Kudryavtsev in the legal conflict. Legal conflictology (Kudryavtsev V.N.)

(Document)

n1.doc

Chapter I. NATURE OF CONFLICTS

Chapter III. TYPES OF LEGAL CONFLICTS

Chapter IV. CONFLICT RESOLUTION AND PREVENTION

Ed. V.N. Kudryavtseva
The monograph is devoted to a new direction in science, lying at the intersection of sociology, psychology and jurisprudence. It examines the nature and mechanisms of conflicts, their types, as well as legal means of resolving and preventing them. Designed for conflict specialists, sociologists and lawyers, as well as a wide range of readers.
The monograph was written by a team of authors: Boykov O. V. (§ 27), Ph.D. legal Sciences Varlamova N.N. (§ 22), corresponding member. RAS Dmitriev A.V. (§§ 1, 3, 6, 21, 32), Doctor of Law. Sciences Dubovik O. L. (§ 17), Doctor of Law. Sciences Kazimirchuk V.P. (§§ 22, 31), Ph.D. legal Sciences Kotelevskaya I.V. (§ 23), Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences Kudryavtsev V.N. (Preface, §§ 1-5, 7-9, 11, 21, 32), Ph.D. psychol. Sciences Kudryavtsev S.V. (§§ 2-5, 7, 8, 18, 21, 32), Doctor of Law. Sciences Larin A. M. (§§ 19, 29), Ph.D. legal Sciences Levansky V.A. (§ 10), Doctor of Law. Sciences Obolonsky A.V. (§ 14), Doctor of Law. Sciences Skakunov E.I. (§§20, 30), Doctor of Law. Sciences Smirnov V.V. (§ 13), Doctor of Law. Sciences Tikhomirov Yu. A. (§§ 13, 26), Ph.D. legal Sciences Chernysheva S. A. (§ 16), Ph.D. legal Sciences Chekharin V.I. (§§ 24, 25), Doctor of Law. Sciences Shugaev A. A. (§ 15), Doctor of Law. Sciences Yakovlev V.F. (§ 28).
Executive editor Academician V. N. KUDRYAVTSEV.
PREFACE

Conflict: what could be more characteristic of our time?
Social conflicts have become our reality Everyday life. Miners' strikes, confrontation between political leaders and parties, interethnic and regional feuds, and "showdowns" of the underworld excite people almost every day, raising new problems of state and public life. We “fight” conflicts tirelessly, but they are growing. The ongoing reorganization of economic, political and legal institutions has not yet had a noticeable impact on changing the trends towards exacerbation of various conflicts, especially in the current crisis situation.
One of the reasons for this situation is the country’s unpreparedness to overcome crisis situations, including conflict situations. Conflict-free model development of society, which dominated until the end of the 80s, made state leadership on various levels helpless in the face of the crisis. Not least of all, the lack of development of the conflict theory itself, and the lack of relevant experience, affected it. For practitioners, in particular, the relationship between values ​​in the “conflict - agreement” dichotomy remains unclear, although historical experience proves that society ensures orderliness in the life of the population only through agreement, through the achievement of mutual understanding and recognition.
Studying the problems of conflict and harmony requires fundamental efforts by scientists of various specialties. In the West, for many decades, especially at the end of the 20th century, this scientific direction has received thorough development. Hundreds of books have been written about conflicts and ways to resolve them; journals, abstracts and collections of articles are systematically published. There is every reason to talk about the creation of an independent comprehensive science of conflictology, the subject of which is the study of the nature, causes, mechanisms of conflicts in human society, as well as the development of ways to prevent and resolve them. But in our country this science has not yet been developed, although many works on conflicts and ways to resolve them have already been published in Russian.
It is quite clear that conflictology, like any discipline, is closely related to related sciences, draws a lot from them and, in turn, enriches them. This is, first of all, sociology and social psychology, with which conflictology has much in common, since it studies, like the named sciences, relationships between people. Further, this is a story that provides rich food for thought about the reasons for human actions. It's finally political science , economy, ethnology and other social sciences that specify the nature, mechanisms of development and consequences of conflicts of various kinds. Such sciences also include jurisprudence and state science, which study legal forms human interaction, be it cooperation, peaceful coexistence, opposition or struggle.
It should be noted that the synthesis of conflictological problems with the provisions of legal science is of particular interest. The fact is that many social conflicts occur in the sphere of legal relations, are generated by legal situations, and then resolved by legal means. Law enforcement agencies devote a significant part of their activities to the investigation, review, prevention and resolution of conflicts. Therefore, there is a ripe need to develop a discipline that could be called legal conflictology and would be devoted to the consideration of these issues.
By this discipline we mean a section (direction) of general conflictology, the subject of which is the study of conflicts that arise, develop and are resolved within the framework of internal (national) or international law.
It is known that conflicts in human society occur at different levels: individual and group, ethnic, interstate, etc. The peculiarity of a legal conflict is that at each of these levels it is associated with the execution (implementation) or violation of certain rules of law and, accordingly, the emergence, change or termination of legal relations between individuals or legal entities.
Since the legal system of any country, as well as the norms of international law, are sanctioned and protected by the state (or the international community), a legal conflict often involves not two (conflicting) parties, but three: there is also the state represented by law enforcement agencies, early or late involved in the development, resolution or prevention of conflict.
An important aspect of legal conflictology is connected with this: this branch of knowledge, therefore, studies not only the nature, causes and dynamics of the development of legal conflicts, but also the legal mechanisms for their prevention and resolution. Society and the state create and use a number of mechanisms: court, arbitration, parliamentary procedures, etc., designed to reconcile conflicting parties or force an end to their confrontation. Legal means of resolving and preventing conflicts are effective tools for defusing domestic and international tensions.
All these issues are discussed in this book.

