graduate student
The article is devoted to researching the nature and role of people in the political and legal system of the state, caused by the global crisis of national territorial statehood and sovereignty. The key significance of people as the source of power and bearer of primary sovereignty is considered, and the necessity to legiti-mize the concept of ‘people’ through its doctrinal and normative definition is emphasized, which should be a response to the substitution of basic legal categories in the context of the international crisis. The differences between the categories of ‘ethnos’ and ‘people’ are highlighted, where a clear distinction is proposed between these concepts in order to increase the clarity of legislation. It is shown that people represent a complex structure based on a set of ethnic groups, organized into a state and aimed at preserving cultural identity and development. Special attention is paid to the problems related to the ambivalence of understanding people in the Constitution of the Russian Federation, which simultaneously asserts the unity of people as a source of power and recognizes the existence of many peoples. It is proposed to clarify the semantic content of the corresponding terms in order to eliminate legal collisions and ensure consistency of constitutional provisions. The analysis shows that the category of ‘people’ in Russian legislation needs further conceptualization, since it combines elements of a unified whole and multiplicity of constituent parts. Solving this problem contributes to strengthening the constitutional basis and ensuring the unity of Russian society.
demos, unity, constitution, laos, legitimation, people, normativism, constituent power, ethnos
1. Skuratov Yu. I. The Category of "People" in the Constitutional Law of Russia (Eurasian Traditions and Modernity) // Lex Russica. 2017. No. 10 (131). Pp. 9–26. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17803/1729-5920.2017.131.10.009-026; EDN: https://elibrary.ru/ZQMUQF
2. Shirokogorov S. M. Ethnos: A Study of the Basic Principles of Changes in Ethnic and Ethnographic Phenomena. Moscow: Moscow State University Press, 2010. 124 p.
3. Dugin A. G. Ethnosociology. Moscow: Academic Project, 2020. 618 p.
4. Alfimtsev V. N. Definitive chaos in the regulatory regulation of national politics // Lex Russica. 2015. No. 5. pp. 55-63. EDN: https://elibrary.ru/UKBUAX
5. Serednev V. A. On the phenomenon of good and evil or the essence of man // Scientific discussion: issues of sociology, political science, philosophy, history. 2016. No. 11 (51). Pp. 49–60. EDN: https://elibrary.ru/XBGDAL
6. Grachev N. I. The Main Functions of the State, the Supreme Authority, and the State Apparatus: Criteria for Delineation and Political and Legal Content // Russian Journal of Legal Studies. 2019. Vol. 6, No. 2. Pp. 140–149. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17816/RJLS18501; EDN: https://elibrary.ru/CYSSZX
7. Grachev N. I. Methodological Problems of Researching Sovereignty and Its Political and Legal Nature in the Context of the Formation ofin the conditions of the formation of a multipolar world // Moscow Law Journal. 2022. No. 3. Pp. 67–84. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18384/2310-6794-2022-3-67-84; EDN: https://elibrary.ru/XKLLIN
8. Kraevsky A. A. Pure doctrine of law and modern legal positivism // Jurisprudence. 2015. No. 2. Pp. 88–125. EDN: https://elibrary.ru/UNEASJ
