefore, today, in optimally democratic states, the boundaries of individual freedom are determined by legitimate laws. In the legal sense, the freedom of the individual is a normatively fixed ability of the individual to perform actions, actions at his own discretion, without violating the freedom of others. The legal restriction of the freedom of actions of people in society is an objective necessity.

The state must determine the boundaries of its intervention in the sphere of being of the individual. Moreover, these boundaries are determined in the interests of the people themselves, so that a person does not suffer from the freedom of another person. Today, from the point of view of the theory of statehood, the freedom of the individual is reduced not so much to direct participation in government, but to a sense of independence, independence. Therefore, a person today, first of all, wants her to obey only legitimate laws and no one else, to be able to freely choose her place of residence, type of work, dispose of her property, be protected from any kind of arbitrariness and violence.

Such a turn in the mood of the individual is explained not only by the fact that today the states are mostly large, and the voice of one in solving state affairs, in essence, remains invisible, but also by the fact that the very ideas about the state are changing. Under the influence of the intensification of international relations, the familiarization of people with universal human values, it is precisely those states that care more about their citizens, respect and protect human rights that come to the fore. In the second half of the twentieth century, a powerful international movement for human rights emerged, which has an important educational value for those states that do not or insufficiently consider the interests of their citizens.

In the problem of the state and the individual in modern conditions, it is very important to understand the mutual responsibility of the state and the individual. Not only the individual is responsible for his actions, but also the state for the fact that it cannot ensure the safety of the individual, the safety of his property. The protection of life, the safety of people's property, their freedom is the most important sphere of activity of the state. Therefore, in the relationship between the state and the individual, the interests of the individual should be primary, starting. The state is for the individual, and not vice versa. This is an axiom of civilized statehood. However, sticking out the primacy of the rights and freedoms of the individual, of course, it must be borne in mind that we are talking about the interests of the individual from the standpoint of universal ideas about them, and not about the whims of everyone. The state, protecting actions that do not contradict the law, forms of activity of people, at the same time builds its policy in the field of individual freedoms, based on universal ideas about rights and freedoms. Possible contradictions between the state and its citizens should be resolved on the basis of a legitimate law, by the relevant impartial judicial authorities.

I would like to emphasize one more point. When discussing the duties of a person and an individual, it should be borne in mind that a person has duties to society. This provision is not always understood correctly, and the duties of a person are often interpreted as his obligations to the state. Taking this path, the state begins to prevail over the individual, and from here it begins to rise above society as a whole. Meanwhile, in a democratic society, a person has duties to society, and his rights and freedoms can be restricted solely for the purpose of ensuring due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and meeting the just requirements of morality, public order, that is, in the interests of the general welfare. In addition, all restrictions on human rights and freedoms for these purposes should be clearly provided for in the laws. The state is obliged to exercise control over the observance of these restrictions on behalf of and in the interests of society. This also includes the case when the state by law obliges people to protect nature, state property, etc. Here the state, in order to ensure human freedom, must act by other methods, for example, use prohibitions. And in fact, it is impossible to oblige a person at all to protect nature, state property. Apparently, therefore, these articles of the law, as a rule, remain unrealized in practice. It is better to use reasonable prohibitions in this area so that people do not violate, for example, environmental requirements.

The relationship between a person and the state as the most important social institution has always been in the center of attention of world political and legal thought from the very moment of its inception. Moreover, the content, forms and nature of these relationships to a certain extent provide grounds for assessing the state of ensuring and guaranteeing human rights and freedoms in a particular society, a particular state. Therefore, the analysis of the methodological foundations for the knowledge of these components, the whole complex of relations between the state and the individual that has developed to date, is of exceptionally great importance for more informed reasoning about human rights and avoiding patterns that are so common today when discussing this issue. Unfortunately, the use of these patterns, acquiring the character of cloning, is now too common, which cannot but be disturbing. Most seminars, meetings, conferences, scientific and educational publications discuss the issue of human rights, based on one main thesis: human rights, like himself, are the highest value that the state (collective, community, society) is trying to ignore or infringe on. However, any pattern that is beneficial for the time being begins to outlive itself and cause ever-increasing harm.

