Introduction

1. The theory of separation of the authorities sh. Montescape

Conclusion

List of used literature

Introduction

Charles Louis Montesquieu is one of the outstanding thinking of the Epoch of Enlightenment, and his doctrine of the state and the right occupied one of the leading places in the spiritual life of France of the XVIII century.

It should be noted that Montesquieu was widely known in Europe and revered for the authoritative connoisseur of political and legal laws. The popularity of Monteccia can already be judged by one of the historical fact that Catherine II used a number of the provisions of Montesquieu's teachings in the preparation of a new deposition of the Russian Empire.

The political and legal ideas of the French thinker were very popular: "Political and legal ideas of Montesquieu, - wrote I.F. Magine, "influenced the compilers of the US Constitution, the constitutional legislation of the Great French Revolution period, for the 2010 Civil Code of 1804.

During the lifetime, Montesquieu found European fame due to the work "On the Spirit of Laws" - an unprecedented treatise for the time of comparative jurisprudence "Anthology of global legal thought. In 5 t. T. III. Europe. America: XVII - XX centuries. M.: Thought, 1999. p.108. .

The Doctrine of Montesquieu became relevant for different spheres of law; However, the sake of fairness should be noted that not only lawyers, but also historians, philosophers and philologists, who analyzed the political and legal ideology of France of that period, as well as the relationship of political and legal phenomena reflected in the Mont Deskius's theory of political and legal phenomena. This is very important, since Montesquieu is one of those who own the championship in understanding the concept of the legal state. Prior to it, political and legal phenomena were not considered in their aggregate, which seems to be a significant sample. The value of Mont Deskius's teachings is that it is clearly traced by the analysis of philosophical, sociological and psychological elements of political and theoretical knowledge.

montesquieu Power Political Liberalism

The theory of separation of authorities Sh. Montesquie

The problem of the origin and essence of the state was one of the central in the Idean-political struggle of France XVIII century. The issues of the origin of the state and the establishment of state power and relations within this education required their study and discussion. Thus, "The picture of the state proposed by Hobbs is the original construction, which was repelled, which was improved," minimized ", clarified subsequent social philosophers. At this field, quite a lot of remarkable achievements were created and made social and political discoveries. These are the "theory of separation of the authorities" S. Montesquieu, "The perfect type" of the Bureaucracy M. Weber "Spiridonova V.I. The evolution of the idea of \u200b\u200bthe state in the Western and Russian socio-philosophical thought. M.: IFRAN, 2008. P. 33-34. .

One of the first who engaged in the understanding of these urgent questions became S. Montesquieu. He believed that the state had historically, at a certain level of development of human society. "Presenting particular importance to the biological and geographical prerequisites for the emergence of the state, Montesquieu, at the same time, was convinced that ultimately the state is the product of the human mind. People understood, realized that outside the state they could not normally exist and develop, and therefore they preferred the state natural state "Baskin M.P. Montquea. M.: "Thought", 1965. p.88. .

By the nature of the Board, Montesquieu divides the state in the republic, monarchy and despotia: ".. The city of the Republican Board is that the supreme authorities belong to the whole people or a certain number of families; The nature of the monarchist is that the sovereign, however, in accordance with the established laws, has this power. The nature of the despotic image of the board is that there is one person in his will and whim "Montquia Sh.L. Selected works. M., 1955. p.179. .

"Analyzing the republican order," wrote M.P. Baskin, - Montesquiece acts in defense of universal election law. He proves that the people can choose decent leaders, and control them. At the same time, the enlightement against the people from the people were elected to leadership positions "Baskin M.P. Montquea. M.: "Thought", 965. P. 90..

As for the monarchist order, as a thinker noted, "... In well-managed monarchies, almost every person is a good citizen, and we rarely find in them a person possessing political virtue, for to be a man with political virtue, you have to have The intention to become such and love the state for the sake of himself than for the sake of its own benefit. "Montesquieu Sh.L. Selected works. M., 1955. p.183. .

Analyzing Despoty Montquiece noted that "... if in the despotic state, the sovereign at least for a moment lower the threatening hand, if he cannot destroy the first places in the state without slowing down, then everything was gone, since fear is the only driving principle This image of the board - disappeared, and the people have no more defender "Montesquieu Sh.L. About the spirit of laws. M., thought. 1999. p.33. .

Consistently revealing the essence of various forms of government, showing their features, focusing on the specifics of each of them, Montesquiece proceeds to understanding how the state should be organized and how control should be managed in it. So, the enlightener moves to the theory of separation of the authorities.

The theory of separation of the authorities is one of the leading political doctrines, as well as the principle of bourgeois constitutionalism.

Her Genesis is associated with the emergence of bourgeois political and legal theories in England in the XVII century. And first of all named D. Lokka. However, he has the theory of separation of the authorities - this is the doctrine on the coented authorities in the state created by the public contract, where "the legislative power, if necessary, should be the supreme and all other authorities in the person of any members of society expire from it and subordinate to it." Locke D. Selected philosophical works. T.2. M., 1960. p.86. . E.V. Satyshev wrote about this: "Locke and Montesquieu elevated the separation of the authorities to the constitutional principle, according to which, in order to prevent abuse of power and ensure political freedom, certain functions of state power - legislation, management and justice should belong to public authorities ( Accordingly, the parliament, executive bodies and the court), mutually balancing each other "Satyshev E.V. Genesis of the theory of separation of the authorities // Proceedings of Vise. T.22. Part 2. M., 1971. p.66. .

Understanding D. Lokke and Sh. Montesquiece of the basic principles on which the state management should be arranged somewhat retired. So, as noted in his article N.S. Prozorova, "The first proclaimed the legislative power of the Supreme, without always following this in practice ...; The second one called all the authorities with equitable and developed a whole system of their "mutual checks" and restrictions. But the "balance" and here was in the direction of the executive bodies and the upper chamber (the right of the king or other executive bodies to dissolve parliament, to impose "veto" to the laws adopted by him and others) "Prozorova N.S. The theory of "separation of the authorities" and a modern bourgeois state // Soviet state and law. M., 1974. №9. P.92-98. .

The classical formulation of the theory of separation of the authorities received, as is known, in the writings of Montesquieu.

The main objective of theory is to guarantee the safety of citizens from the arbitrariness and abuse of the authorities, as well as, which is equally important, to ensure political freedom. In the eleventh and twelfth books of their treatise "On the Spirit of Laws", the thinker intentionally considers the thesis on political freedom, and also formulates its own constitutional draft of the reorganization of French absolutism.

The political freedom of Montesquieu defines as follows: "The right to do everything that is permitted by laws. If a citizen could do something that these laws are forbidden, he would not have freedom, since other citizens could do the same "Montquea Sh. Selected works. M., 1955. p.289. .

The relationship of political freedom with the right and its real, practical, implementation is focused by the French enlightener and in another definition of freedom, where it is characterized by its attitude towards a citizen and acts as the safety of the latter. It is determined by the action in the state fair (and it is emphasized) criminal laws. "Information on the best rules that should be guided in criminal proceedings, more important for humanity in the world. This information has already been acquired in some countries and should be assimilated with other "Montesquia Sh. Selected Works. P.318. .

