The article scrutinises the problems of a very significant period in the political history of Europe — the initial stage of the Early Modern Period. The rise of European empires and then of nation states makes the researcher pay attention to two fundamental political-state processes that accompany these events — the idea of state unity and the idea of sovereign national statehood. The Early Modern Period is a rise of political and legal thought and practice in the field of state architecture. These will be new states, opposing the medieval ones, claiming a hitherto unknown power, supported by the cultural codes of the concepts of «people» and «nation». Rome as a political ideal will be established in the political-legal space and sanctified through philosophy and the Roman Catholic Church. All this is not accidental. Rome, which prioritizes order, so essential to the political unity and political integrity of any state, is also the myth of the great nation.

The philosophical and legal analysis of sovereignty, appealing to the categories and laws of dialectics, is able to scientifically substantiate a balance between national self-determination and the need for international cooperation and contribute not only to the theoretical understanding of this phenomenon, but also to the development of practical recommendations for resolving current problems of modern states in the objective demands of the time. From the standpoint of the dialectical method of cognition of the phenomenon of state sovereignty, conclusions are substantiated about its attributability to the state; about the possession of unity and opposition — independence and autonomy (absolute power and control over affairs without external interference) and external threats that cause the struggle to preserve and protect sovereignty, as well as the search for compromises with other states; about the transition of quantitative changes in sovereignty into qualitative ones — territorial, national, confessional and other quantitative accumulations within sovereignty form its new qualities and essence; on the incompleteness of understanding sovereignty without understanding the role of the law of negation of negation for understanding its evolution — each new form of sovereignty not only cancels the previous one, but also includes it in itself, enriching and modifying it. Thus, the imposition of certain conditions and restrictions on the state as a result of pressure leads to a violation of its sovereignty (first negation), however, in response to these restrictions and threats, the state takes measures to restore its independence and autonomy through elections, impeachment, denunciation of international treaties, strengthening defense capability and other possible means (second negation). Understanding the moments of sovereignty passing through the stages of its negation allows us to see the legal, social, cultural, economic and other aspects that affect sovereignty, its formation and development.

With the change of borders, there is a need not only for the legal legitimization of this process, but also for the organization of the management system in the new territories. The article retrospectively examines the indicative periods of the Russian history of state and law, during which important changes took place in the administrative-territorial structure, in the mechanisms of state power and local self-government, in the legal regulation of borders within the country and its external borders. The conclusion is made about the relationship between the modernization of the state system, legal regulation and changes in the administrative-territorial borders of Russia. On the other hand, the process of changing the state system can be accompanied by corresponding foreign policy actions, administrative-territorial transformations, as a result of which the borders of the state change. The territories annexed by Russia were united by a legal system that adapted local specific forms of self-government to the state system; were economically integrated and developed at the expense of Russian investments; preserved their original culture. The regulation of the state boundaries of the Russian corresponds to its state system, role in the world community and trends in the transformation of the world along the path of equality of sovereign states.

The article presents the author’s interpretation of the concepts of Russian statehood and the Russian state, the role of ideology in their development. The thesis is argued that ideology is formed on the basis of national archetypes and becomes the basis of statehood and the development of all state-legal forms. The modern state ideology of Russia is assessed as civilization-oriented. Enshrined in the Constitution of the Russian Federation in 2020, the moral imperatives based on traditional spiritual and moral values are a guarantee of Russian national identity and the basis for the constitutional and legal protection of Russia’s sovereignty. Statehood is considered as a process of self-determination of a nation developing in time and space, when, under the influence of a set of social relations, the elements are formed initially, and then the state itself. The state is an external static form of developing statehood. Based on worldview transformations, priority is given to one or another understanding of the state. With regard to the Russian state, the author characterizes the February 1917 attempt to make a parliamentary democracy out of it, assesses the failure of the Bolshevik experiment with war communism, the formation of the Soviet state and law, and the rejection of cultural and historical continuity by socialist statehood. The state of the USSR period is characterized as a natural stage in the development of Russian multinational  statehood .

