A state is an organization that establishes its system of law in a certain territory and acts in this system as one of the subjects of law.

This is one of the many definitions that people give to the word "state". I chose it for its brevity and connection with the subject we are studying - law. According to tradition, I will give a longer and more scientific definition later, but for starters, let it be this.

Today there are 194 officially recognized states in the world. Officially recognized means they are recognized by most other states. The youngest is South Sudan, which appeared on the world map in 2011. There are also a dozen unrecognized or partially recognized states: Taiwan, Transnistria, Kosovo, Somaliland, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Nagorno-Karabakh, Donetsk People's Republic(DPR), Islamic State Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) and others.

The state is somewhat similar to a legal entity. We can say that this is also a fiction - a subject that cannot be touched or seen and which exists only on paper and in the minds of people. It arises when a group of people in a certain territory decides that they have their own state. And as long as they believe that this state exists and act based on this attitude, this state exists.

The state, like a legal entity, has its own employees - the president, members of parliament, judges, and officials. They make laws, make judicial decisions, protect borders, detain offenders, and sell and buy government property. But they do all this on behalf of the state, and it turns out that at the same time the state itself passes laws, makes deals and does much more.

Thus, the state, although it exists only in our minds, becomes the same subject of law as individuals and legal entities. In addition, the state not only acts in the legal system together with individuals and legal entities, but also creates this legal system itself, issuing laws and regulations.

The concept of "state" is sometimes identified with the word "country". In some cases, these words actually act as synonyms. But each has its own connotation: a country is usually called a certain territory with a population, and a state is an organization that governs this territory and this population. These concepts are sometimes mixed, and sometimes, on the contrary, they are opposed: “I love my country so much and hate the state” (rock band Lumen).

Signs of the state

In modern legal science, the state is defined through its characteristics. Accordingly, the scientific definition of a state looks like this: a state is an organization that has the following signs:
- leadership that is separated from the bulk of the population and has power over it;
- special apparatus of control and coercion;
- territory;
- population;
- sovereignty;
- the generally binding nature of state acts (laws, court decisions and etc.);
- monopoly on legitimate violence;
- presence of state treasury and taxes.

Leadership, separated from the bulk of the population and having power over this population, is the most important feature of the state. In the primitive world there was no such leadership. People simply elected an intelligent and experienced person as a leader, who fulfilled his main duties, but at the same time resolved disputes and conflicts. People were not obliged to obey the leader and could remove him at any time. Such a person had no more power than the leader of a street gang or the leader of a group of hikers and mountaineers - everyone obeys them as long as they see fit. But in a modern state there is one or many leaders whose instructions everyone must follow. Sometimes there is a procedure by which people can change leaders they do not like, and sometimes there is not - and then the population is forced to either submit or rebel. Sometimes the sign of “leadership separated from the bulk of the population...” in scientific literature called " presence of public power".

Special apparatus (mechanism) for control and coercion- These are government bodies through which management governs society. After all, it is not enough to simply give an order - people must carry it out correctly and be afraid to violate it. Therefore, the state creates separate organizations with special powers - state bodies (state agencies). Ministries, departments, prosecutors, courts, police - all these are government bodies. All together they form the very “state apparatus of control and coercion,” which is also sometimes called the “state mechanism” or “state apparatus.”

WITH territory all clear. The state has strictly established state borders within which it exists.

WITH population It's also simple. The state must govern someone. At a minimum, at least only officials who will govern each other should live on its territory. But usually there is some other population engaged not in management, but in other matters, for example, in the production of goods and services.

Sovereignty- the supremacy of state power within the country and independence in relations with other states. I will tell you more about sovereignty later.

Generally binding nature of state acts- I hope everything is clear with this too. Only the state can establish laws, regulations and court decisions that are binding on everyone.

The phrase " monopoly on legitimate violence"sounds scary. In fact, this is just the right to force citizens to carry out decisions made by the state. After all, in a sense, any situation where a person is forced to do something that he does not want is violence. Many people do not want to pay taxes, serve in army, go to prison for a crime. Only the state can force them to do this, and no one else. No person without the appropriate authority can put a person in prison himself, even if he has committed a crime. This is the function of special people: the state appoints them and gives them instructions, equipment and buildings.The word "legitimate" means "legitimate, generally accepted, legal" - that is, the inhabitants of the country recognize such violence as correct and acceptable.

Availability of state treasury and taxes- a necessary feature of the state, because the maintenance of this organization requires money. Those who work for the government must receive a salary, as well as have jobs, cars, computers and other things. In order to form a treasury, periodic fixed payments - taxes - are collected from all citizens and organizations on the territory of the state.

Is there some more optional features of the state: symbols (flag, coat of arms, anthem); official language; currency unit; army; international recognition. These signs are called optional because the state can exist without them. Some states do not have an army (for example, Iceland or Andorra), some use foreign currencies (for example, Zimbabwe - US dollars, Montenegro - euros). But the majority still have these optional characteristics.

Another optional feature of a state is the presence of a constitution. Speaking about sources of law, I have already mentioned Russian Constitution, but other states also have similar documents. The Constitution is a document that specifies the principles on which the state is based, its components, authorities and main legal norms. For any state, the Constitution is a kind of instruction for assembly and operation. It is usually adopted by popular vote, and the entire legal system is based on this document. However, there are states without a constitution, for example, Great Britain, Sweden, Israel.

Sovereignty

Sovereignty is one of the most controversial and ambiguous concepts in political and legal science. This word has many meanings and is found in different phrases. Many have seen the expressions "sovereign", " state sovereignty" and "popular sovereignty", but do not fully understand what it is.

In Russia in Lately The concepts of “sovereignty” and “independence” are often confused. In fact, the term “sovereignty” is closer in meaning to the concept of “power”.