An analysis of the existing conceptual approaches to the knowledge of the relationship between the state and a person from the standpoint of interpreting understanding and recognizing freedom in relation to themselves and their partner allows, in the most general terms, to single out two main ones that have become widespread both in the philosophical and theoretical aspect and in practical terms. We are talking about the etatist and liberal approaches, which proceed from directly opposite methodological premises in establishing the primacy-secondary nature of the interests and wills of the state and the individual in relation to each other.

However, there is another approach, the attention to which, in our opinion, despite, it would seem, for all its obviousness, does not receive its scientific and especially practical development in the conditions of Russian reality. We are talking about the concept of the optimal ratio of the state and personal (individual) principles, or, in other words, the doctrine of the optimum.

Etatist doctrine (from the state to the individual)

The main provisions of the modern etatist doctrine, which is based on the priority of the state principle in relation to the personal (individual) principle, are mainly associated with the Marxist doctrine of the state and can be reduced to the following.

The main driving force of society is the class struggle. This struggle must end with the victory of the proletariat and the establishment of a new social system - socialism and, ultimately, communism. It will be impossible to achieve this without the destruction of the state itself, which is an instrument of violence against a person. However, artificially such destruction is impossible. The state will wither away gradually until classes disappear. Therefore, the new socialist (proletarian) state that emerges after the proletarian revolution must solve this problem of the gradual elimination of class differences. Proceeding from this global task, the new type of state is considered as the most important factor of socialist transformations, to which everyone and everything in society must be subordinated. The state is primary in society, everything else is secondary, derivative. Man is an object of state influence.

Democracy is a class phenomenon. Not everyone is included in the democratic processes (the bourgeoisie is excluded). Rights and freedoms relate only to the victorious class - the proletariat. There is no talk about the universality of rights and freedoms. The power of the proletariat, and thus its rights and freedoms, can only be ensured by violence against those who do not recognize this (the "enemies of the people"). There is no "pure democracy", that is, democracy for all, and there never can be, these are all bourgeois inventions" (V.I. Lenin).

Marxism sees the emancipation of the individual who can live under communism in overcoming individualism, in the dissolution of the individual in the state, and individual interests in the class (state). The driving force of society is not the interests of an individual, but class interests. Therefore, "civil society" is the enemy of communism, the enemy of the proletarian, socialist state, because in civil society the individual feels himself to be a personality, an independent force opposing the state. Personality in Marxism is a "generic personality", that is, not individuality, but something vague and included in the class relation. Hence the rejection of the concept of "rule of law", which cannot but recognize the importance of a single person, an individual person in and of itself.

The attitude towards private property in Marxism is sharply negative. Private property is the main evil for society, the state and the individual. It is precisely in it that the main danger lies, therefore its destruction is the main task after the victory of the proletarian revolution. The assertion and protection of state property is the goal of the new state.

Such an almost purely totalitarian characterization of the primacy of the state to the individual, of course, does not evoke positive emotions, all the more so, as history (and not only Russia) shows, there are more than enough facts of this kind. At the same time, it is often argued that the founders of Marxism (and then their numerous followers, the brightest of whom V.I. Lenin), considered the individual as a cog in the state machine, did not see his individuality (humanity, personal principle) behind the individual. Without setting in this case the goal of entering into a debate on this issue, we only note that, firstly, an objective reading of the heritage of K. Marx and F. Engels, nevertheless, apparently, is still ahead, and, secondly, not it should be forgotten that the real embodiment of any social theory, no matter how great or seemingly "human" it may be, always differs from its theoretical propositions.

Liberal doctrine (from the individual to the state)

The liberal doctrine of the relationship between the state and the individual, being very heterogeneous in its content and the nature of the ideas and provisions included in it, is far from homogeneous; in its classical version it was developed and developed in the works of Hugo Grotius, Charles Montesquieu, John Locke, Benedict Spinoza and many others. thinkers - representatives of the natural law school of legal thinking. The modern interpretation of Western liberalism, having its originality, due to the current level of civilizational development of mankind, still does not fundamentally differ from the classical approach. But still, the main thing in it, which constitutes the actual liberal core of the doctrine, is the idea of ​​individual freedom, its autonomy in relation to the state, the ability to enjoy the inalienable rights to life, property, freedom of self-determination, etc. Indeed, having arisen in the bosom of natural law views, in Subsequently, the liberal doctrine was gradually accepted by representatives of legal positivism. This, in particular, is expressed in the fact that natural human rights, and thus a certain priority of individual freedom over the state, were embodied in legal documents - from the US Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The main provisions of the doctrine under consideration are as follows.