It is extremely important to comply with the principle of conformity to punish this crime, which was committed. Freedom, in the concept of Montesquieu, is provided there, where criminal laws impose karas in accordance with the specific nature of the crime themselves. Thus, the punishment will not depend on the arbitrariness and whims of the legislator (as it often happened the history of various states, including France) and will cease to be violence against a person.

In addition, to ensure freedom, certain judicial formalities were needed (for example, procedural rules and forms) to such an extent that they contribute to the objectives of the implementation of the law, without turning into a difficult obstacle.

Consequently, in Montesquieu, freedom is achievable only in such a state, where all relations are mediated by the right. Such a state believes, it may be exclusively the state of the so-called. Moderate Board is democracy, aristocracy and monarchy, which are characterized by the rule of laws. In despot, there are no laws, which means there is no political freedom. There reigns the arbitrariness of the ruler and slavery subordinates. But the moderate states, according to Montesquieu, have the opportunity to turn into despotic, if the right, defining political freedom, will not prevail over the will of their rulers.

So, it can be noted that the right in the theory developed by the enlightener is a kind of freedom. Therefore, if there will be no special guarantees in the constitutions of moderate states, designed to ensure the rule of law, to prevent the abuse of power and violations of laws, then political freedom in them is also lost. "... Already known by the experience of the centuries, that every person has power, is inclined to abuse it, and he goes in this direction until he reaches his limit to him." Montesquiece sh. Selected works. P.289. .

The rule of law, in the Montesquieu concept, can only be ensured by the separation of the authorities in such a way that they "could mutually hold each other" Mont Deskiye Sh. Selected Works. P. 289.. At the same time, the thinker opposes the identification of freedom with the forms of government, and above all with democracy: "... since the people in democracy, apparently, can do everything that he wants, the freedom timed to this rank, mixing, such The way, the power of the people with the freedom of the people. "Montesquieu sh. Selected works. P.288. . He notes that freedom is possible with any of the listed form of government, but only if the state has a primacy of law guaranteed from violations of legality by dividing the supreme power on the well-known three: legislative, executive and judicial, which mutually restrain each other.

The separation of the authorities in the theory of Montesquieu along with the right becomes the main criterion for distinguishing the forms of government. In the constitutions of all states relating to the moderate board, the separation of the authorities in one way or another is enshrined. In the despots, it is not at all. In most of the European states, a moderate image of the board has been established, since "their state trucks, possessing two first authorities, provide their subdition of the third. The Turks, where these three authorities are connected represented by Sultan, reigns a terrifying despotism "Montesquieu sh. Selected works. P.291. .

Montesquieu proceeds from the fundamental principle - namely, the separation of labor is in the process of carrying out power in the state, which is attached to the political sense. "In every state, he writes," there are three kinds of power: the power of the legislative, the authority of the executive, which will have the issues of international law and the authority of the executive, who will have the issues of civilian rights "Mont Deski sh. Selected works. C.290. . A similar separation of power in the political practice of modern montequos of states was quite obvious. However, aware of this, the author firstly associated power with the main objectives, which were fixed in the constitution of the state.

At the same time, the separation of the authorities in the theory under consideration is not only a political division of labor, enshrined in constitutions, but also the distribution of power between the existing social layers, reflecting the current ratio. "So, in Venice," the thinker emphasizes, "the Big Council has the legislature, a faithful - executive, and quantia - judicial. But it's bad that all these various tribunals consist of officials of the same class, as a result of which they represent themselves, in essence, the same power "Montesquiece Sh. Selected works. P.291. .

So, a free state, in Montesquieu, theoretically should be based on the principles of separation of powers, mutual containment of the authorities from the arbitrariness, as well as the distribution of the supreme power between the various social sectors of society.

In accordance with the constitutional project of the thinker, the legislative power "is only an expression of the total will of the state ..." Montesquieu sh. Selected works. P.292. . Its basic value is to identify the right and formulate it in the form of positive laws of the state, mandatory for all citizens without exception. Best of all, according to Montesquieu, when the legislature belongs to the whole people. However, in such countries as France, it is hardly possible due to the large size of the territory and the availability of various social forces, including the nobility. Therefore, the legislative power is more expedient to be awarded the meeting of representatives of the people and the assembly of noble.

Executive power in a free state is intended for the execution of the laws established by the legislative authority. It was in this connection that Montesquieu claims that "... the executive power is limited by its very nature ..." Montesquieu sh. Selected works. P.296. . She is endowed, first of all, the monarch, since this "side of the board almost always requires the actions of fast, is better executed by one than many" Montesquieu W. Selected works. P.295. . The executive power can also carry out other persons, but not only members of the Legislative Assembly. It would be an integrally led to the loss of freedom.

The judicial authority "Kares crimes and allows the collision of individuals" Montesquiece sh. Selected works. C.290. Whereas both are regulated by the general affairs of the state. By virtue of this state of things, the freedom and security of citizens depend primarily from the clear and well-known functioning of the judiciary. Montesquieu offers to transfer this branch to representatives from the people who would convene themselves to fulfill the judicial authority. The latter should not be connected, on the plans of Montesquieu, with a profession, wealth, knowledge. The task of the judges is to decisions and sentences "have always been only an accurate application of the law." It is taking into account the specifics of this kind of activity, Montesquieu claims that the judicial authority in a certain sense of the word is not power as such. Therefore, in his project, it does not hold back any other powerlopecia sh. Selected works. P.294. . In contrast, legislative and executive authorities, which are also legal in nature, can still abuse their position in any situations; They may admit arbitrariness, which in turn leads to the elimination of freedom and security of citizens. To avoid similar unwanted consequences for citizens, they should not only be separated by each other, but also endowed to suspend, but in some situations and cancel each other's solutions.

The mutual influence of the legislative and executive authorities should guarantee the reality of the existing right, which ultimately reflects the compromise of the free and interests of various social strata and forces in the state. Thus, Montesquieu makes an attempt to reconcile those warring social forces that existed in the middle of the XVIII century in France, expressed in the compromise constitution, namely, the division between them of the supreme power. According to this concept, each social strength of the state has its own authority, which expresses its interests and has part of power. At the same time, a representative assembly should express the interests of the people, the legislative corps - the interests of the nobility, and the executive power is a monarch. All of them in the person of the relevant authorities are endowed with certain powers, the use of which should be mutually coordinated.

The chamber of the legislative power (there was a representative assembly and the legislative corps) conduct meetings separately, and the laws are accepted only if mutual agreement was reached. The Legislative Assembly was intended not only to publish laws, but also to control their execution of them as a sovereign and its ministers. For violation of existing laws, ministers can be attracted by the Legislative Assembly to Liability. In turn, the executive authority that the sovereign personifies, holds back from the mighty arise of arbitrarms (especially the legislative authorities concerned). It was possible due to the fact that it endowed with the right to impose a veto on the decision of the Legislative Assembly, as well as to establish the regulations for his work and dissolve the meeting. At the same time, the personality of the monarch is declared sacred.

Of course, the mutual restraining authority of the authorities, as Mont Deskiye notes, could lead at the same time to their inaction. But since the necessary current in the state will still make them act, they will be forced to do it consistently. With all this, it seems that the necessary harmony of their interaction, according to Montesquieu, is provided by one - the rule of laws: the very state in which the separation of the authorities has implemented, implements all its functions solely in legal form. In this sense, Montesquieu can be called one of the predecessors of the theory of the legal state.