The Constitution of the Russian Federation states that “the Russian Federation, united by a thousand-year history, preserving the memory of our ancestors who passed on to us the ideals and faith in God, as well as continuity in the development of the Russian state, recognizes the historically formed state unity.” This directs the historical and legal community of scientists to reconstruct the true history of the national state and law, for which it is necessary to clarify certain provisions, which determines the clarification and concretization of established definitions. We consider the genesis of Russian statehood from estate representation to national representation to be one of the little-studied problems. There are still works whose authors, analyzing the domestic policy of the Russian Empire and the USSR, distort historical reality, describing the “accursed tsarist past and the Soviet period”, and see the history of the peoples of the Caucasus under the “Russian yoke”. The author believes that at the heart of the Russian state in different periods of its existence, statehood was built in such a way as to express the aspirations of all categories of subjects or citizens, nations and nationalities. The state-forming Russian people showed feelings of fraternal involvement and contributed to their legal acculturation, which was the basis for the creation of Russia as a state-civilization.

The article explores the historiographical issues of the phenomenon of national idea or identity, which has been present in political and legal thought throughout history and manifested itself in various ways through different interpretations and discussions of the fundamental characteristics of law and state. The relevance of this topic stems from the lack of adequate coverage in the field of the history of political doctrines and the presence of inaccuracies and gaps in interpretations regarding the significance of national identity within the context of state and law. Furthermore, there is a need to reassess existing approaches to understanding the national idea as a component of political and legal culture. The solution to the problem of understanding and properly considering the role and significance of the national idea and national consciousness in interpreting the meaning of political and legal theories of the past and present can be found in understanding them as necessary cultural contexts in each case. This allows us to view the idea of law and state as historically specific phenomena.

The article reveals the significance and relevance of the formation of the civilizational identity of Russia, the absence of which is due to the split nature of the public, including legal, consciousness of Russians. Overcoming this split requires a targeted state policy, which should be based on a philosophical and legal understanding of this issue. The author pays main attention to only one aspect of this complex issue, associated with the development of a clearer conceptual apparatus by clarifying such concepts as the national and ethnocultural identity of Russians, the civilizational and socio-cultural identity of Russia. The thesis is substantiated that the civilizational identity of a country claiming the status of a state-civilization presupposes not only a common history and close mentality of its citizens, based on the basic unity of socio-cultural values  (otherwise this concept does not go beyond the socio-cultural identity), but also a common understanding of the prospects for civilizational development, i.e. the presence of an independent project for the future. In relation to Russia, such a project for the future should be built in the direction of a synthesis of the Western understanding of justice as the equality of people in their freedom and the Eastern concept of the justice of social life based on the communal and fraternal nature of interaction between people.

The relevance of the study of the macroregional North Caucasian identity increases due to the fact that in almost all strategic documents concerning the prospects for the development of the North Caucasus, it is defined as one of the priority macro-regions of the Russian Federation. In this regard, it is necessary to turn to the analysis of changes in the administrativeterritorial structure in the North Caucasus, which will allow us to identify the historical and socio-cultural roots of the macro-regional identity, as well as the role of each region in creating a common socio-cultural picture of this macroregion. This article analyzes the process of formation of the North Caucasian macroregional identity from the standpoint of constructivism. Based on the experience of transformations of the administrative-territorial structure of the North Caucasus in the ХХ—ХХI centuries, the author identifies six stages of constructing this level of identity. It is noted that political spatial-territorial strategies play a significant role in the process of strengthening Russian national identity in the macroregion. The thesis is argued that macroregional identity is a tool capable of uniting and rallying all ethnic groups of the North Caucasus in order to strengthen mutually beneficial interregional cooperation. In connection with the emergence of new identitarian discourses, the author proposes to expand the concept of multilevel identity and to integrate the macroregional level as an intermediate level between regional and national identities.

