The Plurality of Embodiments of the Modern State Mod¬el: A Philosophical Understanding of Legal Conflicts
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31874/2309-1606-2025-31-2-3Keywords:
modern state, multiple modernity, types of state, legal conflicts, philosophy of law, sociological enlightenmentAbstract
Relevance. It is revealed that the improvement of the state on the basis of its rational modernization not only retains its social relevance, but also acquires new scientific significance. It is specified that the modern state is one of the most influential achievements of social modernization, but at the same time it is also a powerful means of strengthening the subsequent modernization changes of society. The purpose of this article is to clarify the philosophical grounds for removing legal conflicts in the typology of modern states. Methods. As classical philosophical theories of modernization that can be applied to build a model of the modern state, the approaches of Karl Marx, Emile Durkheim and Max Weber, who had a basic legal education and gave legal factors of paramount importance in building a social order, are considered. The appeal to the concept of multiple identity of Shmoel Eisenstadt opened the prospect of taking into account multiple ways of achieving the functional tasks of the modern state. The use of systemic social theories of Talcott Parsons and Niklas Luhmann showed the interrelation of the main functions of the modern state. The neo-institutional approach provided an opportunity to trace specific organizational embodiments of the modern state in the regime of sociological enlightenment. Novelty. It has been found that legal clarification of the possibilities of functional improvement of each modern state opens up prospects not only for removing contradictions in the interpretation of legal norms by legal specialists, but also is an important component of the democratic education of each of its citizens. Conclusion. The rational principles of the legitimation of the modern state are emphasized, which consist in the rationalization of politics and the legal substantiation of the statehood. The philosophical and educational grounds for the rational legitimation of national historical embodiments of the modern state are considered.
References
Acemoglu, D., & Robinson, J. (2022). Narrow Corridor. States, Societies and the Fate of Freedom (G. Shpak, trans.). Kyiv: Nash Format. [in Ukrainian].
Acemoglu, D., & Robinson, J. (2023). Weak, Despotic, or Inclusive? How State Type Emerg¬es from State versus Civil Society Competition. American Political Science Review, 117(2), 407-420. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055422000740
Alkum, M. (2018). International experience in organizing constructive dialogue between civil society organizations and government bodies. Investments: practice and experi¬ence, 11, 134-137.
Arbuzova, T. (2025). Correlation of the Typology of State Policy and State Regulation. [in Ukrainian]. Galician Economic Bulletin, 94(3), 153-166. https://doi.org/10.33108/ galicianvisnyk_tntu2025.03.153
Cooper, R. (1996). The Post-Modern State and the World Order. London: Demos.
Coser, L. A. (1978). Revolution and the Transformation of Societies, by S. N. Eisenstadt. Political Science Quarterly, 93(4), 723-724. https://doi.org/10.2307/2150141
Durkheim, E. (1960). The Division Of Labor In Society (G. Simpson, trans.). Illinois: The Free Press of Glencoe.
Eisenstadt, S. N. (1999). Fundamentalism, Sectarianism, and Revolution. The Jacobin Dimension of Modernity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Eisenstadt, S. N. (2000). Multiple modernities. Daedalus, 129(1), 1-29. https://voidnetwork. gr/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Multiple-Modernities-by-S.N.Eisenstadt.pdf
Eisenstadt, S. N. (1978). Revolution and the Transformation of Societies: A Comparative Study of Civilizations. New York: Free Press.
Fasman, J. (2021). We see it all. Liberty and Justice in an Age of Perpetual Surveillance. New York: Public Affairs.
Forsyth, M. (2007). A Typology of Relationships between State and Non-State Justice Sys¬tems. The Journal of Legal Pluralism and Unofficial Law, 39(56), 67–112. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/07329113.2007.10756615
Geryliv, D. Yu. (2013c). Concept, principles and types of typology of the form of the state. [in Ukrainian]. Scientific Bulletin of the Uzhgorod National University. Series PRAVO, 21(1-1), 22-25.
