Factors Determining the Limits of Legal Integration

Cover Page

Cite item


The article is devoted to the study of the factors determining the boundaries or limits of legal integration in the modern globalizing world. All historical experience shows that the boundaries of legal integration have limits beyond which it loses its rationality and necessity. Legal integration is both a condition and a consequence of globalization processes. Capital is cosmopolitan, rational and requires free promotion of goods, services and labor, and law in modern national legal systems reveals both rational qualities and irrational characteristics connected with socio-cultural traditions and peculiarities. The author outlines the following factors that determine the limits of legal integration, highlighted by the processes of globalization: the political factor connected with the state (its essence, organization and regime of power). The fact is that globalization, primarily economic, is an objective process, it is not formed according to the plan, but the essence, form, functions of the state are the subjective choice of a nation, the ruling elite, that chooses the state's course towards harmonization and approximation of national legislations, or to closeness, protecting their legal identity. And this dictates the limits of legal integration; the social factor that determines the quality and maturity of civil society, the level of its civilizational development, as well as the system of protecting the rights of the individual; and, finally, the legal factor connected with deep legal traditions, beginning with the peculiarities of legal technique and ending with the peculiarities of legal consciousness and attitude to the law. As a result of the study, the author comes to the following conclusion: socio-cultural characteristics in all spheres of state and public life (political, economic, social) accumulate national and legal differences in law, defining its specificity and dissimilarity, which impedes modern processes of rapprochement and unification by establishing it limits. In this situation it is necessary to study and evaluate it objectively, carefully, in the interests of ensuring both nationally-special and integrative-legal principles in the general historical process of legal development.

About the authors

Natalya G Pavlova

Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia (RUDN University)

Author for correspondence.
Email: tima-61@bk.ru

Candidate of Legal Sciences, Associate professor, Department of Theory of Law and State, Law Institute