For a person, the main thing is freedom. It is freedom that is both the human habitat and the most important life value for him. In the sphere of freedom, a person chooses the vector of his life, realizes his interests and passions. If earlier a person acted in relation to the state as its subject, then the recognition of freedom implies a break with such an attitude. It is freedom that turns a subject into a citizen, who now has completely new principles of relations with the state. A person (citizen) is now equal in rights with the state.

The freedom of the individual is organically linked with equality, inseparable from it. Freedom and equality are necessary conditions for the possession by all people of inalienable, inalienable rights.

Human rights are a system of benefits and conditions, without which normal human life, his individual development, his free choice and self-determination becomes simply impossible.

The desire for personal autonomy, freedom of self-determination in the sphere of civil society led to the promotion of the problem of the goal of the state and the boundaries of its activities. The state is now declared as an instrument for ensuring the "common good", a defender of human rights and freedoms from any encroachment from anyone, including from the state itself. At the same time, the issue of limiting the power of the state (the activities of the state), which is capable of exceeding its powers while ensuring the protection of rights and freedoms, and thereby intervening at its own discretion in this area, is sharply raised.

Of course, the liberal doctrine is not limited to the presented provisions. But, in any case, the quintessence of the liberal worldview is the postulate of man as the highest value. At the same time, it clearly follows that everything else, including the state, is just tools, means of protecting and protecting that very highest value. At the same time, liberals, as a rule, do not ask themselves the question of what kind of person, what kind of person is being discussed in this or that particular case. For an orthodox liberal, a person as such is valuable in itself; as an abstract, whose rights, freedoms, interests, in any case, are primary in relation to the public, collective, state. The state, from the point of view of liberal human rights activists, always strives to infringe, restrict human rights and freedoms, to bring them into line with its own - state - interests. In this sense, a person always needs to be on his guard in relation to the state, the state for a person is an enemy seeking to defeat him, to suppress him.

But is it really so, and is it supposed to be so? Let's try to answer this question by referring to the approach that, in our opinion, it is appropriate to call the doctrine of the optimum. Modern liberalism: Rawls, Berlin, Dvorkin and others. Moscow: Dom intellect. Books, 1998. Alekseev S.S. Climbing right. Searches and solutions. M.: NORMA, 2001; Nersesyants V.S. Philosophy of Law: A Textbook for High Schools. M.: Ed. group INFRA-M - NORMA, 1997.

Doctrine of Optimum (Man for the State and State for the Man)

So far, there are no special studies devoted to the formation of systemic components of such a doctrine. Here, as we have already noted, they usually manage either to characterize the first two concepts, or limit themselves to pointing out the need to weaken their radicalist provisions. One could appeal to the concept of the rule of law, which, it would seem, has all the necessary elements to mitigate the extremes of the etatist and liberal doctrines, however, everything is far from being so simple here, if we keep in mind the existing, sometimes sharply different, models and types. legal statehood. Without going into all this extremely complex and extensive problematics, we will try to outline the main parameters of our vision of the doctrine of the optimum relationship between the state and the individual.

The essence of this doctrine is the need to achieve an optimal combination of the state and individual principles of social life in order to ensure the integrity of society and its normal civilizational development. The task of achieving the optimum consists in the inadmissibility of extremes of a twofold kind.

On the one hand, excessive individualization of human relations and ignoring the interests of the public, including primarily the state, are unacceptable. On the other hand, it is just as unacceptable to recognize the overwhelming and all-consuming role and significance of the state and the state in all spheres of people's life.

The main principles of optimizing the relationship between the state and the individual in modern conditions can, in our opinion, be reduced to the following.