At the same time, the principle of the rule of law, which was fixed in the constitutional project of Montesquieu, does not mean that in this case it is about equilibrium of the authorities. Legislative power performs a dominant role. It is designed to create laws that are an expression of common will and law in the state. Both other authorities only implement and execute laws in practice, and their activities are so-called. Charms. At the same time, if Montesquieu does not conduct an idea of \u200b\u200bequilibrium of the authorities, then the equilibrium of social forces is a really identified political fact in the conditions of France XVIII century. Similar installations of the thinker seem to express the compromise and moderate nature of its political and legal concept as a whole. At the same time, primacy is given after all the legislative power, which is primarily the hands of the representatives of the people. And it is above executive. The judicial power should also be fixed with the representatives of the people. Thus, the constitutional project Sh. Montesquieu objectively expressed the interests of the emerging bourgeoisie. At that time, she merged with wide folk masses and politically was not endowed with due rights. In this regard, it is rather difficult to agree with those scientists that characterize the views of the thinker from the position of aristocratic liberalism, expressing the interests of the feudal opposition of the absolute monarchy.

The historical destinies of the theory of separation of the Montquiece authorities in France, as well as the assessment, and the interpretation of the latter is different. This is not least explained by the ratio of political forces in society and the public position, which occupied and occupy its interpreters. The official ideology of the absolute monarchy of France of that period has subjected to severe criticism the main provisions of the theory of separation of the Mont Deskius authorities. Moreover, his treatise "On the spirit of laws" during a certain time was among the prohibited works.

At the same time, it is important to note that progressive thinkers quite often used the main conclusions of the Montesquieu in their own works, took its installation, although the very theory of the separation of the authorities many of them could not understand to the end.

Interestingly, Voltaire from the standpoint of the concept of enlightened absolutism tied the implementation of reforms in the state, with the division of the supreme power there, but with the endowment of this power of the King Philosopher. And, for example, Didro, Gelving and Golbachs could not agree with the situation of Montesquieu, which large prerogatives were preserved for aware of the king. Rousseau Supreme Power awarded the people.

And only during the accomplishment of the revolution in France, which led to the emergence of the urgent need to consolidate the real relationship of social forces in the main law of the country, the theory of separation of the Montquiece authorities was obtained by their recognition and was embodied in the Constitution of 1791. It indicated that "society in which the use of rights was not provided and the separation of the authorities does not have the Constitution" of the Constitution and legislative acts of the bourgeois states of the XVI - XIX centuries. M., 1957. p.251. .

This theory has also had a significant impact on the formation and development of the US Constitution of 1787. The ideas of the thinker were very close to the interests of the American people, which at that time led the struggle against England aimed at achieving freedom. So, D. Madison, known as one of the "fathers" of the Constitution of 1787, with its preparation, used the theory of separation of the Mont Deskius authorities. He wrote: "Focusing all power, legislative, executive and judicial, in the same hands: or one, or few, or everyone on any reason, really leads to the appearance of tyranny" quotation. Software: Avirkin N.M. Montquea. M.: Thought, 1988. P.74. . The only means against tyranny, he considered it, can only be separated by the authorities. "In order to correctly understand the ideas on this important issue, D. Madison says," it is necessary to properly explore the ideas in which the conservation of freedom is considered due to the fact that the three most important genus should be separated and separated from each other. Oracle, to which they always add and quote in this regard, is the famous Montesquieu "Cyt. Software: Avirkin N.M. Montquea. M.: Thought, 1988. P.74. .

In Germany, the theory of separation of the authorities Sh. Montesquiene did not receive due constitutional incarnation. But at the same time, she was most thoroughly investigated by Fichte, Kant and especially Hegel. In particular, the latter criticizes a certain mechanism of this theory, he believes that its basic principles establish the independence of the legislative, executive and judicial authorities, leading at the same time to mutual hostility between them, as well as the subordination of the authorities to others. For Hegel, the consideration of a political state is characterized from the position of a single whole, and the authorities are only different moments of this unity.

The teachings of Montesquieu on the separation of authorities also pay attention to modern theorists in the field of state and law. For example, the famous French political scientist J. Chevalé in his book "History of political ideas from the" Spirit of Laws "to this day" argues that the true political science takes its beginning to Montesquieu, and his treatise "On the spirit of laws" is universal . M. Torre believes that it is this concept that the separation of the authorities served as a criterion for the classification of constitutions and ideas of political thinkers who worked on the problems of the organization of states.

Some French scientists occupy a rather critical position. For example, M. Debre adheres to the opinion that the ideas of Montesquiece are outdated and at all are not suitable for modern France. At the same time, the norms of state law arising from the concept of Montesquieu, in his opinion, focused on the parliament all the completeness of the authorities to the detriment of the government, which with turn leads to various abuses by parties possessing a majority in parliament. Concepts of Montesquieu He for its part opposes the principles of national sovereignty and referendum Rousseau. Only this, in his opinion, can end the "absolutism of the parliament" and transfer the rights of parliament to the head of state. He, as well as deputies of parliament, will be elected by the people. As a result of the introduction of referenda, parliament will lose part of its legislative functions.

Judging by the discussions that turned around his theory, both during the lifetime of Montesquieu and the Decade later, the idea of \u200b\u200bseparation of the authorities still remains, and, it seems to be relevant.

Conclusion

An analysis of the main problems of political and legal teaching Montesquieu showed that his work is a natural phenomenon in the political and legal thought of France, which existed in the first half of the XVIII century.

Studying the modern political and legal reality and creating her future model, the thinker rejected the theological picture of the world of politics and the right and for its part offered its secular historical and rationalistic interpretation. In ideological-theoretical terms, he used the advanced methods for the knowledge of the essence of the state and the right for its time, namely, the principle of historicism, a historical and comparative method, the principle of the relationship of the logical and empirical moments in gnoseology.

In the teaching about the state, Montesquieie sought to consider the emergence of statehood from the position of an objective historical process. In his doctrine, the state does not appear simultaneously with the formation of people societies. It occurs when conflicts arise among people due to the distribution of wealth, due to attempts to use common benefits in self-supporting purposes. Under these conditions, people were simply forced to conclude agreements among themselves and create a state. These measures should have contributed to the termination of conflicts in society.

In the teaching on the right of Montesquieu, critically reacted to the interpretation of the theory of natural law. In its concept, natural law and legislation he considers without opposing them to each other. According to Montescience, legislation is natural. It is formed under the influence of the "spirit of laws", which is also not arbitrary, and under the influence of a number of factors of social development. In general, the Mont Deskius's doctrine was very progressive for his time, and had an original theoretical and conceptual approach to the state and right.

List of used literature

1. Avirkin N.M. Montquea. M.: Thought, 1988. - 116 p.

2. Anthology of global legal thought. In 5 t. T.III. Europe. America: XVII - XX centuries. M.: Thought, 1999. - 829 p.

3. Baskin M.P. Montquea. M.: "Thought", 1965. - 190 p.

4. Constitution and legislative acts of bourgeois states of the XVI - XIX centuries. M., 1957. - 376 p.

5. Locke D. Selected philosophical works. T.2. M., 1960. - 615 p.

6. Montesquieu Sh.L. Selected works. M., 1955. - 799С.

7. Montesquieu Sh.L. About the spirit of laws. M., thought. 1999. - 672 p.

8. Prozorova N.S. The theory of "separation of the authorities" and a modern bourgeois state // Soviet state and law. M., 1974. №9. P.92-98.