The simplest definition of this word: sovereignty is the supremacy of state power in internal affairs, the independence of the state in external affairs and the unity and completeness of state power. Let me explain the meaning of each of the elements of this definition.

1) Supremacy of State Power. This means that the power of the state on its territory is higher than any other power. No one can repeal officially existing laws or establish their own laws within state borders. Let's say, if some state X has occupied part of the territory of state Y, and in the occupied territory everyone submits to state X, this means that the sovereignty of state Y does not extend to the occupied territory. If in state Z terrorists, mafia, religious sect or other organization established control over a certain territory and actually introduced their own rules and laws there, this means that the sovereignty of state Z does not extend to this territory.

Also, the supremacy of state power means that the state has the right to intervene in any situation: in disputes between husband and wife, employer and employee, children and parents, in religious procedures, traditions, customs. The power of the employer or parents, political, religious or trade union leaders, personal life, morality, religion - they all mean nothing compared to the power of the state.

2) Independence and independence of state power in international arena . The state (more precisely, its leadership) decides for itself with whom to be friends and with whom to quarrel, which international organizations to join and with whom to conclude international treaties. No one has the right to tell a state how it should conduct its foreign policy - naturally, as long as it does not invade the territory of another state or otherwise cause harm to someone.

3) Unity and completeness of state power. An official, judge or deputy does not have his own piece of power, but represents the entire power of the state. They perform every action on behalf of the state, and it is the state, as a result of their actions, that acquires rights and bears responsibilities.

The word "sovereignty" was first coined French philosopher and lawyer Jean Bodin (1530-1596). In his time, the king essentially identified himself with the state - it is not without reason that in Russian and some other languages ​​the word “state” comes from the word “sovereign” (aka “gospodar”, aka “mister”, aka “lord”). The state belonged to the king, as land plot belongs to its owner. The king could do absolutely everything in his state: he could appoint anyone to any position, pass any law and do whatever he wanted with any person. Bodin therefore proposed that the king has absolute, permanent and indivisible power over his subjects, just as God has power over all men. Moreover, the king, in theory, received power from the hands of God. The king himself was called "sovereign" (from the French word souverain - "supreme", "supreme"), and his power - "sovereignty".

Soon, however, revolutions began to sweep away one monarchy after another. In their place, republics appeared, and then it turned out that no one had absolute and indivisible power. As a result, the idea of ​​sovereignty was transformed: it was decided that this power belongs only to the people, who themselves have the right to decide how to live, what laws to put into effect, and who to elect as leaders. And if people elect leaders, then these leaders, unlike kings, themselves do not have any sovereignty, since their power is not constant and not absolute. So power or sovereignty still remains with the people. This is how the idea of ​​popular sovereignty arose. In other words, only the people themselves have complete power over the people (“popular sovereignty”), and to implement it they create state bodies, elect their representatives to them, and they exercise this power (“state sovereignty”). This is a complex combination: the people have power over themselves, but transfer it to the state.

Quote on this topic from the Russian Constitution: "The bearer of sovereignty and the only source of power in Russian Federation is its multinational people"(Part 1 of Article 3 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation).

The main problem of the idea of ​​sovereignty is the sacralization of the state, i.e. turning it into an object of worship, endowing it with sacred properties. There is something of a religious worldview in this: the people convey to the leaders of the state a certain magical power- sovereignty, and they must protect and protect it. Because of this, the same problems arise as five hundred years ago. Previously, kings and kings believed that they received power from the hands of God, acted on his behalf and therefore could do whatever they wanted. And today, any civil servant with a fragile psyche - from a local police officer to the president - can imagine something similar. A person thinks that he received his power from the hands of the people and the state. Therefore, anyone who does not agree with his actions is considered an enemy of the state and the people, who has encroached on the most sacred thing - sovereignty.

Some lawyers propose abandoning the concept of sovereignty altogether, believing that this will not do any harm modern states. After all, sovereignty in the classical sense has long since died. “We cannot say that France is not a state,” says international lawyer and human rights activist Vladimir Zhbankov. “Obviously, it is a state. But it does not print its own currency; two-thirds of French legislation is in one way or another related to the law European Union... Therefore, it is impossible to talk about sovereignty in the form in which Bodin, Hegel understood it, or as Soviet science understands it (which is now taught in universities under the name “theory of state and law”). Here it is more correct to use the term “competence” - a set of subjects of competence and authority. Subjects of competence are where we can act, powers are what we do. This term is more correct in legal terms, because sovereignty is associated with the sacralization of power - as paternal, divine, etc. "( Vladimir Zhbankov "Sovereignty is the key to dictatorship").

Even Russia, despite all the closedness of our state, has signed thousands of international treaties and joined hundreds of international organizations. All of them de facto limit its sovereignty. If our leadership signed the corresponding agreement, then Russia cannot violate generally recognized human rights, cannot deny entry to citizens of a certain state without a visa, does not have the right to violate someone’s copyrights or establish road signs, not responding international standards. Of course, Russia assumed all these obligations voluntarily. But if a man voluntarily gives up some part of his power, can he be said to have retained absolute and unified power? It seems to me that not quite.

In addition, in almost any state, power is divided into legislative, executive and judicial, and some powers are given to the level of regions and cities. That is, the power of the state falls into several levels and types and ceases to be similar to the sovereignty that Jean Bodin likened to the power of God. Of course, theorists may object that power may be divided into several parts, but sovereignty remains complete and unified. But then the very concept of sovereignty loses all meaning, because it ceases to mean something other than itself.

Why is the state needed?

People see the purpose and meaning of the existence of the state differently. First opinion: the state was created so that some people could subjugate other people; second: the state was created to unite people, solve their problems and conflicts that arise between them.