The article presents the author’s point of view on the role of the practice of protecting and popularizing historical heritage in the implementation of the national idea. The chronological framework of the research carried out by the author allows us to trace the formation of state policy in the field of formation of a national ideology capable of uniting society and ensuring its further development. The 19th century is characterized as a time of creating favorable conditions for realizing the unity of the nation due to the large-scale reforms of Alexander II. In the context of a complex restructuring of the social structure, the unity of Russian society could only be achieved by referring to the historical experience of state-building. That is why in the 19th century the popularization of historical heritage reached a fundamentally new level, which allows us to talk about the formation of a national ideology based on the cult of historical memory. Using the materials of the Novgorod province as an example, the author proves that it is the state that is an institution, ensuring the preservation of historical memory, supporting civic initiatives and forming a national ideology based on the generalization of the centuries-old experience of the nation.

The author provides a retrospective analysis of the legal aspects of language policy during the modern era, when national identity, largely based on a common language, becomes intertwined with civic identity, which demands unconditional political loyalty to the state. Under these conditions, the modern state, regardless of its form of government, political structure, or regime, attempts to unify diverse groups — ethnic and otherwise — into a political nation primarily integrated linguistically, through language policy and the legal regulation that mediates its implementation. The paper shows the central role that linguistic ideologies and language regulation played in the formation of civic identity and the political nation mediating respectively the ideological-value and positive-legal aspects of language policy. It is shown how the progressively increasing politicization of language issues was accompanied — within the context of state-building processes and the formation of civic identity — by the legal framing of this discourse. The article proves the irrelevance of the point of view of radical constructivism regarding the relationship between language, national identity and legal regulation. The final conclusion emphasizes the importance of comparative-historical study of the experience of legal influence on the linguistic sphere as a key component of national identity for determining optimal forms of legal impact on language relations.

The article is devoted to the philosophical and legal study of the category of “law heritage” as a complex multi-vector concept. The article highlights the normative array, legal practice, scientific legal concepts and unofficial law texts of previous periods of development of the national law system, which have developed historically and have passed the test of time and explicate the attitude to social and official law of various social groups and (or) society as a whole, as objects of law heritage. The significance of law heritage in law existence is determined by its features: continuity, unity, normativity, sociality. The main attention in the article is paid to the study of the construction and existence of law heritage in the communicative dimension. Based on the analysis of the ontological, phenomenological and axiological aspects of this category, it is concluded that law heritage acts as a valuebased means of consolidating law knowledge, explicating the community’s ideas about law norms and values within the space-time continuum, which have been tested in practice, demonstrating their effectiveness in ensuring law and order, and the use of which in lawmaking and (or) law enforcement can ensure the harmonization of modern law reality.

The article examines in detail the historical processes that led to the adoption of the USSR Constitution of 1924. The article analyzes the importance of the Soviet state, which was formed at the beginning of the 20th century, and its role in the formation of a new political system. The Constitution of the RSFSR of 1918 laid the foundations of the socialist state and became an important step towards the creation of the USSR. After the victory of the Bolsheviks in the Civil War, new territories became part of the RSFSR, which served as the basis for the formation of a unified Soviet state. Adoption of the Constitution of the USSR in laid the foundation for the creation of a unified legal space on the territory of the former Russian Empire. The Constitution not only consolidated the federal structure of the state and established the separation of powers between the central government and the republics, but it also emphasized the sovereignty of the Union republics, while at the same time limiting the possibility of independent foreign policy activities for the sake of national security. The author argues that over-centralization has undermined the very possibility of consolidating the federal principles laid down in the Constitution of 1924. This led to the formation of an authoritarian system of government that dominated the USSR throughout its history. The article provides an in-depth analysis of the historical processes that led to the adoption of the USSR Constitution of 1924 and its impact on the formation of the Soviet political system.