9. Satyshev E.V. Genesis of the theory of separation of the authorities // Proceedings of Vise. T.22. Part 2. Moscow, 1971. P.61-88.

10. Spiridonova V.I. The evolution of the idea of \u200b\u200bthe state in the Western and Russian socio-philosophical thought. M.: IFRAN, 2008. - 186 p.

Similar documents

    Repeated changes in the type and form of the state system of Russia over the past 100 years. The history of the idea of \u200b\u200ba rule of law. Views of Locke and Montescé on the problem of separation of the authorities. Domestic political tasks of Russia and the West of the XVIII century.

    coursework, added 12.12.2010

    Analysis of the theory of separation of the authorities. John Locke as the investigator of the principle of separation of the authorities in legal science. Contribution J.-zh. Rousseau and V. Speransky in the development of the theory of separation of the authorities. Implementation of the principle of separation of authorities in the Russian Federation.

    abstract, added 04.04.2016

    Narget the theory of separation of the authorities in antiquity. The development of the theory in the works of Charles-Louis de Montkecia. Features of the implementation of the concept of separation of authorities in the legislation of the United States and the Russian Federation as one of the basic principles of the political organization of the Company.

    course work, added 09/27/2013

    Historical and legal roots of the principle of separation of the authorities. The main content of the principle of separation of the authorities. The practice of implementing the principle of separation of the authorities. The principle of separation of the authorities on the example of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation.

    course work, added 06.02.2007

    The principle of separation of authorities as one of the fundamental principles of the organization and functioning of a democratic, legal state. His historical development and constitutional consolidation. "System of checks and counterweights" of state power.

    coursework, added 07.11.2016

    Conceptual content and formation of the theory of separation of the authorities. State power in modern concept. Legislative, executive and judicial authorities in the system of separation of authorities in the state and political and legal life of Russia.

    coursework, added 04/20/2012

    The emergence and formation of the principle of separation of the authorities. The essence of the principle of separation of the authorities. The principle of separation of authorities in Russia. Holding the legal regulation of the separation of the authorities at the present stage. Modernization of the principle of separation of the authorities.

    coursework, added 04/25/2002

    The origin and development of the principle of separation of the authorities. The philosophical and legal and historical foundations of the separation of state power, the importance and role of representative, executive and judiciary. The theory of separation of authorities and modern Russian dilemmas.

    thesis, added 03/17/2011

    coursework, added 12/24/2013

    Proportions of the doctrine of the separation of the authorities, the essence of the theory and the concept of the principle, stages of development. Construction of the mechanism of state power and theoretical understanding of legal norms. The essence of the organization and the role of the interaction of government bodies.

In the works of Montesquieu, the theory of separation of the authorities received a classic wording.

The purpose of the separation of the authorities is to guarantee the safety of citizens from the arbitrariness and abuse of the authorities, to ensure political freedom.

In the eleventh and twelfth books of the Treatise "On the Spirit of Laws", the thinker considers the issue of political freedom and formulates its constitutional project to reorganize French absolutism.

The political freedom of Montesquieu defines as "the right to do everything that is permitted by laws. If a citizen could do what these laws are forbidden, he would not have freedom, since other citizens could do the same. "11 Montestia Sh. Selected works. M., 1995. P. 321 ..

The connection of political freedom with the right and its real implementation is emphasized by Montesquiece and in another definition of freedom, where it is characterized in relation to a citizen and acts as the safety of the latter, determined by the state in the state of fair criminal laws. "Information on the best rules that should be guided in criminal proceedings, more important for humanity in the world. This information has already been acquired in some countries and must be assimilated with other "22 there. P.322 ..

It is also important to comply with the principle of conformity to the crime. Freedom, in the concept of Montesquieu, is provided there, where criminal laws impose a kara in accordance with the specific nature of the crime themselves. Thus, the punishment will not depend on the arbitrariness and whims of the legislator and will cease to be violence a person over man.

In addition, certain judicial formalities (procedural rules and forms) are also needed to ensure freedom, to such an extent that they contribute to the objectives of the implementation of the law without turning into an obstacle.

Consequently, in Montesquieu, freedom is achievable only in the state, where all relations are mediated by the right. Such a state believes that only the state of moderate rule can be: democracy, aristocracy and monarchy, which are characterized by the rule of laws. There are no laws in despot, and therefore there is no political freedom, there are agreed and slavery. But the moderate states, according to Montesquieu, can become despotic, if the right, defining political freedom, will not prevail over the will of the rulers. So, the right in the developing theory is a measure of freedom. Therefore, if the constitutions of moderate states will not provide for guarantees to ensure the rule of law that prevent the abuse of power and violation of laws, political freedom in them is also lost. "... Already known by the experience of the eyelids, that every person who has power is inclined to abuse it, and he goes in this direction until it reaches the limit laid" 11 Montesquieu sh. Selected works. M., 1995. p.323. .

The rule of law, in the concept of montescience, can only be ensured by the separation of the authorities in such a way that they can mutually hold each other. He protests against identifying freedom with the forms of government, and, above all, with democracy: "... in view of the fact that in democracy, the people seem to be able to do everything that he wants, the freedom timed to this rank, mixing, so The power of the people with the freedom of the people "22 there. P. 324 .. Freedom is possible with any form of government, if the state dominates the right, guaranteed from violations of legality by dividing the supreme power to legislative, executive and judicial, which mutually restrain each other. The separation of the authorities in the teaching of Montesquieu along with the right becomes the criterion for distinguishing the forms of government. In the constitutions of all states of moderate board, the separation of the authorities is enshrined in one way or another. In the despots, it is not. In most European states, a moderate image of the board is established, since "their state trucks, possessing the two first authorities, provide their subsection of the third. The Turk, where these three authorities are connected in the face of Sultan, reigns terrifying despotism "33 ibid C.324 ..

Montesquieu proceeds from the principle of separation of powers in the process of carrying out power in the state, which is attached to the political sense. "In every state, he writes," there are three kinds of power: the power of the legislative, the government is an executive, which will have the issues of international law, and the authority of the executive, who will have the issues of civilian rights "11 Montesquiece sh. Selected works. M., 1995. P. 335 .. Such a division of power, the thinker first associated with the objectives of the state constitution.

At the same time, the separation of the authorities is not only a political division of labor, enshrined in constitutions, but also the distribution of power between different social layers, reflecting their current ratio.

So, the free state, in Montesquieu, theoretically, should be based on the principles of separation of the authorities, mutual containment of the authorities from the arbitrariness, the distribution of the supreme power between the various social layers of society.

In accordance with the constitutional project, Montesquieu, the legislative power is only an expression of the general will of the state. Its main purpose is to formulate the right in the form of positive laws of the state, mandatory for all citizens. Best, the Montesquieu believes when the legislature belongs to the whole people. However, in such states as France, this is impossible due to the large size of the territory and the availability of various social forces, including the nobility. Therefore, the legislative power is advisable to present the meeting of representatives of the people and the assembly of noble.

Executive power in a free state is intended for the execution of laws established by the legislative authority. It was in this connection that Montesquieu claims that "the executive power is limited by its very nature ..." It is endowed, first of all, the monarch, since this "side of the board almost always requires the actions of fast, better performed by one than many" 22 there. P. 335 .. The executive power can also be carried out by other persons, but not only members of the Legislative Assembly, as this would lead to the loss of freedom.

The judicial authority "punishes crimes and allows the collision of individuals" 33 there. P.336., Whereas both are regulated by the general affairs of the state. Because of this, freedom and security of citizens depend, first of all, from the clear functioning of the judiciary. Montesquieu offers to transfer the judiciary to persons from the people who would convene themselves as necessary for the implementation of judicial authority. The latter should not be associated with a profession, wealth, knowledge. The task of judges is to make decisions and sentences to be only an accurate application of the law. It is considering the specifics of this kind of activity, Montesquieu claims that the judiciary in a certain sense is not power. Therefore, in his project, it does not restrain any other power. Unlike her, legislative and executive bodies, which are also legal in nature, can still abuse their position, to allow arbitrariness, which leads to the elimination of freedom and security of citizens. To avoid such unwanted consequences, they should not only be separated, but also endowed to suspend and cancel each other's solutions.

The mutual influence of the legislative and executive authorities guarantees the reality of the right, which, ultimately, reflects the compromise of facing free and interests of various social layers and strength. Thus, Montesquieu makes an attempt to reconcile the warring social forces of France in the middle of the XVIII century. A compromise constitution, dividing the Supreme Power between them. According to his concept, each social force has its own body expressing its interests and possessing part of power. The representative meeting is intended to express the interests of the people, the legislative corps - for the nobility, the executive power is a monarch. All of them represented by the relevant authorities are endowed with various powers, the application of which should be mutually agreed by 11 Baskin MP. Montquea. M.1985. P. 196 ..

Chambers of Legislative Power (representative assembly and legislative corps) are sitting separately, and laws are accepted only with mutual agreement. The Legislative Assembly not only gives the laws, but also controls their execution by the scene and its ministers. For violation of laws, ministers can be attracted by the Legislative Assembly to justice. In turn, the executive power in the face of the sovereign restrains the legislative power from the arbitrariness, being endowed with the right to impose a veto on the decision of the Legislative Assembly, establishes the regulations of his work and dissolves the meeting. The personality of the monarch is declared sacred.

Of course, the mutual restraining authority of the authorities, emphasizes Monteccia, could lead to their inaction. But since the necessary current forces will force them, they will be forced to act agreed. At the same time, the harmony of their interaction, in Montesquieu, is ensured by the rule of laws: the state itself in which the separation of the authorities is implemented, implements its functions in legal form. In this sense, Montesquieu can be called one of the predecessors of the theory of the rule of law 11 of the Krylov V.P. The Doctrine of Montesquieu on the division of the authorities // State and Law, 2002, No. 1. P. 35.

At the same time, the principle of the rule of law enshrined in the constitutional project of Montesquieu does not mean that he is talking about the equilibrium of the authorities. Legislative power plays a dominant role: it creates laws that are an expression of common will, the right in the state, and both other authorities only implement and fulfill the laws, their activities are concurred. However, if Montesquieu does not conduct an idea of \u200b\u200bthe equilibrium of the authorities, then the balance of social forces - the political fact really identified by them in the conditions of France XVIII century. 22 Krylov V. P. The Doctrine of Montesquieu on the separation of the authorities // State and Law, 2002, №1. P. 36

Such settings of the thinker reflect compromise and the moderation of its political and legal concept as a whole. At the same time, the legislative power, which is primarily in the hands of representatives of the people, at Montesquieu above the executive. The judiciary is also enshrined with the representatives of the people. Thus, in the Constitutional Project, Montesquieu does not clearly clear the idea of \u200b\u200bseparation of the authorities.

Of course, it is currently a much more diverse and effective mechanism of "checks and counterweights" than the one that is presented in the works of S. Montesquieu, but already in its works the basic principles and institutions have been laid through which state authorities interact. In our time, as a rule, the legislative power is limited to a referendum, the presidential law of the veto, the constitutional court, and the internal restriction is the binary building of parliament. The executive power is limited to the responsibility of the parliament and the bypass nature of the regulatory acts published; Internal division between the president and the government, the federal and regional authorities should also be maintained. The judiciary is subordinate to the Constitution and the law, and its internal division is embodied in the fact that the Constitutional Court is allocated from the entire judicial system, the terms of the powers of the prosecutor's office are changing, systems of special courts, world judges are introduced.

Thus, the constitutional project objectively expressed the interests of the emerging bourgeoisie.

In times, Montesquieu was especially relevant to the following position of its theory of separation of the authorities: a certain branch of government should represent the interests of a certain social group. The judiciary represents the interests of the people, the executive - the monarch, the Upper Chamber of the Legislative Assembly - Aristocracy, the Lower Chamber of Meeting - the interests of the people. Thus, the author of the theory of separation of the authorities sought to reach a compromise in the struggle of the bourgeoisie and adherents of absolutism.

Logical completion of the political and legal concept of French Enlightenment received in the works Charles Louis Montcape (1689-1755), enlightenment, philosopher, legal, writer.

His first work, "Persian letters", had noisy success, is a satire directed against orders and morals of Absolutist France. Montescia gave this writing the form of correspondence, which allegedly carry among themselves Persians traveling in Europe.

The greatest interest is an essay "On the spirit of laws."Montesquieu is trying to prove that the laws of every nation must correspond to geographical conditions, the economic situation, religion, the traditions of the people and its institutions. The thinker tried to open the pattern of social phenomena, establish links between the individual parties to the life of society, to understand the significance of the conditions in which one or another people live. "Spirit" of laws, concludes a thinker, must correspond to the spirit of peoples.

The legislation notes Montescience, the soil also affects. Fertile soil contributes to submission, as it contributes to the development of agriculture, and the farmers absorbed by their classes do not protect their freedom. In addition, fertile soil generates a lotion and affection for life, paralyzes energy. Basic soil, on the contrary, favors freedom, since people who live on it should make themselves all, in which the soil refuses. The conditions of fruitless soil make people hardened, brave, militant, prone to defend their freedom.

Montescience believed that political system Defines the spirit of laws, and the content of the legislation and may even slow down the effect of geographical factor.

Of great importance, it attaches to other factors - demographics, religion. So, Christianity, preaching the meekness and respect for people, contributes to moderate reins, while Muslim predisposes a despotic board. From Christian religions, Catholicism leads to an unlimited monarchy, and Protestantism is more suitable for the free system of the state.

The form of the state is influenced by the size of the territory: small states must be republics, medium-sized monarchies, great states with despots.

Extremely detailed Montopecia stops on the forms of government, distinguishing them depending on the number of ruling persons:

republican Board is that the Supreme Power is in the hands of or all of the people, or part of it; Monarchical - at which one person operates, but through established unchanged laws; Meanwhile, as in despotic, everything is out of all laws and rules is moving to the will and arbitrariness of one person.

In democracy, the supreme power belongs to the entire mass of the people. In aristocracy, it belongs to a limited number of persons, and the fewer persons deprived of political rights, the aristocracy is stronger. Finally, the monarchy rules one person, guided by the laws and relying on the nobility. Such are the three correct forms of the state.

The incorrect form of Montesquieu considers despoty, which is opposed to all three "right" forms of government. The despotus is kept by fear. Here the ruler considers himself to himself everything, and all others - anything and keeps the power in his hands with tough measures.

The change in the form of the state is most often caused by a disadvantage or excess in the implementation of the principles on which one or another form holds.

The spirit of law should correspond to the form of government. For example, property relations are regulated in different ways depending on government forms. Laws are appropriate in democracy that provide for the equality of all children inheritance. In the monarchy should be promoted to preserve major states to support nobles that are a support of the monarchist building. With the aristocratic form of the board, it is necessary to limit luxury in privacy, comply with moderation in order not to excite envy. The laws become unnecessary in despoty, as it reigns arbitrariness.

The size of the state, says Montescience, plays a well-known role. The Small Republic, he says, may die from external onslaught; The monarchy, which has a significant magnitude, on the contrary, is much better resisting an external enemy, but at the same time it believes that it is subject to internal damage due to its large magnitude, because the large states detect a tendency to despotism.

To avoid external danger, the republic must unite with each other. He offered a plan for creating federal state In which, he said, the benefits of a large state with the benefits of small are connected.

Being a supporter of natural law, Montesquieu believes that when moving from a natural state to state natural laws, they are replaced by positive people in accordance with the "spirit" of the people. Positive laws are the result of the human mind and the incarnation of justice. They are social regulators designed to ensure the freedom of individual. Depending on the object regulation object, there are three types of laws: political, regulating relations between the authorities and subjects; civil regulatory relations of individuals; International law, regulating relations between nations and states.

The laws of Montesquieu connects their arguments about the "spirit" of the Essence of Freedom and the ways to ensure. Freedom is the tranquility of the Spirit, resulting from the consciousness of security, provided by the domination of laws in the state - the legality provides political freedom. Consequently, a way to ensure legality is needed. In this way (means), the thinker, following the local, believes separation of powers. There can be no "moderate" rule, if there is no separation of the authorities. Where the authorities are not divided, the state is inevitably inclined to despotism.

Montescia distinguishes in the state three power - legislative, executive and judicial. These three authorities should belong to various state bodies. This is the separation of the authorities. Freedom does not allow compounds of two, and even more than three authorities in the hands of the same body of the state. If the legislative power is connected to the executive, then the giving law, applying them, will not strictly follow the instructions contained in them, allowing their violation, and arbitrariness will be created in the country. The arbitrariness will also come in the event that in some hands to connect the judicial and executive power. Then the judge will be a oppressive, as it will be simultaneously a judge, and the performer of laws. Also, there should be no compounds in the hands of judicial and legislative and legislative power, since with such a connection, the judge, solving affairs, will not strictly follow the law, and will be able to, if you wish, make changes to the content of the law.

So montescience considers it necessary that the three authorities will be divided. In his opinion, this order is carried out in constitutional monarchywhere the legislature is awarded the authority of the People's Representative Office. The king is recognized by the carrier of the executive alone, and the jury is the body to which the judiciary belongs.

Executive power, in Montescience, must be provided to one person, since it considers it the most important property of the speed of action. He puts forward the position that the authorities in the state must balance one other. It is impossible to carry out the boundaries between them, which would fully exclude the intervention of one power in the activities of another, which will have a positive effect on the final result.

The theory of separation of the authorities proposed by Montesquieu was the delimitation of powers, functions in a single state power, which gives the possibility of mutual control and balance of power.

The political and legal ideas of Montesquieu influenced the creators of the US Constitution, the constitutional legislation of the period of the Great French Revolution, for the Civil Code of France 1804.

  • Montescia Sh. Selected Works: Per. With Fr. M., 1955. P. 170.

The main provisions of the theory of the separation of the authorities

In justifying the class compromise between the warring social groups, taking into account the real ratio of their strength and influence in France in the middle of the 18th century, the expense of the separation of the authorities developed by S. L. Montesquieu.

Political freedom, said the author of the "Spirit of Laws", takes place only with moderate reins, it does not have it in aristocracy, where all power belongs to one noble, nor in democracy, where the people dominate. In order not to be able to abuse power, such a procedure for things, in which legislative, executive and judicial authorities would be separated and could mutually restrain each other. Everything would die, emphasized
Montesquieu, if in the same face or institution composed of the dignitaries, from nobles or ordinary people, these three power would be connected.

Based on this, Montesquieu offers each class (class) to provide part of the supreme power. Thus, the legislative power, in his opinion, it is necessary to divide between the bourgeoisie and feudalities, forming a two-bearet parliament, consisting of a meeting of representatives of the people and from the aristocratic nobility, the executive power can be preserved from the nobility to leaving it to the royal government, which, however, should be responsible for the national representation , i.e. bourgeoisie. The judicial authority, which Montesquieu, unlike the Locke, specially allocated in the Triad of the authorities, can be entrusted not to any permanent body, and elected persons from the people attracted to the administration of justice for a certain time. It is necessary that the judges be one public situation with the defendant, equal to him that it does not seem to be that he fell into the hands of people, inclined to oppress him. In case of important accusations, the defendant is given the right to remove judges. The task of the Court is to ensure that decisions and sentences are always only an accurate application of the law. "Thus," said Montesquieu, - the judiciary, so terrible for people, will not be connected with a known position, nor with a well-known profession; It will, so to speak, invisible and no matter how existing "[Montesquieu S. L. Selected works. M., 1995].
Thanks to this organization, the judiciary becomes socially and politically neutral and will not be able to turn into a despotic. Therefore, it makes the conclusion of Montesquieu, "Of the three authorities ... the judicial in a certain sense is not at all power" and, therefore, there is no need for its restriction by other authorities and in the intervention of the court to legislation and management. Based on this, in the future, Montesquieu argues, mainly about the division of political forces and powers between the legislative and executive authorities.

Like many of their predecessors, Montesquieu believes that in order to ensure the effectiveness of the Office, a rational division of labor in public life is necessary. He notes that each of the three branches of power in accordance with the specifics of its functions should be carried out by a special independent body. However, Montesquieu goes much further in the study of the system of state bodies, the nature of the relationship between them, the mechanism of their interaction and counteraction in order to prevent the arbitrariness and ensure freedom of individual. Montesquieu has repeatedly emphasizes the importance of the independence of the authorities and organs that carry them out regarding the condition of their formation, activities, as well as their mutual irremability. He considers invalid so that the same persons participate in the implementation of functions of more than one of the three bodies of government, for example, so that the minister or judge meets in Parliament, and the deputy implemented laws and sent justice.

The special meaning of Montesquieu attached its idea of \u200b\u200bthe equilibrium of the authorities and the system of "checks and counterweights." He considers it necessary to establish such relationships between the authorities allocated to them so that they independently solve government challenges, each with their legal means, could at the same time balancing each other, preventing the possibility of usurpation of the authority of the Supreme Power by any one institution. Thus, the executive power, being, according to Montesquieu, is concurred, should, however, limit the effect of the Legislative Assembly, which otherwise will focus on the despotic power. Therefore, the monarch, whose personality is sacred, is endowed with the right of veto when approving bills, it has a legislative initiative, according to its decree, the parliament is convened and dissolved. At the same time, the legislative power, although not entitled, on the terminology of Montesquieu, "stop" the activities of executive bodies requiring rapid decisions, but it is authorized to control how the laws created by it, and the government is obliged to give a report to Parliament.

Unlike the Locke, which the separation of the authorities interpreted as their cooperation and close cooperation on the basis of the prevalence of legislative power over the executive, Montesquieu emphasized the need for full equilibrium, independence, and even the separation of the authorities.
This, however, did not mean their unlimitedness. On the contrary, according to Montesquieu, no authority should invade the competence of another, but each of them, defending itself from a possible invasion, is entitled to control and restrain another power, preventing the excess of authority, abuse and despotism.

Mont Deskius developed by the complex system of "checks and counterweights", i.e., mutual balancing and even opposition to the authorities did not ensure effective cooperation between them in solving public affairs and did not provide for the creation of an effective mechanism to solve possible collisions. Montesquieu was aware that the authorities combined in this way may be in a state of immobility and inaction, but hoped to eliminate this difficulty with the consideration that
"Since the necessary current forces will force them, they will act agreed."

When justifying the theory of separation of the authorities, Montesquieu tried to apply some essential features of modern European states and especially the British constitutional monarchy in French soil, in which he saw a sample of a moderate form of government, which is in his opinion, the best.
In particular, the complex construction of the legislative power in the face of the lower chamber as the elected body of people's representatives and the upper chamber as the hereditary assembly of the aristocratic nobility, "the right to cancel the decisions of the people", just like "the people can cancel its decisions," was founded At Montesquieu on the structure of the English Parliament.

However, Montesquieu, Idessizing the English Board System and following Locke on this regard, drew attention only to the external side of the English constitutional system. In fact, in England, there was no separation of the authorities in the sense, in which Montesquieu understood him. According to the testimony of large English states V. Beszhgota, the British Constitution was built on the principle of a single supreme power, and this decisive power is in the hands of the same people. IN
England there was no strict extraction of three branches of power between various government agencies. The English king as a carrier of the executive authority could also take part in the legislation, acting together with both chambers ("King in Parliament"), and in legal proceedings, appointed, in addition to the jury also elected by the population of jury, with widespread competence.
The English Parliament was also not limited to alone by legislative and could take part in the management. So, he was entitled to refer to the responsibility of the Ministers of the Royal Cabinet, to solve the most important financial issues, determine the order of the organization of the army. Also in the field of legal proceedings, the parliament could be viewed (in the upper chamber) of cases on charges of state crimes of noble claims. In that period, which was characterized as | already noted, a compromise of the bourgeoisie with a liberal nobility, all areas of state authorities carried the imprint of the political domination of these two classes, equally interested in preventing
"Uncontrollable" influence of the wide masses on the decision of public affairs.

The doctrine of the separation of the authorities in its political focus in the interpretation of Locke and especially Montesquieu was moderate, compromise and was an ideological substantiation of the class unit of the bourgeoisie and nobility during the bourgeois revolutions of the XVII-XVIII centuries. In this theory, the contradictions from the feudal society and the state to bourgeois with all its positive and negative manifestations were most bright and siminably. Consequently, when evaluating the theory of separation of the authorities, it is important to take into account its historical progressiveness inevitable limitations.

The doctrine of the separation of the authorities in the conditions of absolutism of that time served mainly to prevent lawlessness and arbitrariness from the royal administration, ensuring the fundamental rights and freedoms of a person. This in itself had undoubtedly important progressive importance. The concept of separation of the authorities contributed to the strengthening of new, bourgeois public relations and the creation of the state power appropriate to them.
In general, the rustle on the spent political reforms was the requirement that the country's management was carried out in accordance with the laws established by elected representative bodies. A serious step forward in the development of political thought and constitutional practice was the development of the principles and organizational principles of activity of state bodies, the study of the main directions of their interaction, methods "forms of their complicity in the implementation of public affairs

However, the class essence of this doctrine, which expressed the claims of the bourgeoisie into political power and ready to share it with the liberal nobility, was reduced to the abandonment of national sovereignty. Fearing the "despotism of the majority", Montesquieu believed that the people, being incompetent in state affairs, were not entitled to take active decisions related to the executive activity, all its participation in the management should be limited to the election of representatives.

This focus of the slogan separation of the authorities and led to a great success of the Montquiece theory. She allowed the bourgeoisie, to justify their coming to political power, with the smallest limit of the class privileges and interests of the ruling classes to proclaim the basic political rights and freedoms, to ensure the strength of the born bourgeois system and at the same time prevent enough deep democratic transformations in public life. Due to this, the concept of separation of the authorities has become an influential bourgeois political doctrine in the form that Montquiece gave her, and the author of the "Spirit of Laws" became even called the attitude of this principle.

The followers of Montesquieu claimed that the theory of separation of the authorities "was purified by them from slag and shot down with new faces." According to the French state of A. Esmen, Montesquieu so transformed the elements developed by its predecessors, which "made some of them as a new creation; From the embryo, he brought a living being reached its full development. "

Not denying the decisive role of Montesquieu in justifying the classic version of this teaching, it is necessary, however, note (and this conclusion completely follows from the above analysis of the origin of the theory under consideration) that the ideas put forward by Montesquiece were not "revealing previously unknown secrecy." They did not appear to the author of the "Spirit of Laws" as "in more than one". Related to the current reality, they were founded on all preceding the development of political thought.
The theory of separation of the authorities in the interpretation of Montesquiece received broad support among moderate bourgeoisie and liberal nobility. Some thinkers, taking the main provisions of this doctrine, objected to her
"Extremes", revealed some of its contradictions.

However, in the constitutional project, Montesquieu is not clearly performed by the idea of \u200b\u200bequilibrium authorities. The legislative government clearly plays a dominant role, the executive power of Montesquieu calls limited by its nature, and the court is generally the floor. It seems that all this was not so relevant in the time of Montesquieu, how important was the following position of the theory of separation of the authorities: a certain branch of government should represent the interests of a certain social group. The judiciary represents the interests of the people, the executive - the monarch, the Upper Chamber of the Legislative Assembly (provided for by the Constitutional Project
Montesquieu) - Aristocracy, Lower Chamber of Meeting - the interests of the people.

Literature.

1. Azarkin N.M. Montquea. - M.: Legal literature, 1988.

2. Barnashev A.M. The theory of separation of the authorities: formation, development, application. Tomsk, 1988.

3. Sh.L. Montquea. Selected works / Ed. MP Basquina. - M.: State. Publishing house of political literature, 1955.

4. Fetisov A.S. Separation of the authorities // Socio-political magazine,


Tutoring

Need help to study what language themes?

Our specialists will advise or have tutoring services for the subject of interest.
Send a request With the topic right now, to learn about the possibility of receiving consultation.

Introduction .............................................................................. ..2-3.

1. Biography Sh.L. Montesquieu .......................................... ... 4-5

2. The theory of separation of the authorities Sh.L. Montesquieu ..................... ... 6-12

Conclusion ..........................................................................................13

List of references ................................................................................ 14

Introduction

The theory of separation of the authorities was originated in France in the middle of the 18th century and was associated, first of all, with the struggle of a fastened bourgeoisie against feudal absolutism, the struggle against the system that traded the development of society and the state.

Of course, the theory of separation of the authorities arose not in an empty place, it was a logical continuation of the development of political and legal ideas arising in the 17th century in England, the theory of separation of the authorities became part of the theory of the legal state that began to form. In general, the principle of separation of the authorities is very important for the legal state, since the implementation of this principle is one of the constitutional and organized manifestations of political pluralism in the state sector, capable of providing the Board of the legal law necessary for a civilized civil society and unbiased justice.

The emergence of a new concept was associated with the name of Charles Louis Montesquieu, a person known not only as a progressive theorist, but also as an experienced practice of state-legal activities, which understands the problems of the inefficient functioning of state bodies.

Charles Louis Montesquieu (1689 - 1755) - an outstanding political thinker and lawyer of the era of French Enlightenment. His works were almost always in the center of the ideological - political struggle. Foreign historiography about Montesquieu is very extensive. There are several dozen monographs, hundreds of articles dedicated to his work. At the beginning of the 20th century, interest in the montescience has increased markedly. The Heritage Analysis of the Montesquieu was conducted by many Russian lawyers, but in our days this topic remains quite interesting for study and relevant.

In my work, I will try to highlight the views on the theory of separation of the authorities of the famous historical thinker - Sh. Montesquences.

The goal of the work: to consider the theory of separation of the authorities Sh.L. Montquea.

Give a brief biographical certificate about life and activity

Sh.L. Montquea.

Disclose the essence of the theory of separation of the authorities developed by

Sh.L. Montquea.

1. Biography Sh.L. Montesquieu

Charles Louis Montesquieu (1689-1755) - French philosopher, historian, lawyer, representative of the older generation of enlighteners of the XVIII century. - adjoined to moderately opposition circles of the French bourgeoisie, opposed feudal orders, absolutism and feudal-clerical ideology. Montesquieu was born in an old aristocratic family belonging to the "nobility of the mantle", the highest judicial official. After receiving classic-secular education, he studied the right, history, culture, literature, especially the ancient world and Rome.

From the extensive literary heritage of Montesquiece to illuminate its political views, "Persian letters" (1721) are of particular importance; "Reflections on the reasons for the magnitude and fall of the Romans" (1734); "On the spirit of laws" (1748); "Protection" On the spirit of laws "" (1750).

In 1714, Montesquieu became an adviser to parliament, and two years after the death of uncle - the President of Parliament in Bordeaux. The beginning of the judicial activity coincided with the end of the board of Louis XIV, a sunset of absolutism in France, the emergence and development of the feudal system of new bourgeois relations, a new superstructure and, respectively, new political, legal, philosophical, artistic, moral ideals and ideals.

Montesquieu actively participated in the socio-political life of the country. In 1728 he was elected to the French Academy. Refusing then from official state positions (1726), he engaged in sciences, including the theory of state and law. Despite its belonging to a privileged class, Montesquieu criticized the absolute monarchy, advocated the parliamentary republic and democratic freedoms of citizens. Not only the girondists referred to his work, but also the Jacobinians led by Marat and Robespierre.

Montesquieu's doctrine belongs to the ideology of enlightenment. Not only in the "Persian letters", but also in other major works of the thinker: "Reflections on the reasons for the magnitude and fall of the Romans" (1734), "On the spirit of laws" (1748), "Protection" On the Spirit of Laws "( 1750) Reflected all the main features of the enlightenment.

In the last years of his life, Montesquieu held in his castle, continuing his favorite literary classes. He decided to deepen some places "about the spirit of laws," began writing the story of theodorich Osthots, to handle notes for traveling on Europe. The treatise "On the spirit of laws" won all the most admirers. The poets were devoted to Montquiece their poems, several books commented on his treatise. Crowd of pilgrims came to the castle, thirsting for talking with Montesquieu or at least see it.

In 1754, Montesquieu went to Paris. The reason for this was the arrest of Professor La Bomel, who one of the first opened openly with hot defense "On the spirit of laws". Having received the news about this, Montesquieu found his moral duty to rescue La Bomel from the trouble. He began to vigorously bother the unfortunate professor and achieved his liberation with his influential friends.

In Paris, Montesquieu was cold and fell ill with inflammation of the lungs. February 10, 1755 he died. His funeral - at the Church of Saint Genevieve - did not differ in particular solemnity. Subsequently, the grave of Montesquieu was lost.

The theory of separation of the authorities Sh.L. Montesquieu

The most important contribution of Monteccia to political science consists of a local separation of the authorities developed by him with a support for the teaching of the authorities. The purpose of the theory of separation of the Mont Deskius authorities is to guarantee the safety of citizens from the arbitrariness and abuse of power, to ensure their political freedom, to make the right with a genuine regulator of relations between citizens and the government.

From his point of view, the freedom of citizens can only be said in relation to the republic and the monarchy, since only here the political power is subordinate to the right. But the legal dimension is not only power, but also political freedom. "Political freedom," says the philosopher, - it is not at all in doing what I want. In the state, that is, in a society where there are laws, freedom can only be able to be able to do what should want, and not be forced to do what should not want ... Freedom is the right to do everything allowed by law "

"In order not to be able to abuse power, such an order of things are needed, in which various authorities could mutually restrain each other. It is possible to such a state system, in which no one will not be able to do what the law does not oblige him, and not to do what the law allows him. "

The idea formulated by Monteccia is interesting in many ways. First of all, the definition of the relationship established between the legitimate board and the separation of the authorities. This division enters as their mutual containment. Such mutual restraint-warranty from abuse. An obstacle to the abuse of power is a guarantee of ensuring freedom. Finally, the freedom itself takes place when no one cannot be forced to do what the law does not oblige him. Or, when, on the contrary, a person is not allowed to make the fact that he is prohibited by law. Thus, the separation of the authorities is not an end in itself, a means of implementing legitimate, legitimate rule, but, consequently, ensuring freedom.

The theory of separation of the Mont Deskius authorities is permeated by the idea of \u200b\u200blegality. Moreover, the guarantees of legality are associated in it not only with a cattle on themselves the activities of state institutions (their mutual deterrence and mutual influence), but also with the provision of political freedom of citizens in their respect to the state as a whole.

As for those types of power, which must be mutually balanced, Montesquiece allocates legislative, executive and judicial in the state. The principle of separation of the authorities, according to the views of the thinker, is primarily to belong to various government agencies. Focusing all the completeness of the authorities in the hands of one person, institutions or class inevitably leads to abuse and arbitrariness. In addition to the delimitation of competence, the principle of separation of the authorities also implies the provision of special powers to them so that they limit and restrain each other. We need such an order, the montesquieu indicates, at which "one power stops the other."

The doctrine of the montescience about the separation of the authorities had a significant novelty compared to previous concepts. First, he combined a liberal understanding of freedom with the idea of \u200b\u200bconstitutional consolidation of the mechanism of separation of the authorities. Freedom, approved the educator, "is established only by laws and even the laws of the main." Secondly, Montesquieu included in the authorities to be demarcated, judicial authorities. In other words, the rationale for parliamentarism as a management system based on the distinction of legislative and executive powers was supplemented with Montesquiece the principle of independence of judges. The triad considered to them (legislative, executive and judicial authorities) over time became the classical formula of bourgeois constitutionalism. In his teaching, Montesquieu combined the most popular ideas of the liberal bourgeoisie of the time and built them into a fairly consistent and holistic doctrine.

The doctrine of the separation of the authorities was not easy fate. She gained wide recognition and support from the most advanced forces, became one of the main postulates of the democratic constitutional legal theory. Finally, she found its direct reflection and consolidation in the basic laws of advanced states, and today (especially after the collapse of totalitarian regimes) has become the leading constitutional principle of almost all states of the world.