These two approaches seem opposite, but are not mutually exclusive and are even combined in most states. Even under an authoritarian regime, the state not only allows the dictator and his friends to rob the people with impunity, but also helps people at the very least: it maintains order, resolves disputes between citizens, and sometimes builds schools and hospitals. And even in the most legal and democratic state there are officials and people close to them who benefit from their position.

Therefore, we can say that the essence of the state is both the first and the second. It’s just that the more developed, legal and democratic it is, the more the second essence strengthens and the first decreases.

Meanwhile, most Throughout history, humanity has managed without a state. The ancient gatherers and hunters, and even the first farmers and cattle breeders, had no need for it. But then states appeared in almost all parts of the planet inhabited by people. Why did this happen?

To understand this, we need to compare the life of a primitive society and modern civilization.

Let's imagine a small village where several hundred people live, engaged in subsistence farming (that is, each family grows its own food). All the people in the village know each other. Life here is simple and predictable and governed by a small number of rules - the Ten Commandments are enough. There is no money and transactions, employers and workers, buyers and sellers. If someone behaves badly (for example, stealing someone else's thing or hitting someone), then the neighbors can simply get together and punish him. If a village is attacked by enemies, all residents take up arms and defend themselves. People manage their entire lives themselves and may not transfer power over themselves to anyone.

After that, let's imagine any modern city where millions of people live, thousands of cars drive, factories, shops, banks, communication and energy transmission systems operate, millions of goods and services are sold and bought every day. Here life is much more complex and varied. The Ten Commandments alone cannot settle traffic, conclusion of a lease agreement or wage system. And the neighbors will clearly not be enough to identify and punish the lawbreaker. In such a society one cannot do without the state: there must be people who establish uniform rules of behavior for everyone and force them to comply with them. These people form the state.

Anarchists and Marxists paint an idealistic picture of a future in which the state disappears and people work voluntarily and treat each other well. I'm afraid this is hardly possible. More precisely, it is possible only in two cases: either we degrade to living in the agricultural communities described above, or people will change so much that everyone begins to think about the common good more than about their own. “If men were angels, government would be unnecessary,” said James Madison, one of the authors of the American Constitution and the fourth President of the United States. Maybe someday this will really happen, but today, while people are not angels, we still need the state.

The state does not have any one goal or task. It controls society in many directions at once. In legal science, several main areas are identified and called " functions of the state".

The functions of the state are divided into internal And external. Internal functions are what the state does within its borders, external functions are how the state interacts with other states.

The main internal functions are economic, political, legal and social.

Legal function the most simple and obvious. The state, as I have already said, establishes its legal system in a certain area. Deputies in parliament develop and pass laws, ministries and departments issue by-laws, officials and police monitor the implementation of laws and bring violators to justice, and courts resolve legal conflicts. If the state does not comply legal function, crimes go unpunished, and people do not feel protected: contracts are not fulfilled, crime rates rise, and society ultimately plunges into chaos.

Economic function state is that its representatives stimulate economic development in optimal mode. The main way- The Central Bank prints the required amount of money, necessary for people for exchanging some goods for others. In addition, officials manage state-owned enterprises or issue preferential loans to small businesses, prohibit or permit the import and export of goods, or set restrictions on them customs duties, increase taxes on some areas of the economy and reduce them on others. Ideally, all this will encourage people to produce more goods and services, exchange them more actively with each other, or sell them abroad. Thanks to this, prosperity and living standards will increase. If the state did not perform an economic function, it would be difficult for people to exchange some goods for others and produce new goods. Because of this, the level of production would gradually begin to fall, and after it the standard of living.

Political function state is manifested in ensuring democracy, protecting stability and harmony in society, containing national and class contradictions. Referendums and elections must take place in the state to determine what exactly people want. People should also have the right to organize rallies and demonstrations, create political parties and public organizations. If the state does not perform a political function, then people feel that they cannot participate in government decision-making, and rightly believe that nothing depends on their opinion in this country.

Social function lies in the fact that the state maintains the necessary standard of living, tries to provide its citizens with housing, work, medical service, education. The state builds and maintains hospitals, shelters, schools and other places that satisfy certain needs of the people. I think the consequences of failure to fulfill social functions are obvious to everyone: an increase in the number of sick people, homeless people, orphans and a deterioration in living conditions for a significant part of society. If the state performs well social functions, it is called a “welfare state”.

And the external functions include the following functions of the state. The first is mutually beneficial cooperation with other countries. In particular, Russia enters into agreements with other countries on a variety of issues and is a member of various international organizations. Second - participation in the decision global problems (non-proliferation nuclear weapons, environmental crisis, etc.). Third - security national security . This is the protection of state borders, maintaining the army in combat-ready condition and repelling attacks from other states. Fourth - protection of citizens located outside the state. If a problem occurs with a Russian citizen abroad, he can contact the Russian consulate, where he should be provided with assistance. For example, if one of you loses your passport in a foreign country, the Russian consulate should give you a free “certificate of entry (return) to the Russian Federation” - a document with which you can leave foreign country and return to your homeland.

The state can perform these functions in two forms: legal And organizational.

Legal form- this is the adoption of rules of conduct that are mandatory for all. Those. the state adopts certain rules of law: who should pay and how much taxes, who should be punished and how for what offenses, how to conduct elections and referendums. A organizational form- This is the direct management of society. For example, when civil servants indicate who should do what in a particular situation, or do something themselves: they detain an offender, levy a fine, seize property.

Separation of powers

One of the most important principles of a developed state is the separation of powers. Closely related to this principle are the forms of government in different countries, which I will talk about in the next post. Therefore, it is better to immediately understand this topic.

