Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
I have never been an expert in law, but recently I heard some words spoken by a scholar of history, which, in particular, give a rough idea of the essence of your question. Explaining the difference between the legal traditions of Russia and Europe of early Modern (and later) times, he expressed the following idea:”In Europe, society developed faster than institutions.” He explained it as follows: one of the essential features of the state – without going into giving a detailed explanation of this concept itself and the historical context of its origin, we will take as the basis for reasoning the states that emerged in Modern times and their ancient-medieval prototype in the form of the Roman and Byzantine empires – is a stable and comprehensive tax collection system. In medieval Europe, it was absent – the class division of society in principle did not imply the creation of such a centralized system, it was based on the fact that taxes were paid to those lords who owned specific objects and territories and were responsible for their protection (taxes from the royal domain went to the royal treasury, and taxes from lands and peasants in the possession of other feudal lords belonged to these feudal lords). Russia, captured by the Mongols, followed the path of development of this institution – the Mongols demanded regular payment of tribute, which they initially collected themselves, but then delegated to the princes, so that in Russia this most important institution was developed earlier than others (private property, the rule of law, equality before the law, etc.). In England, the situation was the opposite – the royal power was forced to take into account the interests of both feudal lords and other social groups, and in order to preserve itself, to make compromises with far – reaching consequences-this is how the balancing system of British law gradually developed, which made the supreme power dependent on established legal customs, institutions and the law. And because such a tradition is on the one hand venerable, and on the other hand for hundreds of years did not allow the appearance of such a characteristic feature of the “old” European nations as absolute monarchy (which made the law and agreements with society dependent on the monarch, and not the monarch dependent on the law and agreements), the British legal system received, in my opinion,the