• 1. Since the basis of legal understanding in general and human rights, in particular, are the ideas and principles of freedom and equality, the latter should be interpreted as attributes (invariable, permanent features) of both an individual human individual and the state.
• 2. The state, being the most important social institution and ultimately created by the socio-political will of the people themselves, cannot but have freedom of action as a condition for ensuring the security of society as a whole and its individual member in particular. Therefore, an encroachment (in any form) or an actual attempt of such encroachment (encroachment) on the part of an individual on the interests (freedom) of the state should be considered as an encroachment on the interests of other individuals who are also under the protection of the state. In the same way, the encroachment of the state in the person of officials, law enforcement agencies, and the armed forces on the freedom of expression of the will of an individual, if this expression of will does not pursue the goals of violating the integrity of society, cannot be justified. At the same time, it is necessary to clearly distinguish the concepts of encroachment as an arbitrary, extra-legal (extra-legal) volitional influence from the restriction (and even deprivation) of the rights and freedoms of the individual by the state, if this is provided for by the current international and national legislation.
• 3. Such a situation will be achieved when individual legal consciousness and public legal consciousness (we are talking, first of all, about the legal consciousness of the state, more precisely, the legal consciousness of representatives of the state) are imbued with all their rational-ideological and emotional-psychological components with an understanding and recognition of freedom in relation to each other. friend. The greatest difficulty lies in the fact that, on the one hand, each individual would be able to understand and recognize that the state also "has the right" to its own - state - freedom (freedom, of course, limited by legitimate law) of action in the interests of the whole society, and therefore, in relation to this person himself. On the other hand, the state, represented by all its state bodies, represented by every official (civil servant), must officially recognize the freedom of each individual as one of the most important, civilizationally significant values ​​not only for this individual, but also for the state itself and society as a whole, and therefore consider themselves called (obliged) to ensure, protect and protect this freedom. It is in this sense that most often people talk about a truly legal and truly democratic state.
• 4. In the legal consciousness of an individual and the state legal consciousness, the unity and organic inseparability of freedom and equality of a person and the state must necessarily be “fixed”. In their relations, from the point of view of natural law, a person and states should act as equal subjects. It is another matter that in practice such equality is extremely difficult to achieve for the sole reason that the possibilities for ensuring and protecting their interests in the state and the individual are different, and often simply incomparable. But it is precisely in this sense that it is necessary to ensure such a state consciousness that the understanding of one's own strength, inherent in the state, does not stand in a pose of confrontation with the social weakness of a single individual. The state, as it were, should come to an understanding that it is precisely the protection of such a weak person that is evidence of his true social strength, his prestige and authority. On the other hand, an individual cannot consider the state as an object in relation to which it is possible, "speculating" on its weakness, to make various kinds of attacks, trying to humiliate (ideologically, psychologically) the state. In both cases (the state humiliates the individual, the individual humiliates the state), equality is violated, partnerships are destroyed, and thus this leads to ignoring the freedom of both parties. The consequence of all this is a violation of the balance between the interests of the state and the individual. And this balance, as history shows, is by no means violated in favor of the individual for the very reason that has already been mentioned: the state, by definition, has great social power. Therefore, in solving this problem, the main vector of the mutual desire for agreement (and cooperation) is the vector of the state's desire to ensure such agreement, such a balance. Simply put, momentum must go from strong to weak. But the weakness of an individual does not mean at all that he is weak-willed, incapable of any actions or actions stimulating the state. On the contrary, activity - the social and state activity of a person is simply necessary. It is this kind of activity that sends signals to the state to take any specific actions to ensure a balance of rights and freedoms. In other words, the state and the individual must, in order to avoid encroachment from both sides, strive for cooperation, joint activities and social co-creation, mutual tolerance.
• 5. Of exceptional importance is not only the formal consolidation of the equality and freedom of man and the state in positive law, but also the real implementation of these fundamental principles. In practice, it is very often observed that such a provision is indeed enshrined in the norms of the current legislation, but only formally. In fact, there are at least two circumstances that discredit the idea of ​​a balance between the state and the individual. This is, firstly, the presence of contradictions in the legislation (either between laws of the same order, or between laws and by-laws), or the presence of gaps in it, lead to an actual violation of the optimum, and this violation, as noted above, occurs in favor of a stronger - states. Secondly, the absence of often clear legal mechanisms for ensuring the equality of the state and the individual in resolving any contradictions that systematically arise between them. The absence of such mechanisms leads to the emergence, growth, aggravation and painful resolution of various kinds of conflicts, in which the state is most often the winning side. Thus, in solving the problem of ensuring the optimum relationship between the state and the individual, the main word still belongs to the state, but on the condition that the person will show his social activity that stimulates the achievement of such an optimum. Academic legal journal N 3 (5) (July-September) 2001.