The article explains the concept of codification. The types of codified acts are indicated. Codes and Fundamentals are recognized as All-Union codified acts of civil legislation. The stages of codification of All-Union civil legislation in the Soviet period are distinguished.  At the first stage (1924-1936), the Fundamentals of Civil Legislation were prepared in the form of an All-Union law, which were not adopted. The second stage (1936 — early 1950s) is characterized by the drafting of the Civil Code of the USSR. Five versions of the draft Civil Code of the USSR were prepared, the work was stopped. The rejection of all-Union codification was associated with the expansion of the legislative powers of the Union republics. The draft Civil Code of the USSR had practical significance, because its provisions were used in drafting the Fundamentals of Civil Legislation. The preparation and approval of the Fundamentals of Civil Legislation of the USSR and Union Republics constituted the content of the third stage of codification of all-Union legislation (1957—1961). The place of the Fundamentals in the system of sources of Soviet legislation is analyzed.

The legal force of the Fundamentals is considered.

The study of the Russian experience of legislative protection of the institution of family through the prism of historical analysis and understanding of its influence on modern socio-economic processes and norms of society against the background of the global trend of the collapse of the institution of family is of particular importance. The author’s work is aimed at studying changes in legislation concerning the institution of family in Russia from the establishment of Soviet power to the constitutional reforms of 2020. Despite the transformation of law in different historical periods, the desire of the legislator to strengthen the family, social support for family members in need remained unchanged. Today, the constitutional principle of state protection of family, motherhood, fatherhood and childhood is of priority importance. However, in order for the provisions enshrined in the Basic Law to be widely and effectively applied, it is necessary for each individual and society as a whole to strive for a conscious choice in favor of self-identification based on the deep origins of the past, the cultural unity of our country, respect for traditions, and the values of previous generations. The key factor in this should be the formation of these values in the family.

The article deals with a problem of Russian cultural code. The dominant value system as well as the corresponding legal ideology determine both the goal of existence and permissible state and citizen behavior limits in the process of goal achieving. The importance of education is asserted: it is not enough to provide the framework for “The Good” and “The Bad”. It is necessary to train the ability to think critically, to reject what is perceived as Evel. It is necessary to show how differences in value systems can be interpreted with deliberate evasion of the truth. The special Character of Russian national cultural code has been confirmed by History. For centuries Russian people used to percept right and law, freedom and responsibility, formal and actual equality in their own way. Legal relationship provides for the reciprocity of rights and obligations as an important guarantee of the state and society security.

The scientific article is devoted to the topic of trends in the development of higher legal education, taking into account the main features of the modern labor market. The active introduction of innovative technologies into all spheres of society’s life entails the transformation of the higher education system. And the change in the ideological paradigm of Russian society affects a significant update of the upbringing — component of the educational process in accordance with the provision of Article 2 of the Federal Law No. 273-FZ dated December 29, 2012 “On Education in the Russian Federation” on upbringing of all levels of education, fixed in 2020. The purpose of the scientific article is to model the future of university legal education in the context of the national development goals of the country. Among the methods of scientific research are general scientific (analysis, synthesis,), private scientific (sociological, statistical), and special legal methods of scientific cognition (formal legal, historical legal, comparative legal, etc.). Methods of abstraction and modeling were also used in the context of considering the legal profession of the future. The conclusions and provisions in the scientific article, formulated on the basis of an analysis of the norms of educational and labor legislation, strategic planning documents, the practice of their application, scientific works of Russian and foreign scientists. The scientific article may be of interest in the development of fundamental scientific ideas about the trends of higher legal education and for possible improvement of legislation on education.

