This article analyses the ideas and works of Oleksandr Lototskyi in connection with the autocephaly of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. Lototskyi was a prominent scholar and politician during the Ukrainian revolution of 1917–1919. The chronology of Lototskyi's beliefs as they developed, ranging from the support of the autonomy of the Church to the idea of autocephaly is reviewed in detail against the background of historical events. Lototskyi's representations on behalf of the state at the All-Ukrainian Orthodox Church Sobor in November 1918 in support of Church independence showcased his convictions. The idea was incorporated by the Directory of the UNR into the Law "On the Highest Church Government of the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church." The article shows that the paradigm of autocephaly, as envisioned by Lototskyi and exemplified through his actions whilst Minister of Confessions, became the cornerstone of modern Ukrainian philosophy in favor of religious independence.
Summary. The aim of the research. The article focuses on the analysis of the judiciary practice against the church and faith during the period of Ukrainian Hetman state (Viisko Zaporizke). The judiciary practice is preserved in the court books, the Lithuanian metrics and the archival materials, in order to find out the features of the time trial, in particular, and the church law in general. The research methodology. Having applied the necessary methodological means, namely: dialectical, axiological, historical and philosophical, systemic, functional methods; formal-legal, systemic-structural, genetic, historical functional, comparative legal and historical legal methods, there has been investigated and generalized the experience of reviewing the cases on the crimes against the church and the faith under the conditions of the formation of the Ukrainian national state, founded by Hetman B. Khmelnytskyi. The scientific novelty consists in elucidating the peculiarities of considering the cases against the faith and the church in Ukrainian Hetman state, establishing mitigating circumstances that contributed to the reduction of punishment or the release. Conclusions. In the article it has been confirmed that after the end of the National Liberation War of the Ukrainian people in the second half of the XVIIth century the competence of the church courts was not defined at the legislative level. In fact, the church courts considered only their own internal church affairs, and the crimes against the faith and the church belonged to the general jurisdiction of secular Cossack or magistrate courts. It has been traced the reception of the legal traditions that existed during the Rus era and remained their validity under the conditions of Ukrainian Hetman state existence. Because in the second half of the XVIIth century in Ukraine there continued to be used water testing as the form of evidence, genetically inherited from the legal system of the Rus state. Consequently, the continuity of Ukrainian law has been proved. It has been confirmed that the legal responsibility that followed the crimes committed against the church and faith had its peculiarity in connection with the need to reconcile the final court sentence with the requirements of the injured party. There have been revealed the cases of mitigation and abolition of the sanctions in case of the absence of the categorical claims and demands of the victim and the correspondent petitions from the representatives of the clergy and the community. It has been revealed that the crime cases against religion, family and morals could be considered by any court, regardless of their hierarchy in the vertical of this branch of government, despite a number of the judicial institutions that functioned in Ukraine.
This article analyses the ideas and works of Oleksandr Lototskyi in connection with the autocephaly of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. Lototskyi was a prominent scholar and politician during the Ukrainian revolution of 1917–1919. The chronology of Lototskyi's beliefs as they developed, ranging from the support of the autonomy of the Church to the idea of autocephaly is reviewed in detail against the background of historical events. Lototskyi's representations on behalf of the state at the All-Ukrainian Orthodox Church Sobor in November 1918 in support of Church independence showcased his convictions. The idea was incorporated by the Directory of the UNR into the Law "On the Highest Church Government of the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church." The article shows that the paradigm of autocephaly, as envisioned by Lototskyi and exemplified through his actions whilst Minister of Confessions, became the cornerstone of modern Ukrainian philosophy in favor of religious independence.
Summary. The aim of the research. The article focuses on the analysis of the judiciary practice against the church and faith during the period of Ukrainian Hetman state (Viisko Zaporizke). The judiciary practice is preserved in the court books, the Lithuanian metrics and the archival materials, in order to find out the features of the time trial, in particular, and the church law in general. The research methodology. Having applied the necessary methodological means, namely: dialectical, axiological, historical and philosophical, systemic, functional methods; formal-legal, systemic-structural, genetic, historical functional, comparative legal and historical legal methods, there has been investigated and generalized the experience of reviewing the cases on the crimes against the church and the faith under the conditions of the formation of the Ukrainian national state, founded by Hetman B. Khmelnytskyi. The scientific novelty consists in elucidating the peculiarities of considering the cases against the faith and the church in Ukrainian Hetman state, establishing mitigating circumstances that contributed to the reduction of punishment or the release. Conclusions. In the article it has been confirmed that after the end of the National Liberation War of the Ukrainian people in the second half of the XVIIth century the competence of the church courts was not defined at the legislative level. In fact, the church courts considered only their own internal church affairs, and the crimes against the faith and the church belonged to the general jurisdiction of secular Cossack or magistrate courts. It has been traced the reception of the legal traditions that existed during the Rus era and remained their validity under the conditions of Ukrainian Hetman state existence. Because in the second half of the XVIIth century in Ukraine there continued to be used water testing as the form of evidence, genetically inherited from the legal system of the Rus state. Consequently, the continuity of Ukrainian law has been proved. It has been confirmed that the legal responsibility that followed the crimes committed against the church and faith had its peculiarity in connection with the need to reconcile the final court sentence with the requirements of the injured party. There have been revealed the cases of mitigation and abolition of the sanctions in case of the absence of the categorical claims and demands of the victim and the correspondent petitions from the representatives of the clergy and the community. It has been revealed that the crime cases against religion, family and morals could be considered by any court, regardless of their hierarchy in the vertical of this branch of government, despite a number of the judicial institutions that functioned in Ukraine.
This article analyses the ideas and works of Oleksandr Lototskyi in connection with the autocephaly of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. Lototskyi was a prominent scholar and politician during the Ukrainian revolution of 1917–1919. The chronology of Lototskyi's beliefs as they developed, ranging from the support of the autonomy of the Church to the idea of autocephaly is reviewed in detail against the background of historical events. Lototskyi's representations on behalf of the state at the All-Ukrainian Orthodox Church Sobor in November 1918 in support of Church independence showcased his convictions. The idea was incorporated by the Directory of the UNR into the Law "On the Highest Church Government of the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church." The article shows that the paradigm of autocephaly, as envisioned by Lototskyi and exemplified through his actions whilst Minister of Confessions, became the cornerstone of modern Ukrainian philosophy in favor of religious independence.
Summary. The aim of the research. The article focuses on the analysis of the judiciary practice against the church and faith during the period of Ukrainian Hetman state (Viisko Zaporizke). The judiciary practice is preserved in the court books, the Lithuanian metrics and the archival materials, in order to find out the features of the time trial, in particular, and the church law in general. The research methodology. Having applied the necessary methodological means, namely: dialectical, axiological, historical and philosophical, systemic, functional methods; formal-legal, systemic-structural, genetic, historical functional, comparative legal and historical legal methods, there has been investigated and generalized the experience of reviewing the cases on the crimes against the church and the faith under the conditions of the formation of the Ukrainian national state, founded by Hetman B. Khmelnytskyi. The scientific novelty consists in elucidating the peculiarities of considering the cases against the faith and the church in Ukrainian Hetman state, establishing mitigating circumstances that contributed to the reduction of punishment or the release. Conclusions. In the article it has been confirmed that after the end of the National Liberation War of the Ukrainian people in the second half of the XVIIth century the competence of the church courts was not defined at the legislative level. In fact, the church courts considered only their own internal church affairs, and the crimes against the faith and the church belonged to the general jurisdiction of secular Cossack or magistrate courts. It has been traced the reception of the legal traditions that existed during the Rus era and remained their validity under the conditions of Ukrainian Hetman state existence. Because in the second half of the XVIIth century in Ukraine there continued to be used water testing as the form of evidence, genetically inherited from the legal system of the Rus state. Consequently, the continuity of Ukrainian law has been proved. It has been confirmed that the legal responsibility that followed the crimes committed against the church and faith had its peculiarity in connection with the need to reconcile the final court sentence with the requirements of the injured party. There have been revealed the cases of mitigation and abolition of the sanctions in case of the absence of the categorical claims and demands of the victim and the correspondent petitions from the representatives of the clergy and the community. It has been revealed that the crime cases against religion, family and morals could be considered by any court, regardless of their hierarchy in the vertical of this branch of government, despite a number of the judicial institutions that functioned in Ukraine.
The actual problem of Ukrainian statehood commencement in the context of Ukrainian political and legal tradition of statehood is raised. The purpose of the article is to cover an in-depth development of the concept of formation's content of in the first historical forms of Ukrainian statehood by the autochthons of the Middle Dnieper region (ancestors of the Ukrainian people) in connection with various ethnic communities. Within the framework of socio-cultural and systemic approaches, it was proved by the method of logical analysis that the early historical forms of Ukrainian statehood arose without any significant borrowing from the state-building experience of other nations. The method of reconstruction highlighted the process of institutionalization of public power and confirmed the centuries-old continuity of the political and legal tradition in this area. Using the method of periodization, three periods of the process of the emergence and formation of early forms of Ukrainian statehood are distinguished: the Scythian era (VI-IV centuries BC); late antique times (II-IV centuries AD); the early Middle Ages, when Kyiv was founded and the state called Rus (Ukraine-Rus) was formed (VI-IX centuries AD). The proposition that the origins of the Russian state should be analyzed within the chronological limits of the second half of the 30s of the 9th century is substantiated. In connection with the conclusion of the first known treaty with Byzantium in Amastrid in 839, where it was first mentioned under its own name. It was found out that historically, the first forms of Ukrainian statehood were the Ante confederation and Rus. Subjects of the confederation retained territorial sovereignty with their own self-government, jurisdiction of local authorities within their territory and customary law. It is proved that within the framework of the confederation, the functions of princely governance were institutionalized, which took place in the streamlining and structuring of interaction with princes, tribal military leaders, tribal nobility, and self-governing territorial communities. The main result of the study is the conclusion that the first historical forms of Ukrainian statehood were the Ante confederation and Rus. They had all basic attributes of statehood in the legal plane: the people and the language of the people, as the most important marker of their ethnic self-identification; the motherland of the country with geographical, geospatial, and ethnographic characteristics; the continuity of the state values in the law that form a legal view of life through the prism of the mental representations of the people about truth, goodness, and justice. It was also emphasized that of all the characteristic features of the modern concept of the Ukrainian state, the legal power was historically the first to be formed, due to its mechanism, it was formed horizontally on the principle of equality and independence of all subjects of the confederation, united on a contractual basis; in the mechanism of the operation of law, the instrument of legal influence made norms of customary law, and the instrument of legal regulation was barbaric law. The links of legal influence and legal regulation were organically intertwined on the basis of legal tradition.