Even the ancient Greeks and Romans understood that it was dangerous to give power into the hands of one person or group of people, but it was better to distribute different responsibilities among different people. In Ancient Athens, the People's Assembly adopted laws and the most important government decisions, The Council of Five Hundred and the colleges of strategos and archons directly governed the city, and legal disputes were resolved by the Areopagus. Something similar happened in Republican Rome: there power was divided between the consuls, the Senate and the comitia (people's assemblies).

Later this principle was somehow forgotten. In the Middle Ages, emperors, kings and tsars came to power everywhere - the same sovereigns with absolute power that I talked about. They made the laws themselves and appointed all the officials and judges. At the same time, they could repeal any law or court decision, and remove any person from office - that is, they retained full power.

In modern times, when republics began to emerge in place of monarchies, the idea that power should be distributed among several groups of people reappeared.

It would seem, why is the principle of separation of powers needed in conditions of democracy? Perhaps it is enough that the leader of the country does not receive power by inheritance, but is elected by the people? For example, people elect a president - so let him decide what laws to pass, how to govern the country and how to resolve legal disputes. And if people don’t like it, then after a certain time they will elect another president. Many, by the way, perceive the power of the president this way - they say, the country has a leader, why else would there be a State Duma or a Constitutional Court.

However, in such a situation a number of problems may arise.

First, the president can seize power forever. For a person with unlimited powers, this is not difficult to do. If you pass laws, you can stipulate that a presidential candidate must collect a million signatures of citizens or some other almost impossible requirement. If judges listen to you, you can initiate criminal cases against opposition politicians. If officials and police officers are subordinate to you, you can expel observers from polling stations who record violations. That is, such a president has many ways to remain in power forever.

Secondly, the lack of separation of powers prevents effective decision-making. For example, officials may ask the president to order judges not to offend them. After this, most disputes between citizens and officials will be resolved in favor of the officials. Investigators and police officers can ask for the same thing - and then judges will begin to hand down guilty verdicts in 99% of cases. And if officials can also influence legislation, then they will ask to adopt the laws that are most convenient for them - those that give them more power and less responsibility.

To avoid such sad consequences, the French thinker of the 18th century. Charles Montesquieu developed the idea of ​​separation of powers. He identified the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government, and considered the first to be the main one. “Everything would perish if in one and the same person or institution, composed of dignitaries, nobles or ordinary people, these three powers were united: the power to create laws, the power to enforce decisions of a national nature, and the power to judge crimes or lawsuits of private individuals."(“On the Spirit of Laws” by C. Montesquieu).

The principle of separation of powers means that there should not be one supreme power in the country. Everyone who works for the state is divided into three unequal parts. Several hundred deputies form the parliament - this is the legislative body. He is engaged in making laws - the main rules by which society lives. If a country is large, there are usually several tens of thousands of judges who form the judiciary. They decide which law should be applied and how it should be applied when there is a legal conflict. Finally, several hundred thousand civil servants (ministers, officials, police officers) form executive branch, which directly governs society on the basis of laws.

Legislative power in all developed countries considered the main one. Parliament usually has many members representing a wide range of backgrounds and political ideologies. All deputies have equal rights and come to joint decisions through negotiations and compromises. Due to their large numbers and diversity, it is more difficult for these people to seize power and establish a dictatorship. Therefore, parliament itself usually has broad powers and controls other branches of government.

The executive branch is structured differently. All its representatives form a hierarchical system, headed by a president or prime minister - and how exactly the entire vertical will operate depends on the desire of this person. Representatives of the executive branch have weapons, equipment, strict discipline and a system of subordination of inferiors to superiors, therefore it is the most dangerous for democracy. Accordingly, in most states the executive branch itself does not control anyone, but is in a subordinate position.

The principle of separation of powers is sometimes called a system of "checks and balances." Ideally, this system looks like this. Officials (the executive branch) are controlled by members of parliament (the legislative branch) by passing laws within which officials act. At the same time, officials are controlled by judges (judicial power). Judges resolve disputes between officials and citizens and ensure that officials do not break the law. In addition, members of parliament control judges - after all, parliament also passes laws on the basis of which judges make decisions. And judges, in turn, control members of parliament: in particular, one of the judicial bodies - the Constitutional Court - decides whether the constitution was violated when a particular law was adopted.

Thus, different branches of government, to one degree or another, limit, restrain and control each other. Thanks to this, everyone must strictly fulfill their duties, no one can put pressure on others or seize power.

The system described above is a horizontal separation of powers. There is also a vertical separation of powers. It is believed that in unitary states power is divided between two levels: national and local, and in federal states - between three (national, regional and local). Each level of government also has its own powers and jurisdiction. But I’ll tell you more about this later.

The principle of separation of powers is embedded in the constitutions of many countries. In Russia it was proclaimed in Art. 10 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation. However, the separation of powers regime is written in a very strange way. We have a head of state - the president, who does not belong to any of the listed branches of government, but at the same time has extremely many powers. He nominates the judges of the superior courts and appoints all other judges. The president determines who will be in the government and can dismiss him at any time. Finally, the head of state can dissolve the State Duma if deputies are dissatisfied with the work of the government or do not want to appoint the chairman of the government proposed by the president. At the same time, in order to remove the president himself from office, the simultaneous consent of State Duma, Federation Council, Constitutional Court and Supreme Court.

In this situation, the principle of separation of powers does not work, because the president becomes a subject of power who is not controlled by anyone, but who himself controls everyone else. The result is ineffective government work, the adoption of bad laws and unfair court decisions, many of which I have already talked about. Sooner or later this design will need to be changed.

Above I have already quoted James Madison's aphorism: “If men were angels, government would be unnecessary.” This phrase reflects the meaning and purpose of the creation of the state. But this aphorism also has a continuation, which very accurately reflects the need for separation of powers: “And if people were ruled by angels, there would be no need for any control over the government.”

