CONTENT AND DIRECTION ON THE HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF LAW AND THE STATE ACCORDING TO MAXYM KOVALEVSKY

Abstract

Introduction. The article is dedicated to a comprehensive analysis of the scientific heritage of Maksym Maksymovych Kovalevsky (1851-1916), a prominent social scientist, within the context of the historiosophy and sociology of law. The relevance of the study is driven by the need to overcome the ambiguity of the sociological tradition in modern Ukrainian legal discourse, as well as the necessity to deconstruct imperial myths regarding the "appropriation" of the scientist's persona by Russian science. The purpose of the article is to characterize the content of legal development through the prism of Kovalevsky's sociological theory, highlighting his unique views on law as a socio-cultural phenomenon. The work employs methods of systemic analysis, the comparative-historical method. The author's scientific approach allows for tracing the connection between European positivism and original Ukrainian legal thought of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

Summary of Research Results. As a result of the analysis, it is established that M. Kovalevsky was one of the founders of the sociological variety of positivism, which radically differed from the legalistic-dogmatic approach. His teaching is based on the concept of genetic sociology, which views law as an inseparable social product that originates simultaneously with the first social unions, predating the emergence of the state. The central category in the scientist's theory is social solidarity. Unlike the Marxist theory of class struggle, Kovalevsky saw social solidarity as the primary driving force of social progress. The author proves that for Kovalevsky, law is the normative expression of solidarity. The scientist criticized the metaphysical doctrines of natural law, considering them detached from practice, while simultaneously rejecting the absolute power of the state in creating legal norms. The article details the transformation of the categories of "justice," "freedom," and "human rights" within Kovalevsky's system. Justice is interpreted not as an absolute idea, but as a shifting requirement of social solidarity that evolves along with the environment. Freedom is viewed as a condition for the development of individual autonomy, which does not contradict solidarity but is a necessary element of modern constitutionalism. Particular attention is paid to the scientist's contribution to comparative law and his influence on global science.

Conclusions. Summarizing, the author emphasizes the objectivist nature of M. Kovalevsky's theory, where law appears as a product of sociogenesis rather than merely state will or an abstract ideal. It is proven that the concept of social solidarity allowed the scientist to justify an evolutionary path of social development as an alternative to revolutionary upheavals. Law in this context acts as the main regulator ensuring the transition from a primitive "herd" to civilized citizenship. Kovalevsky's heritage, imbued with the Ukrainian cultural-identity code and European intellectualism, remains a fundamental basis for the development of modern philosophy of law and sociological jurisprudence in Ukraine.