6, Miklukho-Maklaya st., Moscow, Russia, 117198


  1. Aranovskii, K.V. (2002). Nachalo sravnitel'nogo prava v Rossii. [The Origin of Comparative Law in Russia]. Rossiiskii zhurnal sravnitel'nogo prava [Russian Journal of Comparative Law], (1), pp. 162–172. (in Russian).
  2. Benda-Beckmann, K. (1999). Pravovoj plyuralizm v menyayushhemsya mire [Legal Pluralism in a Changing World]. In: Obychnoe pravo i pravovoj plyuralizm. Materialy XI Mezhdunarodnogo kongressa po obychnomu pravu i pravovomu plyuralizmu, avgust 1997 g. [Customary Law and Legal Pluralism: Proceedings of XI International Congress on Customary Law and Legal Pluralism, August 1997]. Moscow: Nauka, pp. 3–9. (in Russian).
  3. Bodin, J. (1962). The Six Books of a Commonwealth. Introduction by K.D. McRae. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
  4. Bondar, N. S. (2005). Vlast' i svoboda na vesakh konstitutsionnogo pravosudiya. Zashchita prav cheloveka Konstitutsionnym Sudom Rossiiskoi Federatsii [Power and Freedom on the Scales of Constitutional Justice: the Protection of Human Rights by the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation]. Moscow: Yustitsinform publ. (in Russian).
  5. Chetvernin, V.A. (2003). Vvedenie v kurs obshchei teorii prava i gosudarstva. Uchebnoe posobie [Introduction to General Theory of Law and State. Tutorial]. Moscow: Institut gosudarstva i prava RAN publ. (in Russian).
  6. Chirkin, V.E. (2015). Nadnatsional'noe pravo i gosudarstvennyj suverenitet (nekotorye problemy teorii) [Supranational Law and State Sovereignty (Some Problems of Theory)]. Moscow: Norma: Infra-M Publ. (in Russian).
  7. David, R., Zhoffre-Spinozi, K. (1992). Osnovnye pravovye sistemy sovremennosti [The Main Legal Systems of Contemporaneity]. Moscow: Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya. (in Russian).
  8. Easton, D.A. (1965). Systems Analysis of Political Life. New York: John Wiley and Sons Ltd. Ellinek, G. (1903). Obshchee uchenie o gosudarstve [General Doctrine of the State]. Saint Petersburg: N.K. Martinov Publ. (in Russian).
  9. Engibaryan, R.V., Tadevosyan, E.V. (2000). Konstitutsionnoe pravo [Constitutional Law]. Moscow: Yurist. (in Russian).
  10. Erasov, B.S. (2000). Printsipy i vozmozhnosti tsivilizatsionnoi komparativistiki. Sravnitel'noe izuchenie tsivilizatsii mira [Principles and Possibilities of Civilizational Comparative Studies. Comparative Study of World’s Civilizations]. Moscow: Aspekt Press Publ. (in Russian).
  11. Esmen, А. (1898). Obshhie osnovaniya konstitutsionnogo prava [General grounds for constitutional law]. Zhurnal yuridicheskogo obshhestva pri Imperatorskom S.-Peterburgskom universitete [Journal of the Law Society under the Imperial St. Petersburg University], (3), pp. 18–21. (in Russian).
  12. Glendon, M.A., Gordon, M.W., Osakwe, C. (1985). Comparative Legal Traditions: Text, Materials, and the Cases on the Civil Law, Common Law, and Socialist Law Traditions, with Special Reference to French, West German, English, and Soviet Law. Saint Paul: West Publishing Company.
  13. Guehenno, J. (1995). The End of the Nation State. London: University of Minnesota Press.
  14. Held, D., McGrew, A., Goldblatt, D., Perraton, J. (1999). Contents and Introduction in Global
  15. Transformations: Politics, Economics and Culture. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Huntington, S. (2003). Stolknovenie tsivilizatsiy [The Clash of Civilizations]. Moscow: AST Publ. (in Russian).
  16. Kalamanova, S.V. (2010). Gosudarstvennyi suverenitet: problemy opredeleniya ponyatiya [State Sovereignty: Issues of Definition of a Concept]. Sotsiologiya vlasti [Sociology of Power], (1), pp. 158–166. (in Russian).
  17. Krasheninnikova, N.A. (2009). Pravovaya kul'tura sovremennoi Indii: innovatsionnye i traditsionnye cherty [The Legal Culture of Modern India: Innovative and Traditional Features]. Moscow: NORMA: INFRA-M Publ. (in Russian).
  18. Kukushkina, S.M. (2012). Kontseptsiya gosudarstvennogo suvereniteta v usloviyakh globalizatsii [The Concept of State Sovereignty in the Context of Globalization]. Mariiskii yuridicheskii vestnik. Gosudarstvo i pravo: aktual'nye voprosy istorii i sovremennosti [Marii Law Herald. State and Law: Actual Issues of History and Modernity], (9), pp. 86–96. (in Russian).
  19. Lapaeva, V.V. (2016a). Gosudarstvennyi suverenitet kak filosofsko-pravovaya problema [State Sovereignty as Philosophical and Legal Problem]. Trudy instituta gosudarstva i prava [Proceedings of the State and Law Institute], (2), pp. 61–79. (in Russian).