Geryliv, D. Yu. (2013b). Delimitation of the typology and classification of the state: problematic issues. [in Ukrainian]. Scientific Bulletin of the Uzhgorod National University. Series PRAVO, 21(1-1), 19-23.
Geryliv, D. Yu. (2013a). General theoretical characteristics of the integrative approach to the typology of states. [In Ukrainian]. Scientific Bulletin of the International Humanitarian University. Series: Jurisprudence, 6(1-1), 12-15.
Grävingholt, J., Ziaja, S., Kreibaum, M. (2012). State fragility: towards a multi-dimensional empirical typology. Discussion paper. Bonn. https://files.core.ac.uk/download/ pdf/71742334.pdf
Habermas, Y. (2001). Philosophical Discourse of Modernity (V. Kuplin, trans.). Kyiv: Chetverta Khvylya. [in Ukrainian].
Hegel, G. W. F. (2000). Elements of the Philosophy of Right (R. Osadchuk and M. Kushnir, trans.). Univers. [in Ukrainian].
Hnatyuk, S., & Bogomazova, I. (2015). Types of Jurisdiction in Administrative Proceed¬ings on the Legislation of Ukraine. Internal Security, 7(2), 237-244. https://doi.org/ 10.5604/20805268.1212125.
Höppner, J. (2025). Beyond ideal and real types – methodological foundations of typologies in welfare state research. Quality & Quantity, 59(Suppl 1), 571–586. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s11135-024-01995-7
Hratsiotova, H. O., Gordynskyi, S. P., & Demianiuk, A. A. (2020). Concepts, features, types of state bodies and forms of government. Economics: time realities. Scientific journal, 4(50), 35-40. https://doi.org/10.15276/ETR.04.2020.5
Hooghe, L., & Marks, G. (2003). Unraveling the Central State, but How? Types of Multi-level Governance. American Political Science Review, 97(2), 233-243.
Kachur, V., & Kozin, S. (2022). Methodological function of the state and law theo¬ry. Entrepreneurship, Economy and Law, (1), 68–73, https://doi.org/10.32849/ 2663-5313/2022.1.11
Kopcha, V. V. (2020). Modern state: basic approaches to understanding. [in Ukrainian]. Scientific Bulletin of the International Humanitarian University. Series: Jurisprudence, 43, 13-17. https://doi.org/10.32841/2307-1745.2020.43.3
Koziuk, V., Dluhopolskyi, O., Hayda, Y., & Shymanska, O. (2018). Typology of welfare states: quality criteria for governance and ecology. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 16(4), 235-245. https://doi.org/10.21511/ppm.16(4).2018.20
Kuhn, T. (2001). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (O. Vasyliev, trans.). Kyiv: Port- Royal. [in Ukrainian].
Luhmann, N. (1975). Einführende Bemerkungen zu einer Theorie symbolisch generali¬sierter Kommunikationsmedien. In Soziologische Aufklärung, Vol. 2. Opladen: West¬deutscher Verlag. S. 170-192.
Luhmann N. (1997a). Das Recht der Gesellschaft. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Luhmann N. (1997b). Die Gesellschaft der Gesellschaft. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Malejacq, R. (2016). Warlords, Intervention, and State Consolidation: A Typology of Po¬litical Orders in Weak and Failed States. Security Studies, 25, 85–110. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/09636412.2016.1134191
Mamytova, A., & Mamytov, T. (2024). State and law theory: The concept and directions of state activity. Scientific Herald of Uzhhorod University. Series “Physics”, 55, 1623-1630. https://doi.org/10.54919/physics/55.2024.162nd3
Marushchak, N. V. (2024). Modern Conceptual Approaches to the Form of the State. Scientific Bulletin of the Uzhhorod National University, Series LAW, 85(1), 103-110. https://doi.org/10.24144/2307-3322.2024.85.1.14
Marx, K. (2012). Class Struggle in France 1848-1850 (P. Benzya, trans.). https://vpered. wordpress.com/2012/10/04/marx-klassenkampfe-in-frankreich/ [In Ukrainian].
Minnerop, P. (2003). The Classification of States and the Creation of Status within the In-ternational Community. Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law, 7, 79–182.