Summary

A state is an organization that establishes its system of law in a certain territory and acts in this system as one of the subjects of law. A more scientific definition: a state is an organization that has the following characteristics: a leadership that is separated from the bulk of the population and has power over it; special apparatus of control and coercion; territory; population; sovereignty; the generally binding nature of state acts; monopoly on legitimate violence; availability of state treasury and taxes.

Sovereignty is the supremacy of state power in internal affairs, the independence of the state in external affairs and the unity and completeness of state power. There are a number of problems with the idea of ​​sovereignty; many lawyers propose abandoning this concept, since it leads to excessive sacralization of the state and encourages irresponsibility among civil servants.

The state governs society in several directions at once. Scientists have identified several such areas and called them “functions of the state.” The functions of the state are divided into internal and external. Main internal functions: economic, political, legal and social. Main external functions: mutually beneficial cooperation with other countries; participation in solving global problems; ensuring national security; protection of citizens located outside the state.

The state can carry out all its functions in two forms: legal and organizational. The legal form is the adoption of rules of conduct that are binding on everyone. Organizational form- This is the direct management of society.

The idea of ​​separation of powers is that there should not be one supreme power in the state. Everyone who works for the state is divided into three unequal parts: the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government. Different branches of government control each other in one form or another. The principle of separation of powers is embedded in the constitutions of many countries. However, in Russia the regime of separation of powers is spelled out very strangely. We have a president - a subject of power whom no one controls, but who himself controls everyone else.

The next article from the series "Jurisprudence for Dummies" - "

Ticket 1.

1. State: concept (3 definitions), characteristics, essence.

Concepts: The state is a society at the highest level of development (Greeks). Hegel: the state is the procession of God on Earth. State- this is a special organization of political power that has a special apparatus (mechanism) for managing society to ensure its normal functioning. The state is an organization of political power that acts in relation to the entire population in a fixed territory, using the law and the social apparatus of coercion.

Signs of the state

Territory and territorial organization authorities. Internal territorial division.

Population.

Sovereignty.

Tax system.

The presence of a special public apparatus of governance, which has a special legal apparatus of coercion - the use of force and control (police, courts, army).

Legislative system.

Availability of state symbols, capital, coat of arms, state language.

Concepts of the state.

State - an organization of political power that governs society and ensures order and stability in it.

The state is an organization of political power that promotes the primary implementation of specific class, universal, religious, national and other interests within a certain territory.

The state is a special organization of the political power of society, which has a special apparatus of coercion, expressing the will and interests of the ruling class or the entire people.

Signs of the state.

Availability of public authority

System of taxes and loans

Territorial division of the population

Monopoly on lawmaking

Monopoly on the legal use of force and physical coercion.

Is in stable legal ties with the population living on its territory

Possesses certain material means to carry out its policies

Acts alone official representative the whole society

Sovereignty

Symbols – coat of arms, flag, anthem

The essence of the state.

The main thing in the essence of the state is the substantive side, that is, whose interests this organization of political power carries out.

In this regard, we can distinguish class, universal, religious, national, racial approaches to the essence of the state.

The class approach, within which the state can be defined as the organization of political power of the economically dominant class.

A universal approach within which the state can be defined as an organization of political power that creates conditions for a compromise of the interests of various classes and social groups.

Within the framework of the religious approach, the state can be defined as an organization of political power that primarily promotes the interests of a particular religion.

Within the framework of the national approach, the state can be defined as an organization of political power that promotes the primary implementation of the interests of the titular nation by satisfying the interests of other nations living on the territory of a given country.

Within the framework of the racial approach, the state can be defined as an organization of political power that promotes the preferential implementation of the interests of a certain race by satisfying the interests of other races living in the territory of a given country.

The word “state” in Russian comes from the Old Russian “sovereign” (the so-called prince-ruler in ancient Rus'), which, in turn, is associated with the word “sovereign”.

The Old Russian "gospodar" comes from "lord". Thus, almost all researchers agree on the connection between the words “state” and “lord” (for example, Vasmer’s dictionary, 1996, vol. 1, pp. 446, 448).

The state represents central institute power in society and the concentrated implementation of this power policy. Therefore, three phenomena - state, power and politics are identified.

How was the state determined at various stages of its development?

One of the greatest thinkers of antiquity, Aristotle (384-322 BC), believed that the state is “a self-sufficient communication of citizens, not needing any other communication and not dependent on anyone else.”

The outstanding Renaissance thinker Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527) defined the state in terms of the common good, which should be obtained from the fulfillment of real state interests.

The major French thinker of the 16th century, Jean Bodin (1530-1596), viewed the state as “the legal administration of families and what they have in common with the supreme power, which must be guided by the eternal principles of goodness and justice. These principles should provide a common good, which should be the goal of the state structure.”

Famous English philosopher of the 16th century. Thomas Hobbes (1588-1697), a supporter of the absolutist power of the state - the guarantor of peace and the implementation of natural rights, defined it as “a single person, the supreme ruler, the sovereign, whose will, due to the agreement of many persons, is considered the will of all, so that he can use his powers and abilities everything for common world and protection."

The state was understood differently and in more late period up to the present time. In German literature, for example, it was defined in some cases as “the organization of common national life on a certain territory and under one supreme authority” (R. Mol); in others - as “a union of free people in a certain territory under a common supreme power, existing for the full use of the legal state” (N. Aretin); thirdly, as “a naturally occurring organization of power, intended to protect a certain legal order” (L. Gumplowicz).

Prominent lawyer N.M. Korkunov argued that “the state is a social union of free people with a forcibly established peaceful order by granting the exclusive right of coercion only to state bodies.”

