Introduction. State responsibility to civil society is a topic that has already been the subject of research by some scientists. It was studied by political scientists, representatives of constitutional law, administrative law, theory of state and law. At the same time, there are still issues that require additional analysis, since, from the author's point of view, the conclusions drawn in previous studies did not contribute to increasing the state's responsibility to civil society.
The aim of the article. To investigate the nature of relations between the state and civil society, to establish the grounds for the emergence of its responsibility to civil society, the forms and methods of its control over the activities of individual state bodies and officials.
Results. Control functions are immanent to the vital activity of any system. The specifics of a state-organized society necessitate two functions of control – control by society over the state as a special authorized body for solving general cases of the first, and internal control of the state over compliance with the parameters of the system defined by society.
From the content of Article 1 of the Constitution of Ukraine, it follows that Ukraine is a sovereign and independent, democratic, social and legal state. These principles constitute the characteristics of the state, which the society, through its representatives in Parliament, when adopting the basic law, authorized to observe in its activities. However, the practice of the activities of state bodies of Ukraine at the present stage indicates total violations of these principles. One of the reasons for this situation is incorrectly established ties between the state and society. Most authors refer to these relations as parity, where the state and society are equal subjects . From our point of view, they are not and cannot be parity, since the state is a function of society, and there is a functional connection between them.
Contrary to these conclusions, the activities of the president of Ukraine and the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine for violating their duties are not accompanied by the onset of legal liability for them. This, in particular, applies to such cases as the confrontation between the president of Ukraine and the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, where the former unconstitutionally attempted to resolve this confrontation in his favor, suggesting that the parliament dissolve the Constitutional Court of Ukraine. This, in addition to violating their obligations to comply with the Constitution of Ukraine, should also be interpreted as a violation of their oath, which contains similar requirements for their activities. In this regard, measures are considered necessary to apply measures of legal liability to the president for violating his duties and Oath.
Similar conclusions should be drawn regarding the failure to fulfill election promises on the part of people's Deputies of Ukraine, as well as their violation of the oath they take in accordance with Article 79 of the Constitution of Ukraine.
Conclusions. Summing up, we can conclude that without strengthening the legal responsibility of the state to civil society for non-fulfillment of its duties, the rights of citizens will be subject to systemic violations. Political responsibility is regulated by the norms of law, and therefore it is also a legal liability, it also contains the composition of an offense, in particular a constitutional tort as the basis for its occurrence, and therefore it should necessarily provide for the existence of sanctions for violating the obligations of the relevant authorized entities. Legal liability of officials who head or are members of state bodies should always be accompanied by bringing the perpetrators to justice (constitutional, criminal, administrative, civil, disciplinary).
Securitisation gaps: Towards ideational understandings of state weakness