Nastasіak, I. (2025). Legal system of the United States of America: law criteria of ty-pologization. Baltic Journal of Legal and Social Sciences, (1), 32-39. https://doi.org/ 10.30525/2592-8813-2025-1-4
North, D., Wallis, J., & Weingest, B. (2022). Violence and social orders. The main factors that influenced the course of history. 2nd ed. (T. Tsymbal, trans.). Kyiv: Nash Format. [In Ukrainian].
Ortiz, R. (2000). From Incomplete Modernity to World Modernity. Daedalus, 129(1), 249– 260. https://voidnetwork.gr/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Multiple-Modernities-by-S.N.Eisenstadt.pdf
Parsons, T. (1991). The Social System. London: Routledge.
Parsons, T. (1971). The System of Modern Societies. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Pikulia, T. O. (2014). Modern approaches to the classification of world states. [in Ukrai¬nian]. Scientific Bulletin of the National Academy of Internal Affairs, (2), 183-199.
Shai, R. Ya. (2015). Issues of the typology of state and law from the position of the formational approach. [In Ukrainian]. Bulletin of the National University “Lviv Polytechnic”. Series: Legal Sciences, 813, 175-180.
Silva, V., Gellert, R., & Zuiderveen, F. Z.(2025). The State in the Platform Economy: A Typology of Alternative Approaches (August 20, 2025). https://ssrn.com/abstract=4909140
Stawski, T. P. (2021). The state-regime-nexus: law and legal order. Zeitschrift für Ver¬gleichende Politikwissenschaft, 15, 357–373. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12286-021- 00508-2
Sukhonos, V. V. (2021). Historical criterion of the legal approach to the typology of the state. [in Ukrainian]. Legal Horizons, 22(35), 16-21. http://www.doi.org/10.21272/ legalhorizons.2020.i22.p16
Terlyuk, I. (2021). “State” and “statehood”: on the problem of the theoretical and legal and historical and legal content of concepts in the context of Ukrainian (national) state-building. [in Ukrainian]. Bulletin of the National University “Lviv Polytechnic”. Series: “Legal Sciences”, 8(29), 17-28. https://doi.org/10.23939/law2021.29.017
Tikuisis, Peter & Carment, David & Samy, Yiagadeesen & Landry, Joseph. (2015). Typology of State Types: Persistence and Transition. International Interactions, 41, 565–582, https://doi.org/10.1080/03050629.2015.982116.
Tikuisis, P and Carment, D (2017). Categorization of States Beyond Strong and Weak. Sta-bility: International Journal of Security & Development, 6(1): 12, 1–23, https://doi.org/ 10.5334/sta.483
Tsapenko, S. (2025). Non-coercive legitimacy: rationality and trust as foundations of the modern state. [in Ukrainian]. Multiversum. Philosophical Almanac, 1(2(282), 18-35. https://doi.org/10.35423/2078-8142.2025.2.1.2
Venzel, V., & Kupriychuk, V. (2020). Typology of States in the Context of the State’s Implementation of a Social Function. [in Ukrainian]. Aspects of Public Administration, 8(4), 44-54. https://doi.org/10.15421/152079
Weber M. (2013). Economy and Society. (M. Kushnir, trans.). Kyiv: Vsesvit. [in Ukrainian].
Wittrock, B. (2000). Modernity: One, None, or Many? European Origins and Modernity as a Global Condition. Daedalus, 129(1), 31-60. https://voidnetwork.gr/wp-content/ uploads/2016/10/Multiple-Modernities-by-S.N.Eisenstadt.pdf
Ziaja, S., Grävingholt, J. & Kreibaum, M. (2019)Constellations of Fragility: an Empirical Typology of States. Studies in Comparative International Development, 54, 299–321. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12116-019-09284-3
Zippelius, R. (2000). Philosophy of Law: Textbook (E. Prychepiy, trans.). Kyiv: Tandem. [in Ukrainian].
Downloads
-
PDF (Українська)
Downloads: 0
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
- Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication;
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
