vestnykepsВестник экономики, права и социологииThe Review of Economy, the Law and Sociology1998-5533Общество с ограниченной ответственностью «Эксперт 16»10.24412/1998-5533-2025-3-226-229vestnykeps-281Research ArticleПравоСоотношение современных теорий правового инструментализмаComparison of Modern Theories of Legal InstrumentalismРязановаМ. Н.RyazanovaM. N.

Рязанова Марина Николаевна – кандидат исторических наук, доцент кафедры теории и истории права и государства,

420088, Казань, ул. 2-я Азинская, 7а  

kznraj@gmail.comКазанский филиал Российского государственного университета правосудия имени В.М. ЛебедеваРоссияKazan Branch of the Russian State University of Justice named after V.M. LebedevRussian Federation20252608202603226229Copyright © Рязанова М.Н., 20262026Рязанова М.Н.Ryazanova M.N.Данная работа распространяется под лицензией Creative Commons Attribution 4.0.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.https://www.vestnykeps.ru/jour/article/view/281

В представленной статье проведён анализ зарубежных теоретических подходов к правовому инструментализму. Автор акцентировала внимание на соотношении классических инструментальных теорий с современными вариациями инструментализма. В результате исследования сформулирован вывод о методологическом значении новых инструментальных трактовок права в призме цифровизации, локальных правовых экспериментов и персонификации правового регулирования. Ключевыми методами проведения исследования стали формально-логический и аналитический методы, а также отдельные частно-научные методы (правовой инструментализм, юридический прагматизм). В комплексном выражении эти методы позволили оценить тенденции развития зарубежной юридической науки в понимании законов как инструментов политико-правового проектирования. Автор выдвигает в качестве основного вывода тот факт, что, несмотря на выявленную актуальность современных теорий правового инструментализма, они обосновываются теми вызовами, с которыми сталкивается государство и общество.

In this scientific article, the author analyzed foreign theoretical approaches to legal instrumentalism. The main emphasis is on comparing classical instrumental theories with modern variations of instrumentalism. As a result, the article formulates a conclusion about the methodological significance of new instrumental interpretations of law using the example of digitalization, local legal experiments, and the personification of legal regulation. The main methods of conducting the research were the formal-logical and analytical methods, as well as individual private scientific methods (legal instrumentalism, legal pragmatism). In a comprehensive expression, they allowed the authors to assess the trends in the development of foreign legal science in relation to the understanding of laws as instruments of political and legal design. The authors put forward as the main conclusion the fact that modern theories of legal instrumentalism are substantiated by the challenges faced by the state and society.

