Teleology and Self-Regulation of Law

   The paper discusses the self-regulation of law as one of its systemic inherent manifestations. Such problem statement enables the researcher to explain the mechanism that ensures the specific quality of objective law. Studying the self–regulation of law involves identifying what the inherent qualitative state of law dwells on – whether it is spontaneous or controlled from the outside.

   The purpose of the study is to view the methodological possibility of applying a synergetic model of self-regulation to law.

   This model describes spontaneous formation or change of structure in open, unstable and nonlinear systems. The Author associates the specifics of self-regulation of law with its teleological nature. The paper highlights the two aspects of teleological character of law: the purpose of its emergence and the purpose of its qualitative variety. On the one hand, law, emerging to serve a specific purpose, does not exist as an independent and self-sufficient entity, but as a specialized means of a particular purpose. On the other hand, law is a functioning system based on purpose and expediency. The quality of the system is always specific and adapts in order to achieve the set social goals. The paper proves that the teleological nature of law excludes self-regulation properties viewed synergetically, which implies the spontaneous activity of the system. The study shows that the processes taking place in law are characterized not by internal, spontaneous, but by external determination. The sequence and content of these processes is controlled from the outside by the purposeful activity of the law-creating subject and is subject to the general logic of the purpose of law. Considering law as a human-organized and controlled system; nevertheless, the Author proves that it has selfregulation properties. The self-regulation of law in the paper is viewed as one of the specific ways of preserving and reproducing its integral characteristics. According to the Author, the self-regulatory properties of law are reduced to its “self-adjustment”, which is not spontaneous, but deliberately set by a human to achieve appropriate goals. The mechanism of such “self-adjustment” is based on a set of adaptive legal means and specific connections that provide integrity, quality and functionality of law regardless of external conditions.

1. Comfort L. Self-Organization in Complex Systems. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. 1994;4(3):393-410.

2. Keller E. F. Organisms, Machines, and Thunderstorms: A History of Self-Organization. Part Two. Complexity, Emergence, and Stable Attractors. Historical Studies in the Natural Sciences. 2009;39(1):1-31. doi: 10.1525/hsns.2009.39.1.1

3. Anderson C. Self-Organization in Relation to Several Similar Concepts: Are the Boundaries to Self-Organization Indistinct? Biological Bulletin. 2002;202(3):247-255. doi: 10.2307/1543475

4. Zhang W. Selforganizology: The Science of Self-Organization. Singapore: World Scientific Publ. Co., 2016. 404 p. doi: 10.1142/9685

5. Aldonin G. M. Structural Analysis of Self-Regulating Systems. Krasnoyarsk: Sibirian Federal University, 2017. 344 p. (In Russ.)

6. Saha T., Galic M. Self-Organization Across Scales: from Molecules to Organisms. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 2018;373(1747):1-9. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2017.0113

7. Brezhnev D. M. Conflicts and Compromises as Right Self-Organization Determinants: Synergetic Aspect. Leningradskiy Juridical Journal. 2017;3:27-36. (In Russ.)

8. Pavlushina A. A., Loshkarev A. V. Systematic of Law and Synergetics: General Theoretical Problems. Legal Policy and Legal Life. 2018;1:8-14. (In Russ.)

9. Vetyutnev Yu. Yu. Synergy in Law. State and Law. 2002;4:64-69. (In Russ.)

10. Kravets I. A. Teleological Constitutionalism, Constitutional Identity and Public Order (Scientific Knowledge, Russian, Comparative and International Context). Tomsk State University Journal. 2019;439:202-215. doi: 10.17223/15617793/439/28 (In Russ.)

11. Kasaeva T. G. Tо the Question about the Purpose of Law According to the Views of R. Ihering. Journal Izvestiya of Saratov University. Economics. Management. Law. 2017;17(3):359-363. doi: 10.18500/1994-2540-2017-17-3-359-363 (In Russ.)

12. Ihering R. The Purpose of the Law. Vol. 1. St. Petersburg: N. V. Murav’ev Publ.; 1881. 412 p. (In Russ.)

13. Krushanov A. A. Notion of “Control” Inside the Cybernetic Context. Vox. Philosophical Journal. 2017;23:220-279. doi: 10.24411/2077-6608-2017-00020 (In Russ.)

14. Dubrovsky D. I. The Problem of Free Will and Modern Neuroscience. Zhurnal Vysshei Nervnoi Deyatelnosti Imeni I. P. Pavlova. 2017;67(6):739-754. doi: 10.7868/S0044467717060089 (In Russ.)

15. Lisin A. I. The Nature (Essence) of Information. Strategic Priorities. 2015;3:67-82. (In Russ.)

16. Gendin A. M. Specificity of Activity Goal Determination. Proceedings of Irkutsk State Technical University. 2012;5:276-280. (In Russ.)

17. Trubnikov N. N. On the Categories of “Purpose”, “Means”, “Result”. Moscow: Vysshaya shkola Publ.; 1968. 148 p. (In Russ.)

18. Alekseev S. S. Emergence of Law. Ways and Solutions. Moscow: Norma Publ.; 2002. 608 p. (In Russ.)

19. Orzikh M. F. The Methodology of Legal Science. Proceedings of Higher Educational Institutions. Pravovedenie. 1973;1:17-24. (In Russ.)

20. Mal’tsev G. V. Social Foundations of Law. Moscow: Norma Publ., INFRA-M Publ.; 2013. 800 p. (In Russ.)

21. Antonov M. V. The Systemacity of Law and “System” Notions in Legal Science. Pravovedenie. 2014;1:2442. (In Russ.)