Positive (state) law as a consequence of natural inalienable human rights

Abstract

The article reveals the problem of the relationship between positive (state) law and natural inalienable human rights. It is emphasized that consideration of this problem is impossible without recourse to the main types of legal understanding. Due to the long-term dominance of the Legist doctrine in our legal sphere, many current lawyers continue to think in accordance with its guidelines, ideas, stereotypes, and so on. One such stereotype that needs to be dispelled is the perception of positive law as primary in relation to human rights. In this study, we highlight the problem of the secondary nature of state power and law in relation to man and his inalienable rights. It is shown that from the standpoint of the Legist doctrine, where the key principle is the principle of identity of law and legislation, the monopoly of the state and law in law is asserted, the distinction between law and legal norm becomes impossible. The principle of the identity of law and legal norm, consolidating the state-monopoly of power in law, thus elevates the state over man, the law, which has no legal essence, over law. In contrast to this approach, in the context of the natural-legal paradigm, the distinction between law and legal norm is possible, the primacy and certainty of man and law in relation to the state and law is asserted. It is in this type of legal understanding that the central category is the category of natural law, which is thought of as a set of fundamental principles, the origins of which in human existence, which reflect the most important connections of this existence, must be universally binding. Recognized inalienable human rights are positive by the state authorities, that is, they legislate in accordance with the requirements of the rule of law, the origins of which are in natural law doctrine. If these requirements are met, people and society receive legal legislation as an expression of the unity of legal content and legal form. It is proved that state law is a consequence of natural inalienable human rights.