философия праваправовой инструментализмюридический прагматизмправовое регулированиетеория праваправовая политикаправоотношенияphilosophy of lawlegal instrumentalismlegal pragmatismlegal regulationtheory of lawlegal policylegal relationsReferencesPaweloszek I., Kumar N., Solanki U. Artificial intelligence, digital technologies and the future of law: Literature review // Futurity Economics & Law. 2022. Vol. 2. №. 2. Р. 35–53.Paweloszek I., Kumar N., Solanki U. Artificial intelligence, digital technologies and the future of law: Literature review // Futurity Economics & Law. 2022. Vol. 2. №. 2. Р. 35–53.Lobel O. The law of AI for good // Fla. L. Rev. 2023. Vol. 75. P. 1073.Lobel O. The law of AI for good // Fla. L. Rev. 2023. Vol. 75. P. 1073.Kampourakis I. Legal theory in search of social transformation // European Law Open. 2022. Vol. 1. № 4. Р. 808–821.Kampourakis I. Legal theory in search of social transformation // European Law Open. 2022. Vol. 1. № 4. Р. 808–821.Zerilli F.M. Anthropology and soft law // Research Handbook on Soft Law. Edward Elgar Publishing, 2023. Р. 71–86.Zerilli F.M. Anthropology and soft law // Research Handbook on Soft Law. Edward Elgar Publishing, 2023. Р. 71–86.Bacharis G., Osmola S. Rethinking the instrumentality of european private law // European Review of Private Law. 2022. Vol. 30. №. 3. Р. 11–16.Bacharis G., Osmola S. Rethinking the instrumentality of european private law // European Review of Private Law. 2022. Vol. 30. №. 3. Р. 11–16.Fissell B.M. Against criminal law localism // Md. L. Rev. 2021. Vol. 81. P. 1119.Fissell B.M. Against criminal law localism // Md. L. Rev. 2021. Vol. 81. P. 1119.Cho S. Law’s Horizons // Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal. 2025. Vol. 34. Р. 23–29.Cho S. Law’s Horizons // Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal. 2025. Vol. 34. Р. 23–29.Horwitz M.J. The rise of legal formalism // The American Journal of Legal History. 1975. Vol. 19. № 4. Р. 251–264.Horwitz M.J. The rise of legal formalism // The American Journal of Legal History. 1975. Vol. 19. № 4. Р. 251–264.Trubek D.M. Toward a social theory of law: an essay on the study of law and development // The Yale Law Journal. 1972. Vol. 82. № 1. Р. 1-50.Trubek D.M. Toward a social theory of law: an essay on the study of law and development // The Yale Law Journal. 1972. Vol. 82. № 1. Р. 1-50.Teubner G. After legal instrumentalism // Dilemmas of law in the welfare state. 1986. P. 299.Teubner G. After legal instrumentalism // Dilemmas of law in the welfare state. 1986. P. 299.Lyons D. Legal formalism and instrumentalism – a pathological study // Cornell L. Rev. 1980. Vol. 66. P. 949.Lyons D. Legal formalism and instrumentalism – a pathological study // Cornell L. Rev. 1980. Vol. 66. P. 949.Moore M.S. Need for a Theory of Legal Theories: Assessing Pragmatic Instrumentalism // Cornell L. Rev. 1983. Vol. 69. P. 988.Moore M.S. Need for a Theory of Legal Theories: Assessing Pragmatic Instrumentalism // Cornell L. Rev. 1983. Vol. 69. P. 988.Gardner S. Instrumentalism and necessity // Oxford J. Legal Stud. – 1986. Vol. 6. P. 431.Gardner S. Instrumentalism and necessity // Oxford J. Legal Stud. – 1986. Vol. 6. P. 431.Quevedo S.M. Formalist and instrumentalist legal reasoning and legal theory // Calif. L. Rev. 1985. Vol. 73. P. 119.Quevedo S.M. Formalist and instrumentalist legal reasoning and legal theory // Calif. L. Rev. 1985. Vol. 73. P. 119.Brownsword R. Instrumentalism and American Legal Theory // The Modern Law Review. 1985. Vol. 48. № 1. Р. 116–120.Brownsword R. Instrumentalism and American Legal Theory // The Modern Law Review. 1985. Vol. 48. № 1. Р. 116–120.Paine L.S. Instrumentalism v. Formalism: Dissolving the Dichotomy // Wis. L. Rev. 1978. P. 997.Paine L.S. Instrumentalism v. Formalism: Dissolving the Dichotomy // Wis. L. Rev. 1978. P. 997.Pound R. Roscoe Pound // My Philosophy of Law: Credos of Sixteen American Scholars. Boston: Boston Book Co, 1941. Р. 249–262.Pound R. Roscoe Pound // My Philosophy of Law: Credos of Sixteen American Scholars. Boston: Boston Book Co, 1941. Р. 249–262.Posner R.A. Law, pragmatism, and democracy. Harvard University Press, 2009. 416 p.Posner R.A. Law, pragmatism, and democracy. Harvard University Press, 2009. 416 p.Calabresi G. The future of law and economics: essays in reform and recollection. Yale University Press, 2016. 228 p.Calabresi G. The future of law and economics: essays in reform and recollection. Yale University Press, 2016. 228 p.Dewey J. Logical method and law // Logic, Probability, and Presumptions in Legal Reasoning. Routledge, 2013. Р. 181–191.Dewey J. Logical method and law // Logic, Probability, and Presumptions in Legal Reasoning. Routledge, 2013. Р. 181–191.Seidman A., Seidman R.B. Instrumentalism 2.0: Legislative drafting for democratic social change // Legisprudence. 2011. Vol. 5. № 1. Р. 95–142.Seidman A., Seidman R.B. Instrumentalism 2.0: Legislative drafting for democratic social change // Legisprudence. 2011. Vol. 5. № 1. Р. 95–142.Tamanaha B.Z. The tension between legal instrumentalism and the rule of law // Syracuse J. Int'l L. & Com. 2005. Vol. 33 P. 131.Tamanaha B.Z. The tension between legal instrumentalism and the rule of law // Syracuse J. Int'l L. & Com. 2005. Vol. 33 P. 131.Ellermann A. Discrimination in migration and citizenship // Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies. 2020. Vol. 46. № 12. Р. 2463–2479.Ellermann A. Discrimination in migration and citizenship // Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies. 2020. Vol. 46. № 12. Р. 2463–2479.Weissman J.C. Drug control principles: instrumentalism and symbolism // Journal of Psychedelic Drugs. 1979. Vol. 11. № 3. Р. 203–210.Weissman J.C. Drug control principles: instrumentalism and symbolism // Journal of Psychedelic Drugs. 1979. Vol. 11. № 3. Р. 203–210.Pasquale F., Cockfield A.J. Beyond instrumentalism: a substantivist perspective on law, technology, and the digital persona // Mich. St. L. Rev. 2018. P. 821.Pasquale F., Cockfield A.J. Beyond instrumentalism: a substantivist perspective on law, technology, and the digital persona // Mich. St. L. Rev. 2018. P. 821.Brownsword R. Law disrupted, law re-imagined, law re-invented // Technology and Regulation. 2019. Vol. 2019. Р. 10–30.Brownsword R. Law disrupted, law re-imagined, law re-invented // Technology and Regulation. 2019. Vol. 2019. Р. 10–30.Tamò Larrieux A. et al. Regulating for trust: Can law establish trust in artificial intelligence? // Regulation & Governance. 2024. Vol. 18. № 3. Р. 780–801.Tamò Larrieux A. et al. Regulating for trust: Can law establish trust in artificial intelligence? // Regulation & Governance. 2024. Vol. 18. № 3. Р. 780–801.

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.