The article presents the author’s interpretation of the problem of traditions and innovations based on an interdisciplinary approach. Referring to the works of famous domestic and foreign authors in the field of legal theory, sociology, cultural studies, and philosophy of law, the author postulates that legal culture as a part of culture is subject in its development to the same social laws as culture as a whole. Among the vectors of the problem under study, the role of tradition in preserving integrity and maintaining dynamic equilibrium in society, the relationship between tradition and innovation in distinction and the sought-after unity, and the delimitation of the concepts of tradition and modernization are highlighted. The author comes to conclusions that are significant in the context of the formation of the ideology of a multipolar world: tradition and innovation are parties to a single process of social development of legal reality; thanks to traditions, the core of culture is preserved, thanks to legal traditions, invariant elements of legal culture are reproduced; innovations arise on the basis of cultural diversity and contribute to overcoming stagnation; the category of modernization must be used in the process of comparing modern and archaic society, the category of innovation — in the process of studying static and dynamic processes of legal reality.

The article presents the author’s position on the role of the legal myth of the legitimization of power in the formation of state-national ideology. It is noted that ideology can be considered in a narrow and broad sense. A broad interpretation of ideology presupposes a symbiosis not only of theoretical propositions taken in evaluative discourse, but also of feelings, experiences, moods that make up the emotional-volitional component of ideology and aimed at identifying meanings. The article examines the historical process of the formation of state ideology, in which power in the person of the Tsar, in alliance with the Church, was called upon to ensure the unity and consolidation of Russian society. It is noted that the symbolic nature of myth is capable of giving ideology effective force and ensuring its reception by the people. The mythological environment in the process of an individual acquiring powers of authority is analyzed. Are considered examples of the creation of legal myths of legitimization of power, which reveal their presence throughout both world and domestic history. A special role in the process of mythologization of power is given to a diverse arsenal of means, both legal and moral-religious, to ensure a trusting attitude towards power.

The article presents the author’s analysis of the current state of national ideas and state ideology and their influence on the development of the state. Understanding how national ideas and state ideology are related is important for understanding political discourse and decision-making around the world. As a rule, national ideas are identified with historically established ideas of individual groups about well-being, state ideology offers unique views on the role of the state, individual freedom, equality and social progress, influencing the development of state development policies. These different belief systems shape ideas about governance, economic structures and social policy, significantly influencing political decision-making around the world. On the other hand, state ideology can represent national points of view on the role of government, individual freedoms, equality and social progress, influencing politics and political movements.

The article focuses on the issues of state-religious legal regulation in the Soviet period, including a significant shift in the state religious policy during World War II. The narratives of “the Holy Rus”, great heroes of the Russian history and culture, the emphasis on spiritual heritage and succession of generations became the essential part of the patriotic discourse. The author examines the question of political and ideological role of religion, taking into account the specific model of state-church relations, which originated in the 1940s, but had been implemented throughout the whole Soviet period, and thus had an impact on the contemporary legal regulation. The author states that the 1940s represent a specific period in the history of Soviet law on religion, when the old (imperial) model of “symphony” between state and church had been gradually replaced by a completely different model. The Soviets discovered that religion in general, and the Russian Orthodox Church in particular, played an important social role, and that it had to become subject to state supervision.

The paper offers an answer to the question of the nature of the doctrine of state-building of independent India by M. Gandhi. The author emphasizes that M. Gandhi cannot be called a reactionary figure, since the changes he proposed were significant, truly revolutionary in nature. However, comparing the works of M. Gandhi and V. I. Lenin, the author points out that they have fundamental contradictions, because of which the Indian leader cannot be recognized as a revolutionary in the sense that supporters of communist views put into this concept. In particular, the religious and philosophical nature of M. Gandhi’s teachings, his negative attitude to scientific and technological progress, as well as the ideology of nonviolence are noted. It is concluded that the teachings of M. Gandhi, in which religious and philosophical problems occupy a central place in state-building, although they did not correspond to the communist doctrine, were undoubtedly revolutionary for their time. The author also emphasizes the applied nature of M. Gandhi’s teaching. Gandhi, who not only laid the theoretical foundations of Indian independence, but also proposed concrete steps to achieve it and actively participated in their implementation himself.