employee from 01.01.2024 until now
Sankt-Peterburg, St. Petersburg, Russian Federation
UDK 342.2 Структура государства
GRNTI 10.09 История государства и права
OKSO 40.03.01 Юриспруденция
BBK 673 История права
TBK 7513 История государства и права
Introduction. The article is devoted to the consideration of the revealed peculiarities in the law enforcement practice of the legislation of the first half of the XIXth century on the example of the highest state institution – the Department of Estates, which ensured the allowance of the members of the imperial family. In the history of the Department under consideration the contradictory nature of monarchist power was revealed. The emperor, being the supreme legislator, was faced with a difficult dilemma: how to keep a balance between national and personal interests. While managing his own economy, he adjusted the state law enforcement practice to the interests of the Department, clarifying it with his resolutions. Methods. The main research methods were structural-functional and hermeneutic ones. They made it possible not only to work with the text and its meanings, but also to understand the peculiarities that distinguished the Department of Estates in the state system of higher institutions of the Russian Empire of the first half of the XIXth century. Results. The author concluded that the peculiarities of the law enforcement activity of the Department of Estates were primarily determined by the specificity of its tasks. Law enforcement activity was blurred by the interests of the members of the imperial family and general state tasks. The absence of some managerial decisions in normative legal acts and their fixation only in the form of resolutions to documents created unclearness (ambiguity). It caused contradictions in law enforcement activities and complicated the interaction of the Department of Estates with other state institutions of the Russian Empire.
Department of Estates, imperial family, law enforcement practice, legislation of the first half of the XIXth century, Russian Empire
1. Samusevich A. G. Ponyatie i znachenie stadiy pravoprimeneniya // Teoriya gosudarstva i prava. – 2022. – № 4 (29). – S. 227–232; https://doi.org/10.47905/MATGIP.2022.29.4.019.
2. Samusevich A. G., Shutova V. N. K voprosu o ponimanii i suschnosti konstitucionnogo pravoprimeneniya // Leningradskiy yuridicheskiy zhurnal. – 2022. – № 4 (70). – S. 84–98; https://doi.org/10.35231/18136230_2022_4_84.
3. Paleha R. R. Pravoprimenitel'nyy akt – zavershayuschiy etap pravoprimenitel'noy deyatel'nosti // Vestnik Tambovskogo universiteta. Seriya: Gumanitarnye nauki. – 2006. – № 2 (42). – S. 114–116.
4. Shapovalova Ya. V. Sootnoshenie ponyatiy «pravoprimenitel'naya oshibka» i «defekt pravoprimenitel'nogo akta» (teoretiko-pravovoy analiz) // Teoriya i praktika obschestvennogo razvitiya. – 2018. – № 10 (128). – S. 74–77; https://doi.org/10.24158/tipor.2018.10.12.
5. Voplenko N. N., Rozhnov A. P. Praoprimenitel'naya praktika: ponyatie, osnovnye cherty i funkcii : monografiya. – Volgograd: Izdatel'stvo VolGU, 2004. – 202 s.
6. Danilevskaya I. L. Istoriya nauki russkogo gosudarstvennogo prava i sovremennost' // Pravo i gosudarstvo: teoriya i praktika. – 2022. – № 11 (215). – S. 109–111; https://doi.org/10.47643/1815-1337_2022_11_109.
7. Samarskiy A. N., Zhulanov A. V. Sovershenstvovanie zakonodatel'stva Rossiyskoy imperii v pervoy polovine XIX veka: svod zakonov Rossiyskoy imperii // Filosofiya prava. – 2020. – № 1 (92). – S. 100–104.
8. Mickevich A. V. Sistematizaciya zakonov Rossiyskoy imperii M. M. Speranskim // Zhurnal rossiyskogo prava. – 2001. – № 5. – C. 154–160.
9. Shepeleva A. S. Osobennosti pravoprimenitel'noy deyatel'nosti v Rossiyskiy imperii: problemy obespecheniya effektivnosti (na primere avtorskogo prava) // Pravo i praktika. – 2019. – № 4. – S. 56–59.
10. Nagih S. I., Shershneva-Citul'skaya I. A. Instituty naslednika, sopravitelya (preemnika) i vospriemnika verhovnoy vlasti v istorii rossiyskogo prava (XV – nachalo XX vv.) // Pravo. Zhurnal Vysshey shkoly ekonomiki. – 2023. – T. 16, № 4. – S. 56–79; https://doi.org/10.17323/2072-8166.2023.4.56.79.
11. Krasnikova Yu. N. Nikolay I: imperator i pomeschik (protivorechivost' politicheskogo liderstva v Rossii) // Izvestiya Sankt-Peterburgskogo gosudarstvennogo agrarnogo universiteta. – 2014. – № 35. – S. 371–376.
12. Minnikes I. A., Minnikes I. V. Istoricheskoe tolkovanie v prave: soderzhanie i vidy // Pravoprimenenie. – 2022. – T. 6, № 2. – S. 5–18; https://doi.org/10.52468/2542-1514.2022.6(2).
13. Kozhevnikov V. V. Tolkovanie yuridicheskih norm: sistemnyy podhod // Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Pravo. – 2018. – № 29. – S. 15–28; https://doi.org/10.17223/22253513/29/2.
14. Krasnikova Yu. N. K voprosu o formirovanii udel'noy sistemy hozyaystvovaniya v nachale XIX v. // Voprosy istorii. – 2022. – № 11–2. – S. 28–37.
15. Krasnikova Yu. N. Udel'nye krest'yane Severo-Zapada Rossii v konce XVIII – pervoy chetverti XIX veka: iz istorii agrarnyh otnosheniy : monografiya. – Sankt-Peterburg: FGBOU VPO SPbGAU, 2014. – 199 s.