  20. Lapaeva, V.V. (2016b). Printsip formal'nogo ravenstva kak sushchnostnyi printsip prava [The Principle of Formal Equality as an Essential Principle of Law]. In: V.V. Lapaeva, A.V. Polyakov, V.V. Denisenko, eds., Printsip formal'nogo ravenstva i vzaimnoe priznanie prava [Principle of Formal Equality and Mutual Recognition of Law]. Moscow: Prospekt Publ., pp. 6–19. (in Russian).
  21. Lukasheva, E.A. (2002). Prava cheloveka na rubezhe vekov [Human Rights at the Turn of the Centuries]. In: E.A. Lukasheva, ed., Prava cheloveka: itogi veka, tendentsii, perspektivy [Human Rights: the Outcome of the Century, Trends, Prospects]. Moscow: Norma Publ., pp. 35–48. (in Russian).
  22. Marchenko, M.N. (2009). Gosudarstvo i pravo v usloviyakh globalizatsii [State and Law in the Context of Globalization]. Moscow: Prospekt Publ. (in Russian).
  23. Muromtsev, G.I. (2016). Sravnitel'no-pravovoe issledovanie proiskhozhdeniya prava [Comparative Legal Study of the Origin of Law]. In: M.V. Nenytina, ed., Sravnitel'nye issledovaniya pravovykh sistem, pravovykh kul'tur [Comparative Studies of Legal Systems, Legal Cultures]. Moscow: RUDN Publ., pp. 162–187. (in Russian).
  24. Myullerson, R.A. (1991). Prava cheloveka: idei, normy, real'nost [Human rights: ideas, norms, reality]. Moscow: Yuridicheskaya literatura Publ. (in Russian).
  25. Nersesyants, V.S. (1999). Obshchaya teoriya prava i gosudarstva [General Theory of Law and the State]. Moscow: Norma Publ. (in Russian).
  26. Nersesyants, V.S. (2005). Protsessy universalizatsii prava i gosudarstva v globaliziruyushchemsya mire [The Processes of Universalization of Law and State in Globalizing World]. Gosudarstvo i parvo [State and Law], (5), pp. 40–51. (in Russian).
  27. Nersesyants, V.S. (2006). Filosofiya prava: Uchebnik dlya vuzov [Philosophy of Law: Textbook for High Schools]. Moscow: Norma Publ. (in Russian).
  28. Ohmae, K. (1995). The End of the Nation State: The Rise of Regional Economics. London: Free Press.
  29. Saidov, A.Kh. (2007). Unifikatsiya prava kak forma sblizheniya natsional'nykh zakonodatel'stv [Unification as a form of convergence of national legislations]. In: Vliyanie mezhdunarodnogo prava na natsional'noe zakonodatel'stvo. Materialy zasedaniya Mezhdunarodnoj shkoly-praktikuma molodykh uchyonykh-yuristov [The Influence of International Law on National Legislation. Proceedings of the Meeting of The International School-Workshop of Young Lawyers-Scientifics]. Moscow: Izdatel’skiy Dom “Yurisprudentsiya” Publ., pp. 21–30. (in Russian).
  30. Sokol'shchik, I.M. (2007). Tipy ponimaniya gosudarstva [Types of the Understanding of the State]. Ezhegodnik libertarno-yuridicheskoi teorii [Yearbook of Libertarian-Legal Theory], (1), pp. 107–122. (in Russian).
  31. Supataev, M.A. (2012). K problematike tsivilizatsionnogo podkhoda k pravu: ocherki obshchei teorii i praktiki [To the Problems of the Civilizational Approach to Law]. Moscow: Yurlitinform Publ. (in Russian).
  32. Tavis, L. (2002). Corporate Governance and the Global Social Void. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, 35(2), pp. 501–506.
  33. Tikhomirov, Yu.A. (1996). Kurs sravnitel'nogo pravovedeniya [Course of Comparative Law]. Moscow: Norma Publ. (in Russian).
  34. Tikhomirov, Yu.A. (2006). Sravnitel'noe pravovedenie: razvitie kontseptsii i obshchestvennoi praktiki [Comparative Law: Development of the Concepts and Social Practice]. Zhurnal rossiiskogo prava [Journal of Russian Law], (6), pp. 3–15. (in Russian).
  35. Tikhomirov, Yu.A. (2006). Suverenitet v usloviyakh globalizatsii [Sovereignty in the Context of Globalization]. Pravo i politika [Law and Politics], (11), pp. 37–44. (in Russian).
  36. Tokvil, A. (2000). Demokratiya v Amerike [Democracy in the America]. Moscow: Izdatel'stvo “Ves' Mir”. (in Russian).
  37. Varlamova, N.V. (2014). Zapadnaya pravovaya traditsiya v usloviyakh globalizatsii: vnutrennie i vneshnie vyzovy [Western Legal Tradition in the Context of Globalization: Internal and External Challenges]. In: G.I. Muromtsev, M.V. Nemytina, eds., Pravovye traditsii. Zhidkovskie chteniya: materialy mezhdunarodnoj nauchnoj konferentsii [Interests in Law. Zhidkov’s readings: Proceedings of International Scientific Conference]. Moscow: RUDN Publ., pp. 103–111. (in Russian).
  38. Veber, M. (1990). Izbrannie proizvedeniya [Selected Works]. Moscow: Progress Publ. (in Russian).

Copyright (c) 2018 Pavlova N.G.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies