The constitution as an instrument for achieving a balance of economic interests and ensuring economic solidarity

Abstract

Introduction. The article discusses one of the important problems of modern constitutional economics, namely the role of the constitution as an important tool for achieving a balance of economic interests and ensuring economic solidarity. The author substantiates the opinion that the constitution enshrines economic solidarity as one of the constitutional values or foundations of the constitutional order. At the same time, solidarity is not only a moral category, but also a legal one, placing the corresponding obligations on the participants of social relations.

Summary of the main results of the study. A reference to the practice of world constitutionalism shows that many constitutions do refer to solidarity and explicitly recognize solidarity as a protected principle or value. They also encompass diverse and different conceptions of solidarity that arise from different histories of states, social conditions, culture, perceptions of national identity, etc.

How can the recognition of solidarity as a constitutional value be justified? The answer lies in the relationship between solidarity, constitutionalism and justice. Solidarity is essential to the promotion of just societies, especially with regard to the existence of mutual obligations and the universal application of such obligations in society. Constitutions also seek to lay the foundations for just societies. However, countries differ on the type of justice that constitutions are supposed to provide.

Constitutional law can and should strengthen multi-level solidarity. After all, first of all, within the state, constitutional solidarity must be applied to ensure inclusive and equal protection of all citizens. Secondly, constitutional solidarity can be a source not only of intra-state, limited solidarity, but also of solidarity outside the borders of the state. In this regard, constitutional law can serve as a basic source of transnational, cosmopolitan solidarity.

Conclusion. It is reasonable to conclude that many constitutions that proclaim solidarity as a value or principle refer to more than one type or aspect of solidarity. Constitutions may contain general references to solidarity alongside references to transnational solidarity as well as intra-state solidarity.

The presence of different ideas about constitutional solidarity, as well as the existence of more than one type of solidarity within the framework of one constitution, indicates that constitutions can serve as a basis not only for intra-state solidarity, but also for transnational solidarity, and, more importantly, complex, multifunctional, i.e. multi-level solidarity. Like many constitutional terms, the function that solidarity can fulfill depends on the way it is interpreted and, more importantly, on the way and cases in which it is applied. However, a clear constitutional enshrinement of solidarity as a value is important both formally and substantively, as a value that judges can refer to when interpreting or evaluating national constitutions and existing legislation.