scholarly journals Formation of local self-government bodies of Ukraine in soviet times

Author(s):  
Yuriy Maksimenko

oday, as a result of the reform of decentralization and administrative-territorial organization, actually a new administrative-territorialunit is being established in Ukraine – a united community. But the basis and at the same time the reason for the joint of communitieswere first of all the most numerous local and at the same time the smallest administrative-territorial units in Ukraine – villagecouncils, inherited by Ukraine since Soviet times.Historically, the state and municipal system of modern Ukraine did not arise by itself, but was built on the “foundation” of theSoviet era, because Ukraine as an independent state is the successor of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic (USSR), which, in turn –the Ukrainian Socialist Soviet Republic (USSR), founded 100 years ago – in 1919. The smallest local authority in Soviet times and afterthe declaration of independence in Ukraine was the village council, which for a hundred years of its existence evolved from a componentof the mechanism of state governance at places to the basic level of local self-government.The article presents the result of historical and legal study of the establishment and development of the structural organization oflocal administrative bodies in Ukraine during the Soviet era on the example of village councils, their legal status, structure, main powersand tasks done by these bodies and the status of their members and officials. Village councils became the basic bodies of local managementof Soviet Ukraine and its smallest administrative-territorial units. On the basis of the organization of the activities of Sovietvillage councils with certain evolutionary changes, local self-governing bodies – village councils of independent Ukraine – still functiontoday. Investigation of formation and development of these bodies in the Soviet period of the history of the state and law of Ukrainedeserves the attention of legal science, including in the current reform of decentralization and administrative-territorial organization.

Kavkaz-forum ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Е.И. КОБАХИДЗЕ

В статье предлагается анализ Конституции Северо-Осетинской АССР 1978 г., отразившей этап развития ее государственности в советский период. Научное осмысление правовых аспектов истории Северной Осетии в статусе автономной республики, анализ ее места и роли в системе советской государственности во многом объясняет противоречия в реализации органами государственной власти республики функций политического самоуправления в эпоху «застоя» и «кризиса социализма». Анализ показывает, что декретированный ранней советской властью национальный суверенитет народов, населяющих советскую Россию, не нашел правового подтверждения в Конституции СССР 1977 г., на основе и в соответствии с которой были разработаны и приняты Конституции РСФСР и входящих в нее автономных республик, в том числе и СОАССР. Фиксация статуса автономной республики в качестве государственного образования без признания ее государственного суверенитета ограничивало пределы компетенции республиканских органов власти и управления и ставило их в фактическую зависимость от вышестоящих властно-управленческих структур даже в решении вопросов, отнесенных к ведению автономной республики. Все это вместе взятое превращало автономную республику в «квазигосударственное образование», высшие государственные органы которой действовали в режиме «местной власти». Противоречивые конституционные положения 1977-1978 гг., закрепленные в Основных законах СССР, РСФСР и СОАССР, стали одним из факторов деструкции советской власти и социалистической системы и последующего затем «парада суверенитетов» бывших автономных образований в пределах РСФСР. The article analyzes the 1978 Constitution of the North Ossetian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic, which reflected the stage of development of its statehood relevant to the Soviet period. Scientific comprehension of the legal aspects of the history of North Ossetia in the status of an autonomous republic, an analysis of its place and role within the system of the Soviet statehood largely accounts for the contradictions in the implementation by the republican state institutions of the functions of political self-government in the era of "stagnation" and "crisis of socialism". Analysis shows that the national sovereignty of the peoples inhabiting Soviet Russia, that was decreed by the early Soviet government, did not find legal confirmation in the USSR Constitution of 1977, on the basis and in accordance with which the Constitution of the RSFSR and its autonomous republics, including NOASSR, were elaborated and adopted. Fixing the status of the autonomous republic as a state entity without recognizing its state sovereignty limited the competence of the republican authorities and made them in fact dependent on the higher power structures even in resolving issues attributed to the jurisdiction of the autonomous republic. All this taken together turned the autonomous republic into a "quasi-state entity", the highest state bodies of which operated in the regime of "local power". Contradictory constitutional provisions of 1977-1978, enshrined in the Fundamental Laws of the USSR, RSFSR and NOASSR, became one of the factors of the destruction of the Soviet power and the socialist system and the subsequent “parade of sovereignties” of the former autonomous entities within the RSFSR.


Author(s):  
V. V. Kharabuga ◽  
V. A. Afanasyev

For a long time, Crimea has been the place of a permanent ethnopolitical political conflict controlled from the outside, one of the components of which is the confrontation between the Russians, as an ethnic group and the other Slavic population of Crimea, on the one hand, and the Tatars of Crimea, on behalf of whom the extremist banned in Russia is trying to speak structure «kurultai-mejlis». The argumentation of the hypothesis designed to confirm the myth about the national (Tatar) character of the Crimean ASSR is presented. The analysis of argumentation suggests that the hypothesis is not supported by convincing evidence. More weighty should be considered the point of view that the Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic in 1921–1945. was multinational-territorial autonomy. The discussion in Ukraine of the topic of changing the status of Crimea, turning it into national Tatar autonomy is carried out by the leaders and functionaries of the extremist organization «kurultai-mejlis» in the framework of the anti-Russian propaganda flow controlled from abroad and exploits the analyzed myth as the historical basis of its claims.


2021 ◽  
pp. 156-177
Author(s):  
Е.И. КОБАХИДЗЕ

В статье анализируется Конституция СОАССР 1937 г. как один из важнейших документов по Новейшей истории Северной Осетии, впервые определивший ее самостоятельный государственно-политический статус в качестве советской автономной республики в составе РСФСР. В поиске форм национального самоопределения Северная Осетия несколько раз меняла свой статус: будучи рядовой территориально-административной единицей в административной системе позднеимперской России, Осетия и после утверждения советской власти оказалась включена в окружную модель территориального устройства Горской АССР. Лишь после упразднения Горской республики Северной Осетии был придан статус автономной области в составе России с несколько расширенной административной самостоятельностью, хотя и довольно ограниченным объемом полномочий, распространявшихся преимущественно на хозяйственно-культурную сферу. Однако именно тогда Северная Осетия впервые сформировала собственные устойчивые и жизнеспособные органы власти и управления, деятельность которых регулировалась союзным и республиканским (РСФСР) законодательством. Новый этап развития североосетинской государственности пришелся на вторую половину 1930-х гг., когда новая Конституция СССР объявила ряд бывших национальных автономных областей, в том числе и Северо-Осетинскую АО, автономными республиками и предоставила им правовые основания для принятия собственных конституций, наделив их таким образом государственно-политическим статусом. Сравнительный анализ конституций СССР, РСФСР и СОАССР показывает, что организационно-правовые основы национальной государственности, закрепленные в конституции СОАССР, формулировались исходя из приоритета общесоюзной и российской конституций, хотя и с учетом местных особенностей. В то же время первая советская конституция Северной Осетии, принятая ее собственным законодательным органом и определяющая правовые основы политической автономии, ознаменовала завершение процесса становления национальной государственности Северной Осетии и открыла новую страницу ее социально-политической истории. The article analyzes the Constitution of the North Ossetian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic of 1937 as one of the most important documents on the recent history of North Ossetia, which firstly defined its independent state-political status as a Soviet autonomous republic within the RSFSR. In the search for forms of national self-determination, North Ossetia changed its status several times: being an ordinary territorial-administrative unit in the administrative system of late imperial Russia, Ossetia, even after the approval of Soviet power, was included in the district model of the territorial structure of the Mountain ASSR. Only after the abolition of the Mountain Republic, North Ossetia has got the status of an autonomous region within Russia with somewhat expanded administrative self-dependence, albeit with a rather limited scope of powers that extended mainly to the economic and cultural sphere. However, just then North Ossetia for the first time formed its stable and viable power and administrative institutions, the activities of which were regulated by union and republican (RSFSR) legislation. A new stage in the development of North Ossetian statehood fell on the second half of the 1930s, when the new Constitution of the USSR declared the granting of the status of autonomous republics to the former national autonomous regions, including the North Ossetian Autonomous Region, and provided them with legal grounds for adopting their own constitutions, and so endowed them of state and political status. A comparative analysis of the constitutions of the USSR, RSFSR and NOASSR shows that the organizational and legal foundations of national statehood, enshrined in the Constitution of the NOASSR, were formulated based on the priority of the all-Union and Russian constitutions, albeit taking into account local specifics. At the same time, the first Soviet constitution of North Ossetia, adopted by its legislative institution and defining the legal foundations of political autonomy, marked the end of the process of formation of the national statehood of North Ossetia and opened a new page in its socio-political history.


Author(s):  
Alexander V. Martynenko

The article analyses the development of the Tatar national school, including Tatar language teaching, in Soviet and Post-Soviet Mordovia. In the introductory part of the article it is explained that in the Middle Ages and the subsequent Imperial period of national history, the formation of Tatars (including on the territory of modern Mordovia) was mainly confessional, Muslim. This education was concentrated in schools of two levels - mektebah and madrasah, and was based on the Hanafi Math'hab (law school) of Sunni Islam. Further, it is concluded that in the first decades of the Soviet period the new, secular, system of national education of the Tatars developed, replacing the traditional religious (Muslim) school. The article provides an overview of formation of the Tatar national school in the Mordovian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic and its preservation in the Republic of Mordovia. The Soviet school system of education provided a fairly rapid increase in the literacy of the Tatars of Mordovia already in the late 1920s  – 1930s, within the framework of the national school as well. As for the modern period, the special role of teaching Tatar is emphasized not only by the state authorities of the Republic of Mordovia, but also by the Regional National Cultural Autonomy of the Tatars “Yaktashlar” and by representatives of the state and public structures of Tatarstan. The article concludes that the system of Tatar national schools in Mordovia that developed during the Soviet period has adapted to new sociocultural and ethno-political Post-Soviet realities, and Tatar language teaching has not only been preserved there in the 1990s - 2010s, but continues to function effectively and to develop.


2013 ◽  
Vol 41 (2) ◽  
pp. 240-258 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gabrielle Hogan-Brun ◽  
Sue Wright

This paper investigates the clash of (language) ideologies in Estonia in the post-Communist period. In an analysis of changing Western recommendations and Estonian responses during the transition of Estonia from Soviet Socialist Republic to independent state, we trace the development of the discourses on language and citizenship rights. Different conceptions of the nation-state and of how citizenship is acquired, together with different approaches to human rights, led to disagreement between Estonian political elites and the political actors attached to international institutions. In particular, the Soviet demographic legacy posed problems.We use a context-sensitive approach that takes account of human agency, political intervention, power, and authority in the formation of (national) language ideologies and policies. We find that the complexities of cultural and contextual differences were often ignored and misunderstood by both parties and that in their exchanges the two sides appeared to subscribe to ideal philosophical positions. In the following two decades both sides repositioned themselves and appeared to accommodate to the opposing view. In deconstructing the role of political intervention pressing for social and political inclusion and in documenting the profound feeling of victimhood that remained as a legacy from the Soviet period and the bargain that was struck, we hope to contribute to a deeper understanding of the language ideological debates surrounding the post-Communist nation-(re)building process.


2019 ◽  
Vol 12 (5) ◽  
pp. 111
Author(s):  
Nikolay P. Medvedev ◽  
Dmitriy E. Slizovskiy ◽  
Viktor A. Glebov ◽  
Vadim N. Medvedev ◽  
Abdul Rahman Amini

The article analyzes the impact of ethno-linguistic policy on the separatism and political instability in Ukraine. The article examines the current provisions of the legislation of Ukraine on the development of language policy, as well as the provisions of the latest Law on the status of the state language in Ukraine.Ukraine has severalspecific features from the linguistic point of view, they are: bilingualism, uneven distribution of Russian and Ukrainian languages on the territory of the country and in different sectors of the social sphere, as well as ethno-linguistic, social and socio-cultural polarization of the Western, Central and South-Eastern parts of the country. The Ukrainian language was recognized as the state languagein Ukraine in 1989. This preceded the signing of the Declaration on the State Independence of Ukraine in 1991. From that moment on, the Ukrainian language is considered a symbol of the new Ukraine. Raising the status of the Ukrainian language has become one of the central issues in the process of building an independent state. The UN Security Council discussion in July 2019 on the language policy in Ukraine showed the world community's concern over the problem of ensuring the rights and freedoms of citizens and national minorities in Ukraine in connection with the adoption of the Law on the legal status of the state Ukrainian language and its use in education and public life. The analysis focuses on the trends in the development of language policy, which is the source of aggravation of social processes in the form of separatism and destabilization of modern Ukraine and attempts of its modern political regime to finally complete the reorientation from Russia to the West at the legislative language level.


Author(s):  
Vladislav Topilin ◽  
Roman Fedorov

The article is devoted to the problems of the legal status of the prosecutor’s office in the system of separation of powers. In the study, the author uses grammatical (philological, linguistic) logical, systematic and other methods of scientific knowledge. The author proposes to separate the prosecutor’s office into a separate (supervisory) branch of government, which will not belong to either the executive branch or the judicial branch, as a result of which the state will receive an independent state structure that will be able to exercise its supervisory functions independently of anyone, which will allow for better and faster suppression of possible violations by any branch of government, as well as improve the work of the state apparatus as a whole.


2002 ◽  
Vol 36 (2) ◽  
pp. 5-39 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ilan Saban ◽  
Muhammad Amara

AbstractThe status of Arabic in Israel gives rise to question. Israel is a rare case of an ethnic nation-state that grants the language of minority group with a legal status which isprima facieone of equality. Both Hebrew and Arabic are the official languages of the State of Israel. What are the reasons for this special state of affairs? The answer is threefold: historic, sociological and legal. In various ways the potential inherent in the legal status of Arabic has been depleted of content, and as a result of that, as well as other reasons, the socio-political status of Arabic closely resembles what you would expect the status of a language of a minority group in a state that identifies itself as the state of the majority group to be. This answer, however, is another source of puzzlement – how does such a dissonance between law and practice evolve, what perpetuates it for so long, is change possible, is it to be expected?We present an analysis of the legal status of Arabic in Israel and at the same time we proceed to try and answer the questions regarding the gap between the legal and the sociopolitical status of Arabic. We reach some of our answers through a comparison with the use of law to change the status of the French language in Canada. One of these answers is that given the present constellation in Israel, the sociopolitical status of Arabic cannot meaningfully be altered by legal means.


Author(s):  
D. V. Repnikov

The article is devoted to such an important aspect of the activities of the plenipotentiaries of the State Defensive Committee during the Great Patriotic War, as conflicts of authority. Contradictions between the plenipotentiaries of the State Defensive Committee and the leaders of party, state, economic bodies at various levels, as well as between the plenipotentiaries themselves, that were expressed in the emergence of various disputes and often resulted in conflicts of authority, became commonplace in the functioning of the state power system of the USSR in the war period. Based on documents from federal (State Archive of the Russian Federation, Russian State Archive of Socio-Political History, Russian State Archive of Economics) and regional (Central State Archive of the Udmurt Republic, Center for Documentation of the Recent History of the Udmurt Republic) archives, the author considers a conflict of authority situation that developed during the Great Patriotic War in the Udmurt Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic, which shows that historical reality is more complicated than the stereotypical manifestations of it.


Author(s):  
S.Sh. Kaziyev ◽  
E.N. Burdina

The article is devoted to nation-building in Kazakhstan in the first years of Soviet power. It is noted that significant attention in this process was given to the languages of the titular nations as official languages. The authors made an attempt to present the formation of legal guarantees for the functioning of the Kazakh and Russian languages of the Kazakh Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic and their use in the state apparatus of the republic. The study is based on legislative acts and documents of 1917-1924 with the involvement of archival materials. The authors examined practical steps of korenization (nativization) with respect to party and Soviet administrative structures and transition to paperwork in two state languages in the KASSR. The article reflects the main problems of the implementation of language legislation and percentage korenization as a policy aimed at the formation of national management personnel and solving the problems of serving the population of Kazakhstan in their native language. The problems of introducing office work in the language of the titular nation of material, personnel, mental and other nature are investigated. The authors drew attention to the failure of the attempts of the Soviet state to quickly create an administrative apparatus in the KASSR from national personnel and introduce paperwork in the Kazakh language, as well as to the fact that the Soviet leadership understood this. The study shows the reasons for a significant revision of the korenization policy in the USSR and Soviet Kazakhstan, as well as the introduction of office work in the national language since 1926. Among the positive achievements of the Soviet regime, the creation of strong legal guarantees for the functioning of the Kazakh and Russian languages as the state languages of Kazakhstan of the studied period, as well as the partial korenization of the administrative apparatus of Kazakhstan as a result of targeted and progressive steps of the Soviet state to create national personnel, were noted.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document