Chapter I. NATURE OF CONFLICTS

§ I. CONCEPT AND FUNCTIONS OF CONFLICT

1. The concept of conflict.
This concept in scientific literature, as well as in journalism, is ambiguous. There are many definitions of the term “conflict”. The most general approach to defining conflict is to define it through contradiction as a more general concept, and above all through social contradiction.
It is well known that the development of any society is difficult process, which occurs on the basis of the origin, development and resolution of objective contradictions. While paying lip service to this, the dominant Marxist theory for decades essentially did not apply this to our society. It is known that one of the ideals of socialism is the absence of class conflicts. Back in the late 30s, a number of authors came up with the idea of ​​“conflict-free” development of a socialist society, the absence of antagonistic contradictions in it. This idea was most fully presented in the thesis about the complete correspondence of production relations under socialism to the nature of the productive forces.
Later, however, it was recognized that this correspondence manifests itself only when the contradictions are united by the prevailing unity of the two opposing sides. Conformity was presented as a certain stage in the development of contradiction, when the opposites are still united within the framework of unity. Most philosophers searching for the main contradiction of socialism considered it to be the contradiction between productive forces and production relations, sometimes between production and consumption, old and new, etc.
One way or another, the problem of contradictions has, to a certain extent, been developed in our literature. However, the same cannot be said about conflict theory; essentially no attention was paid to her. Meanwhile, contradictions and conflict, on the one hand, cannot be considered as synonyms, and on the other hand, cannot be opposed to each other. Contradictions, opposites, differences are necessary but not sufficient conditions for conflict. Opposites and contradictions turn into conflict when the forces that bear them begin to interact. Thus, a conflict is a manifestation of objective or subjective contradictions, expressed in the confrontation of the parties.
It is necessary to add that in society we are not talking about abstract forces, not about cosmic or other natural phenomena, and especially not about imaginary phenomena (fate, the devil, unidentified objects), but about social subjects: specific people, be they individuals, groups, social strata, political parties or states.
We are talking about social conflict in this book, meaning the process in which two (or more) individuals or groups actively seek to prevent each other from achieving a certain goal, to prevent the satisfaction of a rival's interests, or to change his views and social positions. By analogy, the term “conflict” can seem to be extended to many things, even the struggle with inanimate objects (the struggle for existence, for example). But in a social conflict, all parties are represented by people. Social conflict is usually understood as that type of confrontation in which the parties seek to seize territory or resources, threaten opposing individuals or groups, their property or culture in such a way that the struggle takes the form of attack or defense. Social conflict also includes the activity of an individual or groups blocking the functioning of the enemy or causing harm to other people (groups). Note that the problem of conflict also uses terms such as disputes, debates, bargaining, rivalry and controlled battles, indirect and direct violence. Many researchers associate conflict with large-scale, historical changes.
In other words, we will not consider here, for example, the “conflict” of society with nature or the “conflict” of a person with himself. In these cases, there are undoubtedly contradictions, but for such situations we put the word “conflict” in quotation marks because it is inadequate to the idea of ​​conflict that is developed in this book.
So, social conflict always requires at least two opposing parties. Their actions are usually aimed at achieving mutually exclusive interests and, therefore, collide. All conflicts are characterized by strong tension, which prompts people to change their behavior in one way or another, adapt, or “protect themselves” from the given situation.
In the domestic scientific literature, the most full definition social conflict, in our opinion, was given by E.M. Babosov: “Social conflict (from the Latin conflictus - clash) is an extreme case of aggravation of social contradictions, expressed in the clash of various social communities - classes, nations, states, social groups, social institutions etc., due to the opposition or significant difference in their interests, goals, development trends. A social conflict develops and is resolved in a specific social situation in connection with the emergence of a problem requiring resolution social problem. It has very specific causes, its social bearers (classes, nations, social groups, etc.), has certain functions, duration and degree of severity.”
True, this definition, while capturing the main essence of the matter, does not reflect all the features of the conflict - its psychologism in particular. This feature can also be seen in the work of Yu. G. Zaprudsky “Social Conflict”, which says: “Social conflict is an explicit or hidden state of confrontation between objectively divergent interests, goals and development trends of social subjects, a direct and indirect clash of social forces based on opposition to the existing public order, a special form of historical movement towards a new social unity.” What is said is generally true, but too broad. There was no room for everyday, family, labor conflicts - in a word, conflicts more " low level" And they should not be ignored. Let us give another definition due to T.V. Novikova. Social conflict is “a situation when the parties (subjects) of interaction pursue some of their goals that contradict or mutually exclude each other.” Here, as you can see, the personal, psychological aspect is emphasized first of all.
When studying various spheres of public life, researchers usually use the so-called conflictological approach. This approach to political research, for example, focuses on political processes in terms of competition between individuals and groups over values ​​that have political significance, i.e. processes within political system. IN international politics The conflictological approach is, from our point of view, the main one. This approach is also possible in jurisprudence, when a crime is considered as a result of a conflict between people, the mechanism of its occurrence is traced. The conflict continues in the trial (the accused and his defense attorney, on the one hand, the prosecutor, on the other). These problems will be discussed in detail below.
At the end of this section, it is necessary to mention phenomena close to conflict, such as competition, rivalry, competition. In principle, in these cases there is also a confrontation between the parties. However, as a rule, it is not aggravated to the point of hostility or, even if such hostility does occur (for example, in competition), it does not turn into mutual actions that interfere with the legitimate behavior of the other party. Everyone acts “on their own field”, striving to achieve success and thereby hurt the enemy. But the actions of the parties are positive, they strive for their own maximum success; suppressing the enemy is not an end in itself for them. This, of course, does not exclude the emergence of a conflict during the listed “peaceful” actions. Thus, conflict and competition, for example, are not identical, but competition can develop into conflict. This also applies to competition, in which rivals can turn to direct pressure on each other.
A special case are games, including sports. Some of them are intended as conflict (for example, boxing). However, it is obvious that, in essence, we are talking about simulating a conflict. When the game ends, so does the “conflict” relationship. Hostility between players of different teams that remains after a competition is the exception rather than the rule; it is by no means encouraged in sports.
2. Borders of the conflict.
In order to more accurately understand the nature of the conflict and its difference from related phenomena, it is necessary to determine the boundaries of the conflict, i.e. its outer limits in space and time. Let's start with an everyday example. Ivan Ivanovich, believing that his neighbor in the garden plot had unfairly taken away part of his garden plot, decided to “teach the offender a lesson” and collect part of the tomato harvest from his plot. He told his wife about his plan, who promptly dissuaded him from his planned actions. Was there a conflict here, did it begin or has it already ended? What are its spatial boundaries and who are the participants? These issues, not so important in the case of a neighbor’s quarrel, develop into major political and legal problems, as soon as we move on, for example, to interstate or interethnic relations concerning boundaries. And in interpersonal conflicts, attention should be paid to such issues, since almost any conflict under certain conditions can become serious.
Three aspects of determining the boundaries of a conflict can be distinguished: spatial, temporal and intrasystemic.
The spatial boundaries of the conflict are determined by the territory on which the conflict occurs. It is clear that this territory can be very different, ranging from minimal space (for example, living space) to everything the globe. Various-scale examples: a quarrel in the kitchen - and World War. A clear definition of the spatial boundaries of the conflict is important mainly in international relations, which is closely related to the problem of the parties to the conflict. In our recent history, a similar task arose repeatedly during interethnic conflicts in Nagorno-Karabakh, Transnistria, Tajikistan, the North Caucasus and other places where it was necessary to clearly define the territorial boundaries of the conflict zone in order to implement preventive measures.
Time boundaries are the duration of the conflict, its beginning and end. In particular, the legal assessment of the actions of its participants at a given point in time depends on whether the conflict is considered to have begun, continues or has already ended. This is especially important in order to correctly assess the role of those newly joining the conflict.
The beginning of a conflict, from our point of view, is determined by objective (external) acts of behavior directed against another participant (the conflicting party), provided that the latter recognizes these acts as directed against him and counters them. This somewhat complicated formula means that for a conflict to be recognized as having begun, at least three matching conditions are required:
1) the first participant consciously and actively acts to the detriment of the other participant (i.e. his opponent); Moreover, by actions we understand both physical movements and the transfer of information ( spoken word, print, television, etc.);
2) the second participant (enemy) realizes that these actions are directed against his interests;
3) in connection with this, he himself takes active retaliatory actions directed against the first participant. From this moment we can consider that the conflict began.
The above means that there is no conflict if only one participant acts or the participants perform only mental operations (planning behavior, thinking about the enemy’s course of action, predicting the course of a future conflict, etc.).
In fact, actions, even if aggressive, of only one side, which the other side does not claim, cannot yet be called a conflict. Perhaps the intended enemy recognizes these actions as correct; Perhaps he is afraid to antagonize the first participant and obeys him, or he is guided by some other considerations. The main thing is that he does not take any action against the first subject. But in this case there is no conflict as a confrontation between the parties.
Mental actions, which are not expressed physically in any way externally, are not an element of the conflict that has begun, which is understood as an actual, and not an imaginary, confrontation between the parties. In the previous example, Ivan Ivanovich, who was planning revenge on his garden neighbor, had not yet started the conflict, but was only planning it. Opposite positions are not yet a conflict. It arises when the parties begin to actively oppose each other in pursuit of their goals.
What has been said, however, is not contradicted by the identification of the latent (hidden) stage of conflict development proposed by some experts, or more precisely, the one preceding the onset of the conflict, which includes planning of future operations and preparation for them. Isolating this stage is essential for the analysis of major conflicts international importance(eg planning for war). Having approved the “Barbarossa Plan” in 1940, which provided for an attack on the USSR, Hitler had not yet unleashed a military conflict between the USSR and Germany, but entered its latent stage; The beginning of the open conflict, as is known, was June 22, 1941.
Of course, conflict as a confrontation between parties in international relations is not limited to military actions. There may be a diplomatic conflict, trade, border, political, which is not resolved by violent means. However, under all conditions, we are talking about confrontation between the parties, i.e. about mutual actions (even verbal ones). Thus, conflict always begins as two-way (or multi-way) behavior. As a rule, it is preceded by the actions of one of the parties, which makes it possible in most cases to determine the instigator of the conflict.
Thus, it was not difficult to identify the instigator in the conflict between Iraq and Kuwait in 1991. The aggressive role of Iraq, which launched an unprovoked attack on a neighboring country, received a negative assessment from the United Nations and the entire world community.
It is more difficult to say who was the instigator of the numerous interethnic conflicts that took place in the 90s on the territory of our country - Russia and other Commonwealth states. The lack of clarity of initial steps, the confusion of response actions, mutual accusations, biased information - all this delays the development of the conflict and hinders it. its quick and painless cessation prevents the identification of the real culprits.
The end of the conflict is ambiguous. The conflict may be resolved (for example, reconciliation of the parties), but may end due to one of the parties withdrawing from the conflict or its destruction (during a war or during the commission of a crime). Finally, it is possible to suppress development and end the conflict as a result of the intervention of third parties. This is how in a number of cases so-called criminal conflicts end. Practice international relations increasingly uses third forces to suppress interethnic conflicts (deployment of UN troops, diplomatic mediation, etc.). These methods, as is known, began to be used in our country and the CIS countries.
Thus, the end of the conflict should be considered the cessation of actions of all warring parties, regardless of the reason for which this takes place.
Let us now consider the intrasystem aspect of the development of the conflict and the determination of its boundaries. Every conflict occurs in a certain system, be it a family, a group of colleagues, a state, the international community, etc. Intrasystem connections are complex and diverse. The conflict between parties belonging to the same system can be deeper, more extensive, or private and limited. A conflict on “garden grounds” might not have arisen, but it might have affected not only two families, but also other neighbors. In interstate conflicts, there is a great danger of growth and spread of aggravated relationships not only in territorial, but also in social, national, and political aspects; such a conflict can affect the broadest sectors of society.
Determining the intrasystem boundaries of a conflict is closely related to a clear identification of the conflicting parties from the entire circle of its participants. As we will see later, in addition to the directly warring parties, participants in the conflict can be such figures as instigators, accomplices, organizers of the conflict (themselves not directly involved in it), as well as arbitrators, advisers, supporters and opponents of certain persons in conflict between yourself. All these individuals (or organizations) are elements of the system. The boundaries of the conflict in the system depend, therefore, on how wide a circle of participants will be involved in the conflict. It is important to know the intrasystem boundaries of the conflict in order to influence ongoing processes, in particular to prevent the system as a whole from destruction (if this, of course, is necessary).
3. Functions of conflict.
It is already clear from what has been said that conflict serves as a way to identify and resolve contradictions. If opposing forces and their interests cause tension that turns into open confrontation, then, naturally, this confrontation must come to an end sooner or later. The conflict and its subsequent resolution is one of the ways out of the current impasse.
With this approach to assessing the functions of conflict, the question arises: is it good or bad that conflict occurs? The prevailing point of view, one might say the ordinary one, is an unambiguously negative assessment of any conflicts. In fact, we have suffered enough not only from everyday quarrels and troubles, official troubles, but recently also from serious interethnic, territorial, socio-political and other confrontations and confrontations. Therefore, the conflict is assessed public opinion in general, as an undesirable phenomenon, and this is what it is, perhaps, as a whole - at least for one of the parties. At the same time, there is another point of view, according to which conflict is not only an inevitable social phenomenon, but also useful.
Researchers who recognize conflict as an undesirable phenomenon believe. its destroyer (or violator) of a normally functioning social system. In their opinion, in its original basis, conflict is not inherent in the system and usually goes away when those forces in the system that return appear (or become active). i.e. to a position of balance and stability. But it follows from this that already in the conflict itself there is an incentive for the emergence of institutions to maintain the system in a stable state. This includes legislative activity, adopted procedures for resolving various disputes, and political meetings where party conflicts are resolved in a “war of words,” i.e. in debates and discussions, and the market, where competing interests between buyers and sellers are resolved through transactions, etc. It follows from this that even those experts who consider conflict in general a negative phenomenon, see some positive features in it.
Other scientific tradition generally views conflict not as an aberrant and passing phenomenon, but as a permanent and even necessary component social relations. This tradition goes back to Aristotle, Hobbes, Hegel, Marx, Weber. According to this view, the fact of any shortage in a society is in itself sufficient to cause conflict; each person in any group tries to increase his share of scarce resources and, if necessary, at the expense of others. And if among the seekers of territories and resources we also discover a struggle for leadership, power and prestige, then conflict is simply inevitable! And there will be no analogy with a conflict over possession material benefits, where the parties can make each person's share increase. “For the real world,” wrote R. Dahrendorf, “the intersection of different views, conflicts, and changes is necessary. It is conflict and change that gives people freedom; Without them, freedom is impossible.”
According to L. Coser, conflict within a group can contribute to its unity or restoration of unity. Therefore, internal social conflicts that affect only such goals, values ​​and interests that do not contradict the accepted principles of intra-group relations, as a rule, are functionally positive in nature.
The general thesis that conflict is a normal state of society is also expressed by domestic authors.
From a comparison of the above points of view, it is clear that they are talking about slightly different things. In reality, conflict is useful because it somehow resolves the contradiction. But at what cost? By destroying or seriously damaging the system, or even by destroying one of the parties. It is better if an objectively existing contradiction does not lead to conflict, but is eliminated by peaceful, civilized means. Therefore, from our point of view, we can talk about the usefulness of conflicts only in very specific cases and, moreover, in a rather conditional sense.
Resolving contradictions is an objective function of social conflict. Does this mean that it coincides with the goals of the participants? No, it doesn’t mean that, or at least not always. If the goal of one of the parties to the conflict may actually be to eliminate the contradiction (and precisely in its favor), then the goal of the other side may well be to maintain the status quo, avoid the conflict, or resolve the contradiction without confrontation between the parties. It may not even be the warring parties themselves who are interested in the conflict, but a third party provoking the conflict. Therefore, the functions of the conflict from the perspective of its participants can be much more diverse.
To conclude this topic, consider one example from recent political practice. In August 1992, the union of Russian air traffic controllers demanded that the government double the wages for employees of this service. It should be noted that already in July, air traffic controllers received more than ten times the minimum salary of a civil servant at that time. The government, taking this into account, refused their demands. The union threatened a strike. The Moscow City Court declared the strike illegal and, in turn, threatened the instigators with civil action and criminal liability. The conflict was then suspended.
What functions did this conflict serve? From the air traffic controllers' point of view, he was forcing the government to raise wages. For the government, the emerging conflict was not necessary, but by opposing the trade union, it not only maintained the economic status quo, but also maintained its prestige. The court upheld the requirements of the law. It is not difficult to see that the goals of the parties and the functions of the conflict were different for them. In general social terms, this conflict can be assessed in one way: it is an expression of economic distress in which the state cannot guarantee adequate material support for its employees. The conflict with the air traffic controllers' union was a failed attempt to resolve the contradiction between the state's scarcity of economic resources and the vital needs of the population.
4. Specifics of the legal conflict.
Legal conflictology generalizes and studies those features that characterize a conflict from the standpoint of law. The theoretical significance of this approach is the possibility of combining conflicts with government institutions(A right- one of them) and, therefore, considering conflicts not in an abstract social space, but in real connection with existing legal instruments and structures. Hence the practical meaning of this approach: to establish whether the rules of law can influence the origin, development and resolution of a conflict, and if they can, then how to increase the effectiveness of this action.
First, we will determine which elements of the conflict can be of a legal nature and, accordingly, which conflict can be called legal.
Familiarization with conflicts of various kinds leads to the conclusion that from a legal point of view they are very heterogeneous. The legal aspect is most fully expressed in those conflicts that arise and develop in connection with objectively existing contradictions between two or more legal norms related to the same subject. These are legal conflicts in the strict (or) narrow sense of the word. The interests of the opposing parties and the motives for their behavior in such a conflict are determined by the meaning and significance of legal norms, on which the actions of the participants directly depend. Such a conflict begins and ends with the use of legal means and procedures. To a large extent, it is of a cognitive nature, since the dispute is about the understanding of law, but behind this dispute there are often other, quite practical interests of the parties.
However, most conflicts arise outside legal sphere and only later, in the process of development, does it acquire legal characteristics, thereby acquiring a transitional or mixed character. The motivation for such conflicts is initially far from the legal sphere and is associated with economic, national, social - personal or public interests. This is in the full sense of the word “conflict of interest”, gradually acquiring legal form.
The legal element in a conflict of interest can be expressed with varying degrees of intensity. There are cases when such an element is very weakly expressed and other motives predominate. For example, in motivating an interpersonal conflict that arose on the basis of jealousy, perhaps only vague fears of one of the participants in the conflict can play a legal role that the matter may end in criminal consequences and therefore an overly violent development of events should be avoided. Basically, emotions prevail here, moral and often religious norms apply.
The legal element has a completely different meaning in inheritance disputes and in general in any dispute about property rights, when two individuals or institutions, referring to the law, defend their real or imaginary rights. Transitional cases are also possible in which the legal element in the conflicting relationships of the parties is expressed with varying degrees of intensity.
So, many elements of a wide variety of conflicts are directly related to legal norms and institutions. What kind of conflict should be called legal?
Since the question is about a name that has not yet been established in the literature, we are free to choose and discuss one or another terminology. In practice, the matter comes down to the following alternative: either all elements of the conflict (motivation, participants, objects, etc.) must have a legal characteristic in order for the conflict as a whole to be recognized as legal, or for this it is enough that at least one of its elements has legal characteristics .
We are inclined to the latter solution and believe that a legal conflict should be recognized as any conflict in which the dispute is in one way or another connected with the legal relations of the parties (their legally significant actions or states) and, therefore, the subjects, either the motivation for their behavior, or the object of the conflict have legal characteristics, and the conflict entails legal consequences.
In other words, it is necessary to recognize as legal, say, a conflict over property, even if the opponents had a legal relationship with each other (for example, two companies are applying to rent the same premises). Although there are no legal relations between the companies yet, they will inevitably arise as soon as the entities turn to a government body (court, arbitration) to resolve the conflict. If they don’t appeal, but resolve the matter “amicably”, then the registration of rental relations by one of the companies will still be a legal procedure
Any interstate conflict, including between parties not bound by an agreement, should be considered legal. The fact is that the relations of any state are subject to the norms of international law.
All labor, many family, industrial, domestic and interethnic conflicts are legal in nature if they affect the constitution of the country, agreements between regions or branches of government, the status of nations and nationalities. (All these types of conflicts will be discussed in more detail later).
Many conflicts are of a mixed nature and contain both legal and non-legal elements (for example, in political confrontations or national unrest). We will consider the issue of the development of a non-legal conflict into a legal one in the next paragraph.
A very important aspect of any conflict is the ways and means of its prevention, termination and resolution. In defining a legal conflict, we did not touch upon this aspect, but proceeded from the nature of the conflict relationships themselves. If we proceed from the methods of preventing, resolving or ending conflicts, then almost each of them can be called legal, because, apparently, there is no such case when it would be impossible to intervene in the development of certain events with the help of legal norms and institutions ( perhaps a rare exception would be cognitive conflict).
In other words, it can be argued that not every conflict is legal, but almost every one can end in one or another legal procedure. Legal possibilities for preventing, resolving or ending a conflict are, in principle, broader than the legal nature of the conflict. However, in most cases there are legal grounds for legal intervention in a conflict from the outset.
________________________________________
Sociological Dictionary. Minsk, 1991. P. 80
Zaprudsky Yu. G. Social conflict. Rostov, 1992 P. 54.
Social conflicts: Expertise, forecasting, resolution technology. Vol. 1. M., 1991. P. 27.
See: Social conflicts... Vol. 1. P. 31.
Due to conflicts in production, up to 15% of working time is lost. See: Danakin N. S., Dyatchenko L. Ya. Technologies of cooperation and confrontation. Belgorod, 1993. P. 43.
See - Darendorf R. The modern social conflict. L., 1988. P. 87.
See: Coser L. A. The function of social conflict. Sociological theory. London, 1957. P. 199.
See, for example: Social conflicts... Vol. 1. P. 13 et seq.

Legal conflictology
Ed. V.N. Kudryavtseva.
M., 1995.

The monograph is devoted to a new direction in science, lying at the intersection of sociology, psychology and jurisprudence. It examines the nature and mechanisms of conflicts, their types, as well as legal means of resolving and preventing them. Designed for conflict specialists, sociologists and lawyers, as well as a wide range of readers.

The monograph was written by a team of authors: Boykov O. V. (§ 27), Ph.D. legal Sciences Varlamova N.N. (§ 22), corresponding member. RAS Dmitriev A.V. (§§ 1, 3, 6, 21, 32), Doctor of Law. Sciences Dubovik O. L. (§ 17), Doctor of Law. Sciences Kazimirchuk V.P. (§§ 22, 31), Ph.D. legal Sciences Kotelevskaya I.V. (§ 23), Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences Kudryavtsev V.N. (Preface, §§ 1-5, 7-9, 11, 21, 32), Ph.D. psychol. Sciences Kudryavtsev S.V. (§§ 2-5, 7, 8, 18, 21, 32), Doctor of Law. Sciences Larin A. M. (§§ 19, 29), Ph.D. legal Sciences Levansky V.A. (§ 10), Doctor of Law. Sciences Obolonsky A.V. (§ 14), Doctor of Law. Sciences Skakunov E.I. (§§20, 30), Doctor of Law. Sciences Smirnov V.V. (§ 13), Doctor of Law. Sciences Tikhomirov Yu. A. (§§ 13, 26), Ph.D. legal Sciences Chernysheva S. A. (§ 16), Ph.D. legal Sciences Chekharin V.I. (§§ 24, 25), Doctor of Law. Sciences Shugaev A. A. (§ 15), Doctor of Law. Sciences Yakovlev V.F. (§ 28).

Executive editor Academician V. N. KUDRYAVTSEV.

PREFACE

Conflict: what could be more characteristic of our time?

Social conflicts have become a reality of our daily lives. Miners' strikes, confrontations between political leaders and parties, interethnic and regional feuds, and "showdowns" in the underworld excite people almost every day and raise new problems in state and public life. We “fight” conflicts tirelessly, but they are growing. The ongoing reorganization of economic, political and legal institutions has not yet had a noticeable impact on changing the trends towards exacerbation of various conflicts, especially in the current crisis situation.

One of the reasons for this situation is the country’s unpreparedness to overcome crisis situations, including conflict situations. The conflict-free model of social development, which dominated until the end of the 80s, made government leadership at various levels helpless in the face of the ensuing crisis. Not least of all, the lack of development of the conflict theory itself, and the lack of relevant experience, affected it. For practitioners, in particular, the relationship between values ​​in the “conflict - agreement” dichotomy remains unclear, although historical experience proves that society ensures orderliness in the life of the population only through agreement, through the achievement of mutual understanding and recognition.

Studying the problems of conflict and harmony requires fundamental efforts by scientists of various specialties. In the West, for many decades, especially at the end of the 20th century, this scientific direction has received thorough development. Hundreds of books have been written about conflicts and ways to resolve them; journals, abstracts and collections of articles are systematically published. There is every reason to talk about the creation of an independent comprehensive science of conflictology, the subject of which is the study of the nature, causes, mechanisms of conflicts in human society, as well as the development of ways to prevent and resolve them. But in our country this science has not yet been developed, although many works on conflicts and ways to resolve them have already been published in Russian.

It is quite clear that conflictology, like any discipline, is closely related to related sciences, draws a lot from them and, in turn, enriches them. This is, first of all, sociology and social Psychology, with which conflictology has much in common, since it studies, like the named sciences, relationships between people. Further, this is a story that provides rich food for thought about the reasons for human actions. This is, finally, political science, economics, ethnology and other social sciences that specify the nature, mechanisms of development and consequences of conflicts of various kinds. Such sciences also include jurisprudence and government science, which study the legal forms of interaction between people, be it cooperation, peaceful coexistence, opposition or struggle.

It should be noted that the synthesis of conflictological problems with the provisions of legal science is of particular interest. The fact is that many social conflicts occur in the sphere of legal relations, are generated by legal situations, and then resolved by legal means. Law enforcement agencies devote a significant part of their activities to the investigation, review, prevention and resolution of conflicts. Therefore, there is a ripe need to develop a discipline that could be called legal conflictology and would be devoted to the consideration of these issues.

By this discipline we mean a section (direction) of general conflictology, the subject of which is the study of conflicts that arise, develop and are resolved within the framework of domestic (national) or international law.

It is known that conflicts in human society occur at different levels: individual and group, ethnic, interstate, etc. The peculiarity of a legal conflict is that at each of these levels it is associated with the execution (implementation) or violation of certain rules of law and, accordingly, the emergence, change or termination of legal relations between individuals or legal entities.

Since the legal system of any country, as well as the norms of international law, are sanctioned and protected by the state (or the international community), a legal conflict often involves not two (conflicting) parties, but three: there is also the state represented by law enforcement agencies, early or late involved in the development, resolution or prevention of conflict.

An important aspect of legal conflictology is connected with this: this branch of knowledge, therefore, studies not only the nature, causes and dynamics of the development of legal conflicts, but also the legal mechanisms for their prevention and resolution. Society and the state create and use a number of mechanisms: court, arbitration, parliamentary procedures, etc., designed to reconcile conflicting parties or force an end to their confrontation. Legal means of resolving and preventing conflicts are effective tools for defusing domestic and international tensions.

All these issues are discussed in this book.

Nothing has changed there. The nondescript house where the editorial office was located, as before, looks out onto the street on one side. Only the editorial office itself has been gone for a long time. Many in the city no longer remember that there was such a newspaper - “Vologda Komsomolets”. A newspaper where, since the time of Nikolai Rubtsov (he worked in the youth group as a literary consultant), poems have been published in every issue.

Volodya Kudryavtsev was born on the eve of the Feast of the Intercession of the Virgin Mary. He felt this Veil on himself. So, early in the morning, a first-grader feels his mother’s palm on his head, which is slow to wake him up.

What for many, alas, has become a pious abstraction, for Volodya was dear to the point of spasm, to tears, to the point of muteness.

By the way, he was remarkably silent. Warm, friendly. Now we have somehow forgotten how to listen to our interlocutor, to listen to him silently. There are endless talk shows around us. People, even while at home in the kitchen, suddenly begin to theatrically wave their arms and raise their voices. It seems that we have forever lost this happiness - to listen and hear each other. Listen without fiddling with your phone or tablet, without getting annoyed with your interlocutor (they say you’re taking away precious time), but talking with thought and care.

One day my daughter got sick. She was only a week old, and my wife and I, as expected young parents, fell into panic despondency. After a sleepless night, I came to the editorial office, shuffling like an old man.

I don’t remember what I said to Volodya then or whether I said anything at all, but I remember: I flew home from the editorial office without touching the asphalt. In a few minutes Volodya found us a doctor. It was Olga Vladimirovna Pokrovskaya. The granddaughter of a priest, a pediatrician from God, she saved us many times later.

Everyone who was friends with Volodya, or even just met him once or twice, can tell their own story about how Kudryavtsev was an ambulance. Many of us did not know then that he was a poet. The main thing for us was that he was nearby.

Volodya’s favorite saying was Rubtsov’s lines: “For all good we will pay with good, for all love we will pay with love...” He also wrote this line on his books when he gave them as gifts.

Last summer I wandered around Vologda, and I kept remembering a line from Volodya’s poems: “I want to go where the pier of the clouds...”

Shipping on the Vologda River has long stopped, the surviving boats are rusting near the shore, but clouds regularly float up to the abandoned pier - just as white ships floated up to in the old days.

65 years ago, on October 13, 1953, the poet Vladimir Valentinovich Kudryavtsev was born in the village of Popovo, Kostroma Region.

From letters of Vladimir Kudryavtsev

September 24, 2011.

Dima, you won’t believe it, I went to the computer with the desire to write you a letter, I opened the mail, and in it there was a letter from you... I walked around the area in the evening, and the feeling of bright autumn peace and tranquility did not leave me. There are gray clouds in the sky, yellow leaves on the sidewalks, and an indescribable sadness in my soul.

October 21, 2012.

I have crossed the threshold of the anniversary year: the 60th anniversary is coming. And this, no matter how you look at it, is old age. Do I feel like an "old man"? No, I don't feel it. Do I feel like I'm sixty years old? Yes, I feel it. But it's not the same at all.

Time has become more tangible: its fragility, its preciousness. Life has become more tangible - like a gift. And, of course, death became more tangible, my death, death as a question, as an exam. For the first time, I felt as if I was above the everyday bustle, above the scurrying of ants, above everything on which my only life was spent, fruitlessly fragmented.

December 24, 2012.

If only you knew how much I love these quiet New Year's Eve evenings, when in the sky, as at the mouth of a heated stove, multi-colored coals, crushed with a poker, move, and the white-hot clear moon lies in their hot inferno.

On such days, I often walk along the village streets of our city outskirts. Here the dogs are not angry, but bark only as a warning. Good people live here, without a stone in their bosom.

I'm still strong. I work with inspiration. I live with joy, and I wish the same for you.

Poems from the diary of Vladimir Kudryavtsev, autumn, 2012

I want to go where the pier of the clouds is,
Where in the woods is the mushroom spirit
grows stronger
Where fireweed spills splash
Under the watchful gaze of cornflowers.
I want to go to the plot, to the bright stream,
To where the haystack was throwing around the stozhar.
But you never know what else I want,
Wandering along broken sidewalks...

Native slush of the hopeless
days,
But it is also for the good of my soul.
And it seems to the ancestral roots
The rain imbued the earth with healing
moisture.
Green on my birthday
grass!
At the same hour of rain and off-road
Stretched out on the eve of the Intercession
Your omophorion over the unsteady
Mother of God...

Quiet snow is humble and timid,
He fluttered between the black linden trees.
This is a bright gift from God
To the good inhabitants of the earth.
With repentance and humility
My day of confession
After the service with communion
I'm not going - I'm flying home...

The year passes the days.
The century conceals the years.
Decreased relatives
There are fewer people.
When one day I
I'll disappear into the sky,
Suddenly in a world without me
Will there be no balance?

Write to Dmitry Shevarov: [email protected]

Conflict (from Lat. conflictus - clash) is a confrontation, a clash of opposing interests, views, positions, forces, conducted for the possession of any values, resources (property, power, position, prestige, etc.), with the goal of weakening, push back an opponent, inflict damage on him or destroy him. It is worth pointing out the difference in the concepts of “conflict” and “contradiction” - it is that not every contradiction develops into active confrontation and clash. Thus, conflict and contradiction are related as part and whole.

Conflictology– a branch of social science that studies social and interpersonal conflicts, the patterns of their occurrence, course and resolution. Conflictology was formed at the intersection of sociology, social psychology, political science and other sciences about society and man at the beginning of the 20th century. This became possible after it became clear that all diverse conflicts, from marital quarrels to wars between states, have something in common in the mechanisms of their genesis, course and overcoming.

Social conflict– a social phenomenon, the content of which is the process of development and resolution of contradictions in relations between people. There are international conflicts (between nations, states); conflicts of classes, social groups and layers within society; conflicts between small groups, families, individuals. The term " sociology of conflict"introduced by the German sociologist, cultural scientist and philosopher G. Simmel (1858-1918).

The theoretical and methodological basis of conflictology is the general sociological theory of conflict. Conflict theory is based on the recognition of the decisive or very important role of social conflict in the development of society. As is known, Marxist sociology also belongs to this direction. Supporters of modern non-Marxist conflict theory (L. Coser, R. Dahrendorf, etc.) interpret the causes and essence of social conflicts differently, but recognize them as the main (or one of the main) driving forces of social development. Thus, R. Dahrendorf believes that the main social conflict in modern society moved from the sphere of property relations to the sphere of management. And since in any society there are relations of domination and subordination, then resistance to these relations in the form of social conflict is characteristic of every society, including modern, developed society.

Legal conflictology – direction of research within the sociology of law, forming at the intersection of conflictology and jurisprudence. This direction for post-Soviet science is new, since general conflictology as a complex socio-psychological discipline was not sufficiently developed, and the dogmatic study of law did not contribute to its broader understanding, including as a tool for dealing with social and psychological conflicts. Subject Legal conflictology is legal relations, norms and institutions, viewed from the angle of their role in the prevention and resolution of social conflicts. Within the framework of legal conflictology, the following are identified and studied: two aspects influence of law on the emergence and development of social conflicts: 1) prevention of conflicts; 2) their resolution by legal means.

Legal conflict – confrontation between subjects of law in connection with the application, violation or interpretation of legal norms(V.N. Kudryavtsev). Distinguish narrow And wide interpretation legal conflict. In a narrow sense, a legal conflict is understood as a conflict, all elements of which are of a legal nature. If the conflict contains any element with legal properties, then we are talking about a legal conflict in in a broad sense. Structure conflict includes the following elements: 1) the object and subject of the conflict; 2) subjects (opponents); 3) means of struggle; 4) collision (incident).

Thus, a legal conflict is an independent complex socio-legal phenomenon, characterized by the presence of certain characteristics. A distinctive feature of a legal conflict is the presence of a dual contradiction in it - a socio-psychological contradiction of legal interests and a legal contradiction of subjective legal rights, obligations and legitimate interests, which is directly resolved in legal relations between the subjects of the conflict (V.I. Pavlov).

Legal conflicts are characterized by a special division in relation to the legal element. Some conflictologists distinguish: 1) conflicts, all elements of which are of a legal nature; 2) conflicts where at least one of its elements has legal characteristics, i.e. any conflict in which the dispute is in one way or another connected with legal relations and entails legal consequences. Another point of view is that conflicts in relation to the legal element are divided into: purely legal conflicts; conflicts with the legal element; conflicts generated by legal conflicts. The conflict with the primary legal element is purely legal since it is permeated from beginning to end with legal relations. As a consequence, the cause, course and result of this conflict will also be legal (for example, disobedience to the police). This point of view corresponds to a narrow understanding of legal conflict. A broad interpretation of a legal conflict allows us to include among legal conflicts conflict with legal element(mixed conflict). Such a conflict arises outside of a legal situation (for example, a desire to get a divorce), and later becomes a legal dispute (divorce in court), i.e. it refers to conflicts with a secondary legal element. The inconsistency of legal norms, the ambiguity of their interpretation, gaps in the law lead to conflicts that are generated legal conflicts.

In the dynamics of a legal conflict, the following stages can be distinguished: a) the emergence of motives of a legal nature; b) the emergence of legal relations between the parties to the conflict; c) development (change, termination) of legal relations in connection with the consideration of the case by a legal authority; d) publication of a legal (law enforcement) act ending the conflict. This is a rough diagram of the dynamics of a fairly simple legal conflict. However, it may be different (for example, some stages may be absent altogether or the sequence of their development does not coincide with that described).

Legal conflicts, like many social conflicts, can be classified into global and regional, group and interpersonal; situational and positional; be acute, sluggish, renewing, etc. The specifics of a legal conflict are determined by legal characteristics, which include: the branch of law in which the conflict occurs; the structure of the norm relating to it; type of law enforcement agency, etc.

Available false conflict. It arises from an error or misconception on the part of at least one party that the other party is committing or intending to commit an undesirable act. In a false conflict, the following main situations are possible: 1) the party believes that it is in a legal relationship with the other party, but in reality this is not the case; 2) the opposite option - the party does not realize that it is in a legal relationship with the other party; 3) the party believes that the enemy is acting illegally (while the actions of the other party are lawful - for example, extreme necessity); 4) the opposite option (in this case, it is not so much the conflict itself that is false, but its legal form - for example, a bona fide purchaser of property protects it from the owner, not knowing his rights and the rights of the owner and regardless of the law). A false legal conflict can best be prevented and resolved with the assistance of specialists, professional lawyers who are able to explain the situation and give the necessary advice.

Thus, legal regulation is the most effective way to prevent and resolve conflicts. The objects of influence of a legal norm are: 1) the cause of the conflict; 2) its development; 3) results; 4) the consequences of the conflict, including the fate of the parties to the conflict. The role of law in conflict resolution is that it is law that plays a key role in the system of social institutions for conflict resolution.

"yurpsy.by.ru/bibio/jur-konf/;r=http%3A/yurpsy.by.ru/bibio/index_bibio.htm;j=true;s=1152*864;d=32" Legal conflictology
Ed. V.N. Kudryavtseva
The monograph is devoted to a new direction in science, lying at the intersection of sociology, psychology and jurisprudence. It examines the nature and mechanisms of conflicts, their types, as well as legal means of resolving and preventing them. Designed for conflict specialists, sociologists and lawyers, as well as a wide range of readers. The monograph was written by a team of authors: Boykov O. V. (§ 27), Ph.D. legal Sciences Varlamova N.N. (§ 22), corresponding member. RAS Dmitriev A.V. (§§ 1, 3, 6, 21, 32), Doctor of Law. Sciences Dubovik O. L. (§ 17), Doctor of Law. Sciences Kazimirchuk V.P. (§§ 22, 31), Ph.D. legal Sciences Kotelevskaya I.V. (§ 23), Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences Kudryavtsev V.N. (Preface, §§ 1-5, 7-9, 11, 21, 32), Ph.D. psychol. Sciences Kudryavtsev S.V. (§§ 2-5, 7, 8, 18, 21, 32), Doctor of Law. Sciences Larin A. M. (§§ 19, 29), Ph.D. legal Sciences Levansky V.A. (§ 10), Doctor of Law. Sciences Obolonsky A.V. (§ 14), Doctor of Law. Sciences Skakunov E.I. (§§20, 30), Doctor of Law. Sciences Smirnov V.V. (§ 13), Doctor of Law. Sciences Tikhomirov Yu. A. (§§ 13, 26), Ph.D. legal Sciences Chernysheva S. A. (§ 16), Ph.D. legal Sciences Chekharin V.I. (§§ 24, 25), Doctor of Law. Sciences Shugaev A. A. (§ 15), Doctor of Law. Sciences Yakovlev V.F. (§ 28). Executive editor Academician V. N. KUDRYAVTSEV. "yurpsy.by.ru/bibio/jur-konf/0" PREFACE
Conflict: what could be more characteristic of our time? Social conflicts have become a reality of our daily lives. Miners' strikes, confrontations between political leaders and parties, interethnic and regional feuds, and "showdowns" in the underworld excite people almost every day and raise new problems in state and public life. We “fight” conflicts tirelessly, but they are growing. The ongoing reorganization of economic, political and legal institutions has not yet had a noticeable impact on changing the trends towards exacerbation of various conflicts, especially in the current crisis situation. One of the reasons for this situation is the country’s unpreparedness to overcome crisis situations, including conflict situations. The conflict-free model of social development, which dominated until the end of the 80s, made government leadership at various levels helpless in the face of the ensuing crisis. Not least of all, the lack of development of the conflict theory itself, and the lack of relevant experience, affected it. For practitioners, in particular, the relationship between values ​​in the “conflict - agreement” dichotomy remains unclear, although historical experience proves that society ensures orderliness in the life of the population only through agreement, through the achievement of mutual understanding and recognition. Studying the problems of conflict and harmony requires fundamental efforts by scientists of various specialties. In the West, for many decades, especially at the end of the 20th century, this scientific direction has received thorough development. Hundreds of books have been written about conflicts and ways to resolve them; journals, abstracts and collections of articles are systematically published. There is every reason to talk about the creation of an independent comprehensive science of conflictology, the subject of which is the study of the nature, causes, mechanisms of conflicts in human society, as well as the development of ways to prevent and resolve them. But in our country this science has not yet been developed, although many works on conflicts and ways to resolve them have already been published in Russian. It is quite clear that conflictology, like any discipline, is closely related to related sciences, draws a lot from them and, in turn, enriches them. This is, first of all, sociology and social psychology, with which conflictology has much in common, since it studies, like the named sciences, relationships between people. Further, this is a story that provides rich food for thought about the reasons for human actions. This is, finally, political science, economics, ethnology and other social sciences that specify the nature, mechanisms of development and consequences of conflicts of various kinds. Such sciences also include jurisprudence and government science, which study the legal forms of interaction between people, be it cooperation, peaceful coexistence, opposition or struggle. It should be noted that the synthesis of conflictological problems with the provisions of legal science is of particular interest. The fact is that many social conflicts occur in the sphere of legal relations, are generated by legal situations, and then resolved by legal means. Law enforcement agencies devote a significant part of their activities to the investigation, review, prevention and resolution of conflicts. Therefore, there is a ripe need to develop a discipline that could be called legal conflictology and would be devoted to the consideration of these issues. By this discipline we mean a section (direction) of general conflictology, the subject of which is the study of conflicts that arise, develop and are resolved within the framework of domestic (national) or international law. It is known that conflicts in human society occur at different levels: individual and group, ethnic, interstate, etc. The peculiarity of a legal conflict is that at each of these levels it is associated with the execution (implementation) or violation of certain rules of law and, accordingly, the emergence, change or termination of legal relations between individuals or legal entities. Since the legal system of any country, as well as the norms of international law, are sanctioned and protected by the state (or the international community), a legal conflict often involves not two (conflicting) parties, but three: there is also the state represented by law enforcement agencies, early or late involved in the development, resolution or prevention of conflict. An important aspect of legal conflictology is connected with this: this branch of knowledge, therefore, studies not only the nature, causes and dynamics of the development of legal conflicts, but also the legal mechanisms for their prevention and resolution. Society and the state create and use a number of mechanisms: court, arbitration, parliamentary procedures, etc., designed to reconcile conflicting parties or force an end to their confrontation. Legal means of resolving and preventing conflicts are effective tools for defusing domestic and international tensions. All these issues are discussed in this book.
Chapter I. NATURE OF CONFLICTS
§ I. CONCEPT AND FUNCTIONS OF CONFLICT