K. Marx and F. Engels turned to the definition of the state more than once. They believed that this is “the form in which individuals belonging to the ruling class realize their common interests and in which all civil society this era finds its concentration.” Many years later, F. Engels formulated a brief, but perhaps the most confrontational definition, according to which “the state is nothing more than a machine for suppressing one class by another.” IN AND. Lenin made some changes to the above definition. He wrote: “The state is a machine for maintaining the dominance of one class over another.”

It is noteworthy how Russian lawyers defined the concept of state. Many of these definitions are interesting not only from the point of view historical science. Trubetskoy believes that “the state is a union of people that rules independently and exclusively within a certain territory.” Khvostov wrote that the state “is a union of free people living in a certain territory and subject to a coercive and independent supreme power.

The term "state" is commonly used in legal, political, as well as social contexts. Currently, all the land on planet Earth, with the exception of Antarctica and the adjacent islands, is divided between approximately two hundred states. The state is a form of power. A state is a social entity characterized by the constancy of territory and population and the presence of power that ensures this constancy.

Neither in science nor in international law There is no single and generally accepted definition of the concept of “state”.

At the moment, there is no legal definition of a state recognized by all countries of the world. The largest international organization, the UN, does not have the power to determine whether something is a state. “Recognition of a new state or government is an act that only states and governments can commit or refuse to commit. As a rule, it means a willingness to establish diplomatic relations. The United Nations is not a state or a government, and therefore has no power to recognize any state or government."

One of the few documents defining a “state” in international law is the Montevideo Convention, signed in 1933 by only a few American states.

The explanatory dictionary of the Russian language by Ozhegov and Shvedova gives two meanings: “1. Main political organization society, carrying out its management, protection of its economic and social structure" and 2. A country governed by a political organization that protects its economic and social structure.”

IN modern science There are five main approaches to the concept of state:

• · theological (widely used in Muslim teachings in connection with the concept of the caliphate);
• · classical (the state is considered on the basis of three components: population, territory, power);
• · legal (the state is the legal personification of the nation);
• · sociological (represented the largest number schools, including those with a Marxist direction, run by the state);
• · cybernetic (state as special system in connection with information flows, forward and backward connections).

Thinkers in various historical periods, tried to give their own definition of the state. They proceeded from objective factors that took place during a specific period in the development of human society.

Aristotle, for example, held idealistic views and saw in it a kind of good principle, the exclusive goal of which was the achievement of moral principles of life based on virtues.

Designing, perfect and fair state, Plato believed that it is a “joint settlement” of people who, “being in need of many things, come together to live together and help each other.”

Polemicizing with Plato, Cicero, through the mouth of Scipio, says: “The reason for such a unification should be sought not so much in the weakness of people as in their inherent need to live together.”

Hegel, on the basis of his general philosophical system, considered the state to be a creation of special spiritual principles human existence: “The state is the reality of the moral idea, the moral spirit as an explicit, clear, substantial will that thinks and knows itself and does what it knows and because it knows it.”

Russian scientist I.A. Ilyin believed that the state is a union of people, organized on the basis of law, united by domination over a single territory and subordination to a single authority.

In the bourgeois era, the definition of the state as a collection (union) of people, the territory occupied by these people, and power became widespread. The famous statesman P. Duguit identifies four elements of the state:

• 1) a set of human individuals;
• 2) a certain territory;
• 3) sovereign power;
• 4) government.

“Under the name of the state,” wrote G.F. Shershenevich, - is understood as a union of people settled within certain borders and subordinate to one government.”

The definition of the state under consideration, which correctly reflects some features (signs) of the state, has given rise to various simplifications. Referring to it, some authors identified the state with the country, others with society, and still others with the circle of persons exercising power (the government).

IN AND. Lenin criticized this definition because many of its supporters named coercive power among the distinctive features of the state: “Coercive power exists in every human community, in the clan structure, and in the family, but there was no state here.”

Supporters also disagree with this concept psychological theory rights. “The state is not a collection of people of a certain kind,” argued F.F. Kokoshkin, “and the relationship between them, the form of community life, the well-known psychic connection between them.” However, the “form of community life,” the form of organization of society, is also only one of the signs, but not the entire state.

It should be noted that the concept of state denotes a political system of power established in a certain territory, a special kind of organization, while the concept of country rather refers to cultural, general geographic (common territory) and other factors. The term country also has a less official connotation. A similar distinction exists in English with the words country (which is closer to the concept of country) and state (state), although in a certain context they can be used interchangeably.

The most accurate definition of the state, in my opinion, was given by F. Engels: “the state is nothing more than a machine for suppressing one class by another.” I believe that the shape of this machine varies. In a slave state we have a monarchy or an aristocratic republic. In reality, the forms of government were extremely diverse, but the essence of the matter remained the same: slaves had no rights and remained an oppressed class, they were not recognized as people. We see the same thing in the serf state.

The change in the form of exploitation transformed the slave state into a serf state. This was of enormous importance. In a slave-owning society, the slave had complete lack of rights; he was not recognized as a person; in serfdom - the peasant’s attachment to the land. The main feature of serfdom is that the peasantry was considered attached to the land - this is where the very concept came from - serfdom. A peasant could work for a certain number of days for himself on the plot that the landowner gave him; the other part of the days the serf worked for the master. The essence of class society remained: society was based on class exploitation. Only landowners could have full rights; peasants were considered without rights. Their position in practice was very different from that of slaves in a slave state.

While there were no classes, this apparatus did not exist. When classes appeared, everywhere and always, along with the growth and strengthening of this division, a special institution appeared - the state.

This is precisely the opinion I adhere to, which is why I give preference to the works of F. Engels.