Problems that do not concern any particular continent or state, but the entire planet, are called global. As civilization develops, it accumulates more and more of them. Today there are eight main problems. Consider the global problems of mankind and ways to solve them.

Ecological problem

Today it is considered the main one. For a long time, people used the resources given to them by nature irrationally, polluted the environment around them, poisoned the Earth with a variety of waste - from solid to radioactive. The result was not long in coming - according to most competent researchers, environmental problems in the next hundred years will lead to irreversible consequences for the planet, and therefore for humanity.

Already now there are countries where this issue has reached a very high level, giving rise to the concept of a crisis ecological region. But the threat looms over the whole world: the ozone layer that protects the planet from radiation is being destroyed, the earth's climate is changing - and man is unable to control these changes.

Even the most developed country cannot solve the problem alone, so the states unite to solve important environmental problems together. The main solution is considered to be the rational use of natural resources and the reorganization of everyday life and industrial production so that the ecosystem develops naturally.

Rice. 1. Threatening scale of the environmental problem.

demographic problem

In the 20th century, when the world's population passed the six billion mark, everyone heard about it. However, in the 21st century, the vector has shifted. In short, now the essence of the problem is this: there are fewer and fewer people. A competent family planning policy and improvement of the living conditions of each individual will help to solve this issue.

TOP 4 articleswho read along with this

food problem

This problem is closely related to demographic and consists in the fact that more than half of humanity is experiencing acute food shortages. To solve it, it is necessary to use the available resources more rationally for food production. Experts see two ways of development - intensive, when the biological productivity of existing fields and other lands increases, and extensive - when their number increases.

All global problems of mankind must be solved together, and this one is no exception. The issue of food arose due to the fact that most of the people live in areas unsuitable for this. Combining the efforts of scientists from different countries will significantly speed up the solution process.

Energy and raw materials problem

The uncontrolled use of raw materials has led to the depletion of mineral reserves that have accumulated for hundreds of millions of years. Very soon, fuel and other resources may disappear altogether, so scientific and technical progress is being introduced at all stages of production.

The issue of peace and disarmament

Some scientists believe that in the very near future it may happen that it will not be necessary to look for possible ways to solve the global problems of mankind: people produce such an amount of offensive weapons (including nuclear) that at some point they can destroy themselves. To prevent this from happening, world treaties on the reduction of armaments and the demilitarization of economies are being developed.

The problem of people's health

Humanity continues to suffer from deadly diseases. The advances of science are great, but untreatable diseases still exist. The only solution is to continue scientific research in search of drugs.

The problem of using the oceans

The depletion of land resources has led to an increase in interest in the World Ocean - all countries that have access to it use it not only as a biological resource. Both the mining and chemical sectors are actively developing. This gives rise to two problems at once: pollution and uneven development. But how are these issues resolved? At the moment, scientists from all over the world are engaged in them, who are developing the principles of rational oceanic nature management.

Rice. 2. Industrial station in the ocean.

The problem of space exploration

To master outer space, it is important to unite efforts on a global scale. Recent studies are the result of the consolidation of the work of many countries. This is the basis for solving the problem.

Scientists have already developed a mock-up of the first station for settlers on the moon, and Elon Musk says that the day is not far off when people will go to explore Mars.

Rice. 3. Model of the lunar base.

What have we learned?

Humanity has many global problems that can ultimately lead to its death. These problems can be solved only if efforts are consolidated, otherwise the efforts of one or several countries will be reduced to zero. Thus, civilizational development and the solution of problems of a universal scale are possible only if the survival of man as a species becomes higher than economic and state interests.

