A comprehensive hermeneutic analysis of the phenomenon of justice as a socio-cultural phenomenon that is interdisciplinary and historically structured.The idea of justice occupies centre stage both in ethics, and in legal and political philosophy. It apply to individual actions, to laws, and to public policies, and we think in each case that if they are unjust this is a strong, maybe even conclusive, reason to reject them. Justice is usually said to exist when a person receives that to which he or she is entitled, namely, exactly those benefits and burdens that are due the individual because of his or her particular characteristics and circumstances. If someone states that a certain person or act is good or moral or virtuous, he or she does not necessarily mean that that person or act is just.Classically, justice was counted as one of the four cardinal virtues (and sometimes as the most important of the four), in modern times John Rawls famously described it as «the first virtue of social institutions» There is debate which of these realms of practical philosophy has first claim on justice: is it first and foremost a property of the law, for example, and only derivatively a property of individuals and other institutions. But it is probably more enlightening to accept that the idea has over time sunk deep roots in each of these domains, and to try to make sense of such a wide-ranging concept by identifying elements that are present whenever justice is invoked, but also examining the different forms it takes in various practical contexts. This article aims to provide a general map of the ways in which justice has been understood by philosophers, past and present.At first examine some major conceptual contrasts: between conservative and ideal justice, between corrective and distributive justice, between procedural and substantive justice, and between comparative and non-comparative justice. There is a question whether non-human animals can be subjects of justice, whether justice applies only between people who already stand in a particular kind of relationship to one another, and whether individual people continue to have duties of justice once justice-based institutions have been created. Then examine three overarching theories that might serve to unify the different forms of justice: utilitarianism, contractarianism, and egalitarianis. ; Проведен комплексный герменевтический анализ фемомену справедливости, как социокультурного явления, носящего междисциплинарный и исторически структурированный характер. ; Проведено комплексний герменевтичний аналіз фемомену справедливості, як соціокультурного явища, що носить міждисциплінарний і історично-структурований характер.
The article considers the phenomenon of social justice, which helps to better understand the essence of each era and its social transformations. No political or ideological orientation can circumvent the notion of justice without defining one's point of view on this issue. The complexity of social relations in modern society has increased attention to the issue of justice. We are faced with the need, relying on the positive trends of the past, to discard the obsolete and take real steps towards the modernization of society. Therefore, it is necessary to provide it with forms that meet the modern objective interests of the people. That is why the problem of justice is especially relevant today. However, it must be borne in mind that the ideas and ideals of justice, like all others, are deeply historical. They organically combine what is temporary and inevitable, changeable and stable. Tracing the historical development of these ideas, we can not ignore their interpretation in the philosophical works of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle. For the first time in the history of public opinion, Socrates raised the question of a rational knowledge of the principle of justice, rather than the acceptance of some universal truth, sanctified by age-old traditions. This truth is the fruit of the intense work of the mind and heart. You need to get to it. It needs to be opened, and only a sage can afford it. Aristotle noted that all people have an idea of justice. However, everyone perceives it differently. Not everyone sees the measure of dignity and virtue in the same thing: the citizens of a democratic society see it in freedom, the oligarchs in wealth, the aristocrats in valor and glory, and so on. It follows that distributive justice cannot be universal, but depends on the social order and the prevailing system of social values. By asserting the connection between virtue and wisdom, glorifying the beauty of mind, consciousness, defending the idea of expediency, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle thus logically proved the essence and foundations of understanding justice. It can be argued that they laid the "cornerstone" in the foundation of the European tradition of philosophical and sociological elaboration of this vital problem. ; У статті розглянуто феномен соціальної справедливості, що допомагає глибше зрозуміти сутність кожної епохи й її соціальних перетворень. Жодне політичне та ідеологічне спрямування не може обійти поняття справедливості, щоб не визначити свою точку зору з даного питання. Складність соціальних відносин у сучасному суспільстві підвищила увагу до питання справедливості. Ми