The diversity of views on the state is due primarily to the fact that the state itself is an extremely complex, multifaceted and historically changing phenomenon. The scientific nature of these views is determined by the degree of maturity of human thought in a given period of development of society, the objectivity of methodological approaches to the study of the state.

Knowledge of the natural properties and characteristics of the state “in general”, apparently, is only possible for a certain historical perspective due to the constantly changing economic, social, spiritual, national, environmental, religious and other factors that determine the content and structure of a state-organized society. Moreover, often the concept of the state is given not in its historical reality, but in an ideal representation. Instead of defining what a state is, they often only describe what it should be.

The state is a complex phenomenon and it is impossible to cover all its aspects with one concept, therefore only a series of definitions can give a fairly complete picture of it. In this regard, it is necessary, first of all, to distinguish between the concept of state in the broad and narrow sense of the word.

In a broad sense state - This is a comprehensive, legal, sovereign, territorial, political organization of society, which has a special apparatus of power that ensures the existence of society as a whole, its external and internal security (up to the use, coercion - force). In other words, the state is a form of organization of society, arising at a certain stage of its historical development. The words “country”, “fatherland”, “society”, “state” are synonymous if they imply the concept of state in a broad sense.

In a narrow sense the state is a mechanism for managing society in the form of a special apparatus of sovereign power (public, political), extending to the entire population of the country and its territory, which has a monopoly on the use of coercion, taxation, and the issuance of legal acts in this territory. In other words, the state is a mechanism for exercising public political power in society, a mechanism for managing society. This interpretation of the state is essentially identified with the concept of the state apparatus, the system of its bodies endowed with power. Among the definitions of the concept of state, there are those that focus on the state as a leading participant in international relations, a subject of international law, which is characterized by the presence of a certain territory, population, power (state), which extends to the entire population of a given state and its territory. The main qualitative feature of a state as a subject of international law is sovereignty. Therefore, it is no coincidence that on June 16, 1990, during the collapse of the USSR, striving for the creation of an independent Ukrainian state, the Supreme Council of the Ukrainian SSR, as the highest representative body of state power, adopted the Declaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine.

§3. Main features of the state

Various definitions of the concept of state always indicate on certain signs of the state. A full coverage of these features is impossible without mentioning state (public and political power). State power is both public and political power. It is public because it officially manages the affairs of the entire society and acts on behalf of society as a whole when resolving issues within its competence. It is political because, represented by the state apparatus, it is separated from society, relatively isolated from it. The relatively independent existence, position in society and the power that this power has allow it to effectively manage a socially heterogeneous society, i.e. one where there is largely no unity, no coincidence of interests among different layers, groups and communities of people. The relations between them constitute the sphere of politics as such. The direct purpose of power is, first of all, to regulate these relations, which makes public power political, and success in the struggle of the largely divergent interests of various social strata, groups and communities in a socially heterogeneous society is always on the side of the one who has state power . Mastery of this power allows one part of society (larger or smaller, or its representatives) not only to manage the affairs of the entire society, ensure its security, existence as a single whole, but also to manage it primarily in its own interests, which gives public power political character. That is why it always acts as a public political power.

State power cannot be identified with the state itself, because the state is the organization of this power, i.e. its structure, the mechanism for its implementation in the person of certain bodies: judicial, control and supervisory, military, etc. State power itself is a way of governing society, which is characterized by reliance on a special apparatus of coercion. It follows from this that the basis of the effectiveness of state power is the authority of force, and not the strength of authority. However, what has been said does not mean at all that state power is a force that does not strive to be authoritative. It is no coincidence that, for example, in democratic states, relevant sociological research is carried out and public opinion is studied regarding the past or planned government decisions. In addition, the effectiveness of solving many domestic and international problems, as history shows, does not always depend on the so-called “forceful decisions” of the state (states).

Every state is characterized by the presence of state power, which is sovereign. State sovereignty, which must be distinguished from national or popular sovereignty, presupposes the supremacy of state power within the country, its independence from any foreign power. Sovereignty, considered as a comparative property of state power (and the state as its organization), indicates its position among those powers that exist in society - church, parent, corporate, etc. State power exists separately from these authorities and has supremacy over them in the sphere of public affairs. In addition, any state must recognize this order of things in the system of relations between authorities within the state and not interfere in its internal affairs, and also consider it as an equal, independent, independent subject of interstate relations. Respect for the sovereignty of a state (regardless of the size of its territory, population size, etc.) is a principle of international law and international relations, which, in particular, is enshrined in the UN Charter. Thus, the above about sovereignty draws attention to the fact that in general sovereignty has internal and external sides.

The study of the state shows that it can be viewed as an organization of power that is all-encompassing. Only state power extends to all persons (individuals, legal entities) who are located on the territory of the state. If sovereignty is understood as a property of state power, which indicates its strength, then comprehensiveness is a property of state power, indicating the scale of its action in society. A broader understanding of “comprehensiveness” as a feature of a state implies an indication that the state is the organization of society into a single whole through the institution of “citizenship” (nationality), i.e. The state is the comprehensive organization of society.

The state is an organization of power that rules on strictly defined territory, i.e. limited part of the planet's surface (land, sea, airspace). The territory of a state can be thought of as the material basis his existence.

The existence of states is inseparable from the presence of the corresponding population of the country (population, state people). It is no coincidence that the understanding of the state as a society organized by the state is widespread, i.e. a special way of organizing society. People, people, population of the country - social basis states. The people inhabiting the territory of the state are the subject and object of state power.

The state unites people (the population of the country) into a single whole, and their belonging to a given state is reflected by the concept of “citizenship” (nationality). Citizenship (nationality) is a stable legal connection of a person with a given state, expressed in their mutual rights and obligations,

The state is characterized by the unification of people on a territorial basis into one territorial collective (citizens of the state, population of the country) and simultaneous division, for the purpose of optimizing management, into smaller territorial collectives (population of regions, districts, etc.).