Topic quiz

Report Evaluation

Average rating: 4.7. Total ratings received: 1485.

Interaction between the state and society.

History shows that the state can play both a constructive and a destructive role in society. In the first case, the state has a beneficial effect on the social organism, ensures the order, functioning and development of society. In the second case, it rises above society, destroys the social organism.

In turn, society serves as the socio-economic basis of the state. Undeveloped (non-democratic) societies also correspond to undeveloped states in which power is uncontrolled, and force is concentrated only in punitive and coercive bodies.

There are two models of relations between the state and society. In one case, the state sees in improving the welfare of society its goal. When society and its welfare become the goal, the state seeks acceptable funds to achieve this goal, acts as partner, servant society and applies mainly the methods of persuasion.

In another case, the state has some kind of "its own goal", for example, "to build communism", to ensure the superiority of the Aryan race, to carry out conquests or some kind of "great mission", to solve a "great task", etc. And then society itself becomes means achieving such goals, the state acts in relation to society as master, overseer, boss and uses, as a rule, methods of coercion.

The logic of history leads to a gradual change in the nature and functions of the state, as well as models of relationships between it and society.

State and individual.

Political life, the political system of society is the field of interaction between the state and the individual. Ideally, the state should serve the individual. However, in reality, the relationship between the individual and the state is complex and contradictory. The state can act as a force hostile to the common man. This was the case under the slave-owning, feudal states, which reflected the interests of only a minority of society. Often the state turns a person into an appendage of the state machine. This is what happens under authoritarian and totalitarian regimes.

The state can assume responsibility for the protection of the rights and freedoms of its citizens, become a partner of a citizen. Some modern states declare this position. True, what obligations to assume, to what extent to protect human rights - these are often interpreted by states at their own discretion. And here it is important for society to prove itself, and sometimes it is necessary to simply "put pressure" on the state - of course, by constitutional means: through parties, public organizations, rallies, demonstrations, etc.

Strictly speaking, the state and the individual objectively oppose each other. Man strives for the highest possible freedom. However, unlimited freedom threatens the individual himself and society as a whole. The trouble is that people often abuse the freedom granted to them, do not know how to use it, violate the rights and interests of other people and the state. Freedom develops into permissiveness, leads to a clash of interests, to unrest. This situation is unacceptable for the state.

On the other hand, the state strives to order. In order to fulfill its functions, the state seeks to "regularize" relations to the maximum extent possible, up to a strong restriction of the degree of personal freedom of its citizens. The ideal order, from the point of view of the state, is when everyone walks in formation. However, such order unacceptable for society, person, individual.

In fact, we have before us two models of the relationship between the state and the person/personality:

• 1) when the state suppresses the individual, subjugates it, erases the differences between the personal and the public, the individual and the public; a person is considered a part of the state mechanism, and the state seeks to solve all problems only by political, and not by other means (authoritarian, totalitarian systems); there is a break in relations between the individual and the state, the person goes to the position of non-cooperation;
• 2) when relations of partnership and cooperation are established between the state and the individual; the state uses a variety of channels to interact with the individual, citizens, protects the rights of the individual; the will of the people (and not the state itself) is embodied in law; the relationship between the state and the law is changing: the formula "law is an instrument of state power" is changed to the formula "the state is an instrument of law"; each individual also respects the law and strives to act within the law. The second model is, for the time being, rather an ideal towards which states should aspire; in practice it is not implemented anywhere.

The age-old problem is how to find a balance between the interests of the state and the individual, between order and freedom, between power and society. In the course of millennial evolution, human civilization has been looking for this balance, and it seems to have been found in the concept legal state, which is implemented by modern developed states. This balance is fixed by constitutions - a kind of social contract between the state and society.

The main instrument "in the hands" of the state for regulating social relations is right. With the help of law, the state performs its tasks and functions. The will of the state is embodied in law; in legal states such will mediates, expresses the will of the people. Many modern states have entered or are entering the stage legal states.

Power in a state governed by the rule of law is distinguished by the fact that it is limited by law, placed within the framework of law, and cannot afford to step over law. The rule of law state has not only rights in relation to society, but also bears obligations to society.