стоїмо перед необхідністю, опираючись на позитивні тенденції минулого, відкинути все застаріле і здійснити реальні кроки на шляху модернізації суспільства. Тому варто надати йому форм, що відповідають сучасним об'єктивним інтересам народу. Ось чому сьогодні особливо актуальною є проблема справедливості. Однак потрібно враховувати, що ідеї та ідеали справедливості, як і всі інші, глибоко історичні. У них органічно поєднане те, що минає і неминуче, мінливе і стійке. Простежуючи історичний розвиток цих ідей, не можна пройти повз їх трактування у філософській творчості Сократа, Платона, Аристотеля. Уперше в історії суспільної думки Сократ поставив питання про раціональне пізнання принципу справедливості, а не про прийняття на віру якоїсь загальної істини, освяченої віковими традиціями. Ця істина – плід інтенсивної роботи розуму і серця. До неї треба дістатися. Її потрібно відкрити, а це до снаги лише мудрецеві. Аристотель зазначав, що уявлення про справедливість мають усі люди. Однак усі сприймають її по-різному.Мірило гідності та чеснот не всі бачать в одному і тому ж: громадяни демократичного суспільства бачать йогоу свободі, олігархи – у багатстві, аристократи – у доблесті і славі тощо. Звідси випливає, що розподільна справедливість не може мати універсальний характер, а залежить від суспільного устрою і від панівної системи соціальних цінностей. Стверджуючи зв'язок між чеснотою і мудрістю, звеличуючи красу розуму, свідомості, захищаючи ідею доцільності, Сократ, Платон, Аристотель у такий спосіб логічно довели суть та основи розуміння справедливості. Можнастверджувати, що вони заклали «наріжні камені» у фундамент європейської традиції філософського та соціологічного розроблення цієї життєво важливої проблеми.
In the article Human rights as a science, that the system of legal knowledge, concepts and doctrines about the origin, development and present state of human capabilities, rather booming in recent years in Ukraine. This is a change in relation to the rights of the state, the recognition of human highest social value, which interest shall be subject to all state system, and the system of government bodies. However, human rights – a problem that did not arise recently, a problem common historical, social and cultural development of all humanity.Modern catalog of human rights, which is fixed in international legal documents reproduced in the national legislation of States – the result of historical development of standards and standards that have become the norm of modern democratic society. There is every reason to believe that the whole historical development of mankind is associated with changes in ideas about human rights. The cultural progress of society in general is impossible if it does not introduce anything new in the status of a person if the person does not get with each new stage of development more freedom. Even if the law is limited class, but they still expanding from one socio-historical formation to another. As some authors rightly point out, the ancient servant is more free than the original savage medieval fortress freer servant bourgeois society created the conditions for a formal freedom of all members of society, and this can not but agree.Before modern scholars is the problem of further development of ideas, views that have been accumulating for centuries and millennia. However, modern approach to human rights is impossible without careful study of the historical aspects of the formation and development of human rights and freedoms.The primitive system mistakenly believe the "golden period of mankind", which supposedly there is complete freedom and individual rights are not breached. Since I can not agree because that would break if human understanding and as such did not exist. The primitive system characterized by so-called "mononorm", ie rules which can not be classified as rules of religion, morality and common law – a rule are formed on the basis of habits that caused reasonableness of certain conduct which is useful to the individual only in extent that it is useful for family, tribe. These rules have never given the advantages of one over the other member of the genus, ie conventional fixed "original equality", but the essence of equality is the lack of freedom, as the person fully absorbed by society, individual livelihoods rather rigidly regulated. In "mononorm" right kind of membership represented a downside duties as the original individual had separated, enlightened self-interest, other than the interests of the family. Therefore, during the primitive community can talk only about the presence of certain mythological ideas about man and his rights.The beginning of theoretical concepts and research associated with the name of Socrates, who defended the principles of individual freedom and autonomous individual. These ideas found their continuation in the works and rethinking his pupil Plato, who said: "Justice is that every man and made his way that no one was a stranger and did not lose her." Plato's views were too radical even, given the project its ideal state in which there is no private property and division of people into slaves and free, and it went further and for the first time recognized the equality of men and women. In terms of the idea of equality views of Plato were certainly progressive, however, against the strictly organized public life was lost the idea of self-worth and uniqueness of the individual.The idea of forming a coherent philosophical concepts about man, his rights and freedom belongs to Aristotle, who argued that man – this being a political, social. He was developing fundamental categories, concepts that form the basis of modern thinking. First, the doctrine of distributive justice – which includes the distribution of all benefits for people of their ability, in proportion to the contribution to the common cause urivnyuyuchu and fairness when it comes to equality before the law, equality between equals (the issue of crime and punishment, reparation , civil agreement). This principle is almost unchanged as the basis of most modern legal systems. Really, can not be completely equal to each other, people with different levels of education or with regard to their health status, age, and therefore if anything distribution (power, rewards) are taken into account their personal characteristics and abilities, but when it comes to protect their natural rights, they should be the same for all. ; В статье анализируются права человека как наука, то есть как система юридических знаний, концепций о возникновении, развитии и современном состоянии возможностей человека, что обусловлено сменой отношения к нему со стороны государства, признанием человека наивысшей социальной ценностью, интересам которой должен подчиняться весь государственный строй, система и деятельность органов власти. Обозначено, что права человека – это проблема общего исторического, социального и культурного развития всего человечества. ; У статті аналізуються права людини як наука, тобто як система юридичних знань, концепцій і доктрин про виникнення, розвиток і сучасний стан можливостей людини, що зумовлено зміною відношення до неї з боку держави, визнання людини найвищою соціальною цінністю, інтересам якої повинен підпорядковуватися весь державний устрій, система та діяльність органів влади. Зазначено, що права людини – це проблема загального історичного, соціального та культурного розвитку всього людства.
The article is devoted to the research of scientific approaches to defining the essence of fairness and its normative fixing as a category of criminal procedural law. It is found that in philosophical studies distinguish formal, substantive and procedural justice. In philosophy of law distinguishes: fairness as equality of opportunity, fairness distributive and revengeful fairness. In criminal proceedings fairness is used in such contextual meanings: as the purpose (task) of criminal proceedings, as the principle of criminal proceedings, as a subjective right to a fair trial, as a requirement to a judicial decision, as an accordance of punishment, as a requirement to the characteristic of a jury. It is substantiated that the fairness of criminal proceedings is both its purpose and its task. Fairness is that reference point, to achieve which criminal proceeding is initiated, and the task of criminal proceedings is to follow a fair procedure. It is determined that the general law principle of fairness extends to criminal procedural law, taking on its own specificity, due to the peculiarities of criminal procedural relations. Fairness is a separate and self-sufficient principle of criminal proceedings. It is established that the subject of criminal procedural regulation is the fairness of the criminal procedural form, not punishment. It is substantiated that in the criminal procedural legislation fairness is applied in the following meanings: as a moral and ethical requirement for the characteristics of a person, as a requirement of substantive law (justice of punishment appointed by a court), as a requirement to the procedural form (compliance with the fair procedure of processual actions and making procedural decisions). Fairness as a requirement to a procedural form is also multidimensional: it is the purpose (task) of criminal proceedings, the principle of criminal proceedings, and the procedural right of a person (right to a fair trial). ; Стаття присвячена дослідженню наукових підходів до визначення сутності справедливості та її нормативного закріплення як категорії кримінального процесуального права. З'ясовано, що у філософських дослідженнях виділяють формальну, змістову й процедурну справедливість. У філософії права розрізняють справедливість як рівність можливостей, справедливість розподільчу та справедливість відплатну. У кримінальному процесі справедливість уживається в таких контекстних значення: як мета (завдання) кримінального провадження, як засада кримінального провадження, як суб'єктивне право на справедливий судовий розгляд, як вимога до судового рішення, як відповідність покарання, як вимога до характеристики присяжного. Обґрунтовано, що справедливість кримінального провадження є як його метою, так і завданням. Справедливість є тим орієнтиром, задля досягнення якого розпочинається кримінальне провадження, а завданням кримінального провадження є дотримання справедливої процедури. Визначено, що загальноправовий принцип справедливості поширюється на кримінальне процесуальне право, набуваючи своєї специфіки, зумовленої особливостями кримінальних процесуальних правовідносин. Справедливість є окремою та самодостатньою засадою кримінального провадження. Установлено, що предметом кримінального процесуального регулювання є справедливість кримінальної процесуальної форми, а не покарання. Обґрунтовано, що в кримінальному процесуальному законодавстві справедливість уживається в таких значеннях: як морально-етична вимога до характеристики особи, як вимога матеріального права (справедливість покарання, що призначається судом), як вимога до процесуальної форми (дотримання справедливої процедури проведення процесуальних дій і прийняття процесуальних рішень). Справедливість як вимога до процесуальної форми також є багатоаспектною: є метою (завданням) кримінального провадження, засадою кримінального провадження та процесуальним правом особи (право на справедливий судовий розгляд).
Problem setting. According to the key principles of new public management and good governance, the practice of implementation of various types of public policy (for example, social policy, development policies, etc.) imply the understanding of the notion of power in a broader sense, covering the entire spectrum of activities of actors and stakeholders, involved in tangible public policy. In this regard, from the 1950's, the division of public policy and politics as a political struggle for power has become central to the United States and Western Europe.Recent research and publications analysis. The main approaches to public policy analysis are: a) rationalist approach, within which theory of rational choice, theory of games and stages models have been used; b) interpretive approach (policy networks, theory of social constructivism, theory of competing coalitions); c) critical approach (critical theory, theory of distributive of justice, theory of power and conflict). From last decades of the 20th century the analysis of public policy transferred to postpositivist, interpretivist, and social constructionist discourses.Highlighting previously unsettled parts of the general problem. The essential part of public policy is to explain the emergence of new forms of governing and to propose for government systemic actions regarding new public issues important for society. Influencing its meaning public policy includes three main components: public interest, public morality and public security. Each of them requires separate methods to analyze functioning and effectiveness of the implementation of concrete type of public policy. Active search for Ukrainian model of public administration and policy estimates to consider more closely the evolution of "public policy" concept in the Anglo-Saxon tradition and its components, which could be essential to adopt in Ukrainian tradition.Paper main body. Public policies vary in cultural, economic, political, systemic and institutional levels in different countries. In scientific literature still the main principles and ideas, dealing with public policy and public administration, have the origin from Anglo-Saxon tradition. Moreover in English language there are many concepts and terms related to public policy, translation of which into other languages causes broad scientific debates. This could be explained by several centuries of usage history and value implies of the term "public policy", which refers to the tradition of English common law and such contemporary concepts as government, administration, governance, policies.Public policy as a separate from politics discipline began to be established in the United States from the 1950's. In the 1970 – 80's the subject field, main objectives, methods of research had caused a broad discussion among scientists of the second generation and led to the appearance of different approaches and theories ("top-down", "bottom-up", and hybrid). During this period searching optimal models of public policy in Anglo-Saxon tradition shifted to the sphere of public management and administration, where the basic are such economic principles as efficiency, accountability, span of control. The crucial component of public policy as a science was its practical value, the capacity to respond to social changes. Actually these issues, as well as the inclusion of different actors in the process of adoption and implementation, analysis and evaluation of specific public policy programs, were the main objectives of the third generation of scholars in the late 80 – 90's of the 20th century.Conclusions of the research and prospects for further studies. From the beginning of the 21st century global changes in the role of government and state institutions led to the search for effective models of interaction between current key actors and institutions. The harmonization of different value systems is one of the central issues for constructing the effective model of public policy, where the actors from three sectors (government, business, and civil society) can act together. ; Досліджено ціннісно-смислові особливості формування публічної політики в англосаксонській традиції. Зазначено, що історичний контекст англосаксонської традиції слововжитку терміна "публічна політика" пов'язаний із англійською системою прецедентного права, однак публічна політика як окрема наукова дисципліна почала формуватись у 50-х рр. ХХ ст. Наголошено на тому, що для вітчизняних пошуків української моделі публічної політики важливим джерелом є осмислення англосаксонської традиції, етапів її формування та їх відмінностей, а також врахування сучасних глобальних умов творення нових типів публічних політик із широким колом суб'єктів.
Problem setting. According to the key principles of new public management and good governance, the practice of implementation of various types of public policy (for example, social policy, development policies, etc.) imply the understanding of the notion of power in a broader sense, covering the entire spectrum of activities of actors and stakeholders, involved in tangible public policy. In this regard, from the 1950's, the division of public policy and politics as a political struggle for power has become central to the United States and Western Europe.Recent research and publications analysis. The main approaches to public policy analysis are: a) rationalist approach, within which theory of rational choice, theory of games and stages models have been used; b) interpretive approach (policy networks, theory of social constructivism, theory of competing coalitions); c) critical approach (critical theory, theory of distributive of justice, theory of power and conflict). From last decades of the 20th century the analysis of public policy transferred to postpositivist, interpretivist, and social constructionist discourses.Highlighting previously unsettled parts of the general problem. The essential part of public policy is to explain the emergence of new forms of governing and to propose for government systemic actions regarding new public issues important for society. Influencing its meaning public policy includes three main components: public interest, public morality and public security. Each of them requires separate methods to analyze functioning and effectiveness of the implementation of concrete type of public policy. Active search for Ukrainian model of public administration and policy estimates to consider more closely the evolution of "public policy" concept in the Anglo-Saxon tradition and its components, which could be essential to adopt in Ukrainian tradition.Paper main body. Public policies vary in cultural, economic, political, systemic and institutional levels in different countries. In scientific literature still the main principles and ideas, dealing with public policy and public administration, have the origin from Anglo-Saxon tradition. Moreover in English language there are many concepts and terms related to public policy, translation of which into other languages causes broad scientific debates. This could be explained by several centuries of usage history and value implies of the term "public policy", which refers to the tradition of English common law and such contemporary concepts as government, administration, governance, policies.Public policy as a separate from politics discipline began to be established in the United States from the 1950's. In the 1970 – 80's the subject field, main objectives, methods of research had caused a broad discussion among scientists of the second generation and led to the appearance of different approaches and theories ("top-down", "bottom-up", and hybrid). During this period searching optimal models of public policy in Anglo-Saxon tradition shifted to the sphere of public management and administration, where the basic are such economic principles as efficiency, accountability, span of control. The crucial component of public policy as a science was its practical value, the capacity to respond to social changes. Actually these issues, as well as the inclusion of different actors in the process of adoption and implementation, analysis and evaluation of specific public policy programs, were the main objectives of the third generation of scholars in the late 80 – 90's of the 20th century.Conclusions of the research and prospects for further studies. From the beginning of the 21st century global changes in the role of government and state institutions led to the search for effective models of interaction between current key actors and institutions. The harmonization of different value systems is one of the central issues for constructing the effective model of public policy, where the actors from three sectors (government, business, and civil society) can act together. ; Досліджено ціннісно-смислові особливості формування публічної політики в англосаксонській традиції. Зазначено, що історичний контекст англосаксонської традиції слововжитку терміна "публічна політика" пов'язаний із англійською системою прецедентного права, однак публічна політика як окрема наукова дисципліна почала формуватись у 50-х рр. ХХ ст. Наголошено на тому, що для вітчизняних пошуків української моделі публічної політики важливим джерелом є осмислення англосаксонської традиції, етапів її формування та їх відмінностей, а також врахування сучасних глобальних умов творення нових типів публічних політик із широким колом суб'єктів.