The state is characterized by the presence of a management apparatus, a special category of persons, management professionals. In a state there are always managers and governed. Management bodies include the government, various ministries, state committees, etc. When describing a state, it is common to pay attention to its inherent so-called coercive apparatus, i.e. detachments of armed, specially trained people, compulsory institutions. They are the power basis for the effectiveness of state power. The “power” departments of the state primarily include the armed forces, public order agencies, state security agencies, and punitive (penitentiary) institutions. The state has a monopoly right to use coercion on its territory.

Only the state has the right to issue normative legal acts (laws, regulations, decrees, etc.) that are binding for everyone. Regulatory legal acts establish legal norms (legal norms), which express the generally binding state will. Legal norms are designed for voluntary compliance. If necessary, their implementation is provided by special legal bodies: tax authorities, prosecutors, police, etc. The financial basis of the state’s activities is formed, first of all, by taxes. Taxation is a monopoly right of the state. Other revenues to the budget (state treasury) come from loans (external and internal), income from the activities of state enterprises, various fees (judicial, customs), etc.

The term states appeared in the 16th century. It was introduced by the Italian political thinker Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527). Of course, the state as a social phenomenon had already existed for millennia before this.

State complexity social phenomenon leads to the diversity of its definition. Since the state is a complex phenomenon, attempts have been made since ancient times to define the concept of “state”. However, until now there is no generally accepted understanding of it. Many researchers have interpreted the state as political community, association, union of people (Cicero, F. Aquinas, D. Locke, G. Grotius, I. Kant). I. Kant interpreted the state as “a society of people that disposes and governs itself.” According to L. Dyugi, “the state means every human society, in which there is a political differentiation between the rulers and the ruled, in one word “political power”.

Aristotle believed that the state is “a self-sufficient communication of citizens, not needing any other communication and not depending on anyone else.” N. Machiavelli defined the state through the common good, which should be obtained from the fulfillment of real state interests. The French thinker J. Bodin viewed the state as “the legal management of families and what they have in common with the supreme power, which must be guided by the eternal principles of goodness and justice. These principles should provide a common good, which should be the goal of the state structure.”

The English philosopher T. Hobbes defined the state as “a single person, the supreme ruler, the sovereign, whose will, as a result of the agreement of many persons, is considered the will of all, so that it can use the powers and abilities of everyone for common peace and protection.”

The creator of the ideological and political doctrine of liberalism, D. Locke, represented the state as “the general will, which is the expression of the prevailing force,” that is, the majority of citizens “part of the state.”

Hegel’s understanding of the state is based on his general philosophical system, which interprets the state as a generation of special spiritual principles of human existence: “The state is the reality of the moral idea - the moral spirit as an obvious, clear, substantial will, which thinks and knows itself and does what it does. knows and because she knows” Hegel. Philosophy of law. M., 1990. P.279..

Marxist-Leninist science defines the state based on its unchanging class nature. Since the state arises as a product of class society as a result of the split of society into irreconcilable classes, then “it general rule is the state of the most powerful, economically dominant class, which, with the help of the state, also becomes the politically dominant class and thus acquires new means for suppressing and oppressing the exploited class” Marx K. Engels F. Op. T. 21. P.171-172..

In German literature, the state was defined in some cases as “the organization of common people’s life on a certain territory and under one supreme authority” (R. Mol); in others - as “a union of free people in a certain territory under a common supreme power, existing for the full use of the legal state” (N. Aretin); thirdly, as “a naturally occurring organization of power, intended to protect a certain legal order” (L. Gumplowicz).

It is noteworthy how Russian lawyers defined the concept of state. Korkunov Korkunov N. M. Lectures on general theory rights. St. Petersburg , 1984. P.240. , for example, defines the state as “a social union representing independent, recognized coercive rule over free people" Trubetskoy believes that “there is a union of people that rules independently and exclusively within a certain territory.” Shershenevich and Kokoshkin interpret the state as a union of people under one government and within one territory.

In Russian literature of different periods one can also find many definitions of the state. A.I. Denisov Denisov A.I. Fundamentals of the Marxist-Leninist theory of state and law. M., 1948. P. 53., based on the conclusions of the classics of Marxism-Leninism, he believed that “the state is called precisely that special organization through which the class exercises its power, which is not limited by any laws - dictatorship.”

The educational literature also discusses views on the state. The authors of the textbook “Theory of State and Law” are M.P. Kareva, S.F. Kechekyan, A.S. Fedoseev, T.I. Fedkin identifies two class elements in the state: internal and external. They come to the conclusion that “the state is the political organization of the economically dominant class, the apparatus of power through which this class exercises its dictatorship, keeps its class opponents in check and protects the material conditions of its existence from any encroachment on them by forces hostile to it, both within country and abroad." The textbook “Theory of State and Law,” edited by Professor S. S. Alekseev, somewhat concretizes the definition of the state. In it, the state is considered as “a special organization of political power of the economically dominant class (workers led by the working class - in a socialist society), which has a special apparatus of coercion and gives its orders binding force for the population of the entire country” Theory of State and Law. M., 1985. P.38..

Due to its specific characteristics, the state as an institution or organization has always been different from other pre-state “existed before it” and non-state “existing alongside it” institutions and organizations. Identifying and studying these signs opens the way to a deeper understanding of not only the past, but the present of our country and other countries.

Throughout the history of human development, great thinkers and politicians of different times have expressed many different opinions and judgments about the main features of the state.

Apparently, each approach reflects one or another characteristic of the state, and only in combination do these approaches make it possible to form an understanding of the state as an integral social institution.