1. The concept of conflict.
This concept in scientific literature, as well as in journalism, is ambiguous. There are many definitions of the term “conflict”. The most general approach to defining conflict is to define it through contradiction as a more general concept, and above all through social contradiction.
It is well known that the development of any society is a complex process that takes place on the basis of the emergence, development and resolution of objective contradictions. While paying lip service to this, the dominant Marxist theory for decades essentially did not apply this to our society. It is known that one of the ideals of socialism is the absence of class conflicts. Back in the late 30s, a number of authors came up with the idea of ​​“conflict-free” development of a socialist society, the absence of antagonistic contradictions in it. This idea was most fully presented in the thesis about the complete correspondence of production relations under socialism to the nature of the productive forces.
Later, however, it was recognized that this correspondence manifests itself only when the contradictions are united by the prevailing unity of the two opposing sides. Conformity was presented as a certain stage in the development of contradiction, when the opposites are still united within the framework of unity. Most philosophers searching for the main contradiction of socialism considered it to be the contradiction between productive forces and production relations, sometimes between production and consumption, old and new, etc.
One way or another, the problem of contradictions has, to a certain extent, been developed in our literature. However, the same cannot be said about conflict theory; essentially no attention was paid to her. Meanwhile, contradictions and conflict, on the one hand, cannot be considered as synonyms, and on the other hand, cannot be opposed to each other. Contradictions, opposites, differences are necessary but not sufficient conditions for conflict. Opposites and contradictions turn into conflict when the forces that bear them begin to interact. Thus, a conflict is a manifestation of objective or subjective contradictions, expressed in the confrontation of the parties.
It is necessary to add that in society we are not talking about abstract forces, not about cosmic or other natural phenomena, and especially not about imaginary phenomena (fate, the devil, unidentified objects), but about social subjects: specific people, be they individuals , groups, social strata, political parties or states.
We are talking about social conflict in this book, meaning the process in which two (or more) individuals or groups actively seek to prevent each other from achieving a certain goal, to prevent the satisfaction of a rival's interests, or to change his views and social positions. By analogy, the term “conflict” can seem to be extended to many things, even the struggle with inanimate objects (the struggle for existence, for example). But in a social conflict, all parties are represented by people. Social conflict is usually understood as that type of confrontation in which the parties seek to seize territory or resources, threaten opposing individuals or groups, their property or culture in such a way that the struggle takes the form of attack or defense. Social conflict also includes the activity of an individual or groups blocking the functioning of the enemy or causing harm to other people (groups). Note that the problem of conflict also uses terms such as disputes, debates, bargaining, rivalry and controlled battles, indirect and direct violence. Many researchers associate conflict with large-scale, historical changes.
In other words, we will not consider here, for example, the “conflict” of society with nature or the “conflict” of a person with himself. In these cases, there are undoubtedly contradictions, but for such situations we put the word “conflict” in quotation marks because it is inadequate to the idea of ​​conflict that is developed in this book.
So, social conflict always requires at least two opposing parties. Their actions are usually aimed at achieving mutually exclusive interests and, therefore, collide. All conflicts are characterized by strong tension, which prompts people to change their behavior in one way or another, adapt, or “protect themselves” from the given situation.
In the domestic scientific literature, the most complete definition of social conflict, in our opinion, was given by E.M. Babosov: “Social conflict (from the Latin confictus - clash) is an extreme case of aggravation of social contradictions, expressed in the clash of various social communities - classes, nations, states, social groups, social institutions, etc., due to the opposition or significant difference between them interests, goals, development trends. A social conflict develops and is resolved in a specific social situation in connection with the emergence of a social problem that requires resolution. It has very specific causes, its social bearers (classes, nations, social groups, etc.), has certain functions, duration and degree of severity.”
True, this definition, while capturing the main essence of the matter, does not reflect all the features of the conflict - its psychologism in particular. This feature can also be seen in the work of Yu. G. Zaprudsky “Social Conflict”, which says: “Social conflict is an explicit or hidden state of confrontation between objectively divergent interests, goals and development trends of social subjects, a direct and indirect clash of social forces based on opposition to the existing social order, a special form of historical movement towards a new social unity.” What is said is generally true, but too broad. There was no room for everyday, family, work - in a word, conflicts of a “lower level”. And they should not be ignored. Let us give another definition due to T.V. Novikova. Social conflict is “a situation when the parties (subjects) of interaction pursue some of their goals that contradict or mutually exclude each other.” Here, as you can see, the personal, psychological aspect is emphasized first of all.
When studying various spheres of public life, researchers usually use the so-called conflictological approach. This approach to political research, for example, focuses on political processes in terms of competition between individuals and groups over values ​​that have political significance, i.e. processes within the political system. In international politics, the conflictological approach is, from our point of view, the main one. This approach is also possible in jurisprudence, when a crime is considered as a result of a conflict between people, and the mechanism of its occurrence is traced. The conflict continues in the trial (the accused and his defense attorney, on the one hand, the prosecutor, on the other). These problems will be discussed in detail below.
At the end of this section, it is necessary to mention phenomena close to conflict, such as competition, rivalry, competition. In principle, in these cases there is also a confrontation between the parties. However, as a rule, it is not aggravated to the point of hostility or, even if such hostility does occur (for example, in competition), it does not turn into mutual actions that interfere with the legitimate behavior of the other party. Everyone acts “on their own field”, striving to achieve success and thereby hurt the enemy. But the actions of the parties are positive, they strive for their own maximum success; suppressing the enemy is not an end in itself for them. This, of course, does not exclude the emergence of a conflict during the listed “peaceful” actions. Thus, conflict and competition, for example, are not identical, but competition can develop into conflict. This also applies to competition, in which rivals can turn to direct pressure on each other.
A special case is represented by games, including sports. Some of them are intended as conflict (for example, boxing). However, it is obvious that, in essence, we are talking about simulating a conflict. When the game ends, so does the “conflict” relationship. Hostility between players of different teams that remains after a competition is the exception rather than the rule; it is by no means encouraged in sports.
2. Borders of the conflict.
In order to more accurately understand the nature of the conflict and its difference from related phenomena, it is necessary to determine the boundaries of the conflict, i.e. its outer limits in space and time. Let's start with an everyday example. Ivan Ivanovich, believing that his neighbor in the garden plot had unfairly taken away part of his garden plot, decided to “teach the offender a lesson” and collect part of the tomato harvest from his plot. He told his wife about his plan, who promptly dissuaded him from his planned actions. Was there a conflict here, did it begin or has it already ended? What are its spatial boundaries and who are the participants? These issues, not so important in the case of a neighborly quarrel, develop into major political and legal problems once we move on, for example, to interstate or interethnic relations concerning borders. And in interpersonal conflicts, attention should be paid to such issues, since almost any conflict under certain conditions can become serious.
Three aspects of determining the boundaries of a conflict can be distinguished: spatial, temporal and intrasystemic.
The spatial boundaries of the conflict are determined by the territory on which the conflict occurs. It is clear that this territory can be very different, ranging from a minimal space (for example, living space) to the entire globe. Various-scale examples: a quarrel in the kitchen - and a world war. A clear definition of the spatial boundaries of the conflict is important mainly in international relations, which is closely related to the problem of the parties to the conflict. In our recent history, a similar task arose repeatedly during interethnic conflicts in Nagorno-Karabakh, Transnistria, Tajikistan, the North Caucasus and other places where it was necessary to clearly define the territorial boundaries of the conflict zone in order to implement preventive measures.
Time boundaries are the duration of the conflict, its beginning and end. In particular, the legal assessment of the actions of its participants at a given point in time depends on whether the conflict is considered to have begun, continues or has already ended. This is especially important in order to correctly assess the role of those newly joining the conflict.
The beginning of a conflict, from our point of view, is determined by objective (external) acts of behavior directed against another participant (the conflicting party), provided that the latter recognizes these acts as directed against him and counters them. This somewhat complicated formula means that for a conflict to be recognized as having begun, at least three matching conditions are required:
1) the first participant consciously and actively acts to the detriment of the other participant (i.e. his opponent); Moreover, by actions we understand both physical movements and the transmission of information (spoken word, print, television, etc.);
2) the second participant (enemy) realizes that these actions are directed against his interests;
3) in connection with this, he himself takes active retaliatory actions directed against the first participant. From this moment we can consider that the conflict began.
The above means that there is no conflict if only one participant acts or the participants perform only mental operations (planning behavior, thinking about the enemy’s course of action, predicting the course of a future conflict, etc.).
In fact, actions, even if aggressive, of only one side, which the other side does not claim, cannot yet be called a conflict. Perhaps the intended enemy recognizes these actions as correct; Perhaps he is afraid to antagonize the first participant and obeys him, or he is guided by some other considerations. The main thing is that he does not take any action against the first subject. But in this case there is no conflict as a confrontation between the parties.
Mental actions, which are not expressed physically in any way externally, are not an element of the conflict that has begun, which is understood as an actual, and not an imaginary, confrontation between the parties. In the previous example, Ivan Ivanovich, who was planning revenge on his garden neighbor, had not yet started the conflict, but was only planning it. Opposite positions are not yet a conflict. It arises when the parties begin to actively oppose each other in pursuit of their goals.
What has been said, however, is not contradicted by the identification of the latent (hidden) stage of conflict development proposed by some experts, or more precisely, the one preceding the onset of the conflict, which includes planning of future operations and preparation for them. Isolating this stage is essential for the analysis of major conflicts of international significance (for example, war planning). Having approved the “Barbarossa Plan” in 1940, which provided for an attack on the USSR, Hitler had not yet unleashed a military conflict between the USSR and Germany, but entered its latent stage; The beginning of the open conflict, as is known, was June 22, 1941.
Of course, conflict as a confrontation between parties in international relations is not limited to military actions. There may be a diplomatic conflict, trade, border, political, which is not resolved by violent means. However, under all conditions, we are talking about confrontation between the parties, i.e. about mutual actions (even verbal ones). Thus, conflict always begins as two-way (or multi-way) behavior. As a rule, it is preceded by the actions of one of the parties, which makes it possible in most cases to determine the instigator of the conflict.
Thus, it was not difficult to identify the instigator in the conflict between Iraq and Kuwait in 1991. The aggressive role of Iraq, which launched an unprovoked attack on a neighboring country, received a negative assessment from the United Nations and the entire world community.
It is more difficult to say who was the instigator of the numerous interethnic conflicts that took place in the 90s on the territory of our country - Russia and other Commonwealth states. The lack of clarity of initial steps, the confusion of response actions, mutual accusations, