Yearly journal of scientific articles “Pravova derzhava” Volume 32 (2021),
Bobrovnyk Svetlana. Legal Compromise in Aspect Socialization Processes
The process of socialization associated with the development of the social nature of an individual or social group is gaining importance for modern society.
The main direction of socialization within sociology is the person as the main element of society. However, given that the socialization of the individual is determined by the nature of society itself, its characteristics and needs, we can say that the process of socialization is inherent not only personal but also other spheres of society. Although we will not deny that the anthropologization of social relations brings to the fore the sociologization of the individual as the main element of social communication.
In this regard, the study of the peculiarities of the process of socialization of social interaction, factors, conditions and differences that accompany socialization is becoming increasingly important. Since the process of socialization is associated with a system of information exchange between members of society, the need to reflect and consolidate various social interests, the importance of finding social compromise, it is fair to say that socialization encompasses socio-political communication, in which law plays an important role. The study of the legal aspect of socialization is the theoretical basis for increasing the social role of law, the effectiveness of its regulatory action and ensuring public order.
In our opinion, important aspects of socialization of compromise are its characteristics as a means of communication, features of manifestation within social institutions of different levels and substantiation of ways to increase the effectiveness of social functions of legal compromise and means of socialization in law.
Compromise at the categorical level can be considered within the three directions of research related to its relationship with the category of conflict. We are talking about organic-structural, conflict-radical and anthropological-communicative directions. The first direction of research reflects society and the forms of its organization as coherently functioning systems. Here the category of "compromise" dominates over the category of "conflict". The second direction of research is characterized by the fact that the category of "compromise" is considered as a special manifestation of the category of "conflict", the latter is dominant in the field of public relations. Regarding the third area of research, the problem of compromise and conflict within this concept is considered at the level of relationships between people, whether macro (state) or micro (group of people). At the same time, compromise and conflict are studied as equivalent interacting categories of public life.
A legal compromise has legal consequences, as the result of the agreement of the wills of the parties is the imposition on them of obligations to exercise mutual will. Moreover, the violation of a legal compromise is the basis for the legal liability of the parties. Legal compromise, due to its mediation by legal norms, acquires the attribute of binding and enforced measures.
Characteristic of the social action of law is the reflection of its existence at different levels of social interaction, ranging from the individual, social groups, society as a whole. A legal compromise is no exception.
Social institutions create an objective reality for a person, that is, it is his social world, in which the appropriate social order is established. At the same time, social institutions are both subjectively and objectively a reality. In view of this, compromise in the behavior of subjects is manifested differently depending on the level of social institution. In simple social institutions (interpersonal, intragroup), the conflict and compromise of the behavior of subjects usually depends on subjective factors that are influenced by objective reality by operating in a single space of other social institutions. In turn, in social institutions of a complex level (intergroup and state, world system) compromise is necessarily "tied" to the order objectively established in such institutions.
Thus, compromises always arise between two subjects and are carried out in the corresponding interaction. At the same time, compromises at the state level, in addition to the relationship between its subjects, are necessarily characterized by a constant connection with society through the functioning of legal requirements enshrined in the relevant sources of law.
Key words: legal conflict, legal compromise, socialization, agreement, society, law.
1. Bobrovnyk S.V. Kompromis i konflikt u pravi: teoretyko-metodolohichne doslidzhennia: avtor. dys. …. dokt. yuryd. nauk. Kyiv, 2013. 40 s. S. 1. [ukr]. 2. Zahalna sotsiolohiia: navch. posibn. Kyiv : Profesional, 2004. 592 s. S. 38. [ukr]. 3. Medviedieva V. Osoblyvosti protsesu sotsializatsii v umovakh informatsiinoho suspilstva. Naukovi pratsi Naukovoi biblioteky Ukrainy V.I. Vernadskoho: zb. nauk. prats. Kyiv, 2016. Vyp. 43. S. 584–595. S. 586. [ukr]. 4. Sotsyolohyia prava: ucheb. pos. / V.M. Syrykh, V.V. Hlazveryn, Yu.Y. Hrevtsov. Moskva : Yuryd. dom «Iustytsynform», 2001. 480 s. S. 216. [ukr]. 5. Shvachka V.Yu. Pravova sotsiolohizatsiia osoby v suchasnykh umovakh: avtoref. … kand.. yuryd. nauk : 12.00.01. Kyiv, 2008. 20 s. S. 16. [ukr]. 6. Tarabukin O.Yu. Pravova sotsializatsiia yak forma sotsialnoho vplyvu prava. Chasopys Kyivskoho universytetu prava. 2013. ¹ 1. S. 64–66. S. 65. [ukr]. 7. Zharovska I. Pravova sotsializatsiia na suchasnomu etapi rozvytku pravovoi nauky. Visnyk natsionalnoho universytetu «Lvivska politekhnika». Yurydychni nauky. 2016. ¹ 855. S. 193–198. S. 195. [ukr]. 8. K³nlokh H.K. Sotsyolohycheskaia teoryia: ee razvytye ³ hlavnye parad³hmy. Sovremennye tendents³³ v zarubezhnykh sotsyolohycheskykh ³ssledovanyiakh: problemû obosnovanyia y yntehratsyy. Moskva : ²zd-vo ²N²ON AN SSSR, 1984. S. 47–50. S. 47. [ukr]. 9. Novyi slovnyk ukrainskoi movy: U 3-kh tomakh. Kyiv : Akonit, 2008. T. 1. 926 s. S. 875. [ukr]. 10. Truevtseva S.S. Traktovka konsensusa u O. Konta. Sotsyolohycheskye yssledovanyia. 1994. ¹ 11. S. 139–141. S. 139. [ukr]. 11. Novikova M. Do pytannia pravokompromisnoi teorii harmonizatsii suspilnykh vidnosyn. Pravo Ukrainy. 2006. ¹ 1. S. 29–32. S. 12. [ukr]. 12. Pravo i prohres: zapyty hromadianskoho suspilstva: monohrafiia. Kyiv : Naukova dumka, 2020. 367 s. S. 193. [ukr].