"October Readings" 2022

In modern humanitarian thought, there is an obvious consensus regarding the prospects of interdisciplinary research at the intersection of jurisprudence and political science. No one will deny that in order to understand constitutionalism, statehood, human rights, political institutions and practices, it is important to understand both the legal framework of their existence and the general political context of their evolution and functioning. Meanwhile, upon closer examination, it turns out that the interaction of the two approaches - legal and political science - is far from full-fledged cooperation and can be characterized, rather, as rivalry and mutual distrust, exacerbated by competition between disciplines, dissident councils, specialized associations and journals.

As a result, one can state the remaining fundamental difference in methodological and professional approaches from the standpoint of jurisprudence and political science in understanding the nature of law, politics and constitutional reforms, dysfunctions and ways to overcome them. To identify these differences, analyze them and outline ways of bringing the two approaches closer is the task of this conference. A possible name for this field of convergence (by analogy with the sociology of law) is the political science of law.

We note a number of problem areas (and typical subjects of disagreement), where the interaction of lawyers and political scientists requires more specification, clarification of terminology and verification of research methods:

1. Methodology of comparative studies. When conducting comparative studies of legal regimes and institutions, the fundamental requirement to determine the boundaries of their admissibility (ie, “comparison of the comparable”) remains. Hypnosis of general concepts (generalizing the institutions of different legal families) leads to errors in the interpretation of accepted or borrowed norms and institutions (processes of imitation, adaptation, rejection). In Russia, it is important to bring this discussion out of the emotionally colored field of political rhetoric into the sphere of evidence-based discussion.
2. Typology of legal regimes and institutions. The typological constructions of political scientists based on a comparison of legal and political regimes, or their so-called "institutional design", usually proceed from the idea of ​​a commonality of goals and motivations of constitutional drafters in different countries. This institutional determinism leads to a schematization of conclusions, often ignoring the factor of improvisation, the variability of legal motives and decisions in the presence of similar political structures.
3. In the field of discussion, there may also be a joint analysis of the legal and political systems of society, including the dialectical contradiction between normative and conceptual regulation, their hierarchy and law enforcement.
4. Relationship of legal and political changes. It is unacceptable to mix constitutional changes with changes in the political regime. On the other hand, the analysis of the development of the constitutional and political processes is becoming increasingly relevant (including the example of constitutional reforms in the Russian Federation in 1990-1993 and 2020).
5. Along with the subject of constitutionalism, the field of analysis of the future political science of law undoubtedly includes the issue of human rights - from theoretical analysis and development of the very concept of the universality of human rights to the practical activities of state and public human rights organizations.
6. Finally, this is the direct activity of constitutional justice, including both the experience of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation that continues to work, and the accumulated experience of the Constitutional and Statutory Courts in the constituent entities of the Russian Federation.

These and related topics will serve as approximate guidelines for the discussion at the conference, in which political scientists, lawyers, sociologists of law, specialists in the field of public administration, public and political activities are invited.