Organizational and Legal Grounds for the Activities of the Prikaz System of Central Government in Russia (Late 15th — First Half of the 16th Century)

Abstract

The paper presents an author’s analysis of the organizational and legal basis of the prikaz system that was formed in the Russian state at the end of the 15th — first half of the 16th centuries. In the period under review, the previously existing palace and patrimonial system of organs, aimed at solving the applied tasks of ensuring the management of the princely court, but assuming the presence of boyar estates, could no longer effectively respond to the challenges the state faced. There was a need for centralized state control and management bodies. Prikazes were such bodies. At the same time, the level of development of law made it possible to give both the prikaz system itself and its functioning normative features. The sources of that time not only mention certain bodies and positions, but also establish the foundations of their legal status: a place in the system of government and administration, rights, obligations, responsibility. Of course, such a consolidation, that was fundamentally different from the previous approach to this issue, at the end of the 15th — the first half of the 16th century was not systemic and comprehensive. At the same time, it is obvious that it had already taken shape. The authors considered the signs of the origin of legal regulation of both the organizational structure of prikazes and the procedure for their functioning. According to the results of the study, it is concluded that at the end of the 15th — the first half of the 16th century organizational and legal foundations of the prikaz system of the Russian state had already begun to form on the basis of key regulations of that time — the Judicial Code of 1497 and the Judicial Code of 1550. Acting under the control of the sovereign, the prikaz system acted as the core in the management of the united state. The fundamentals of the functioning of orders laid down by the legislator provided effective leadership and a systematic approach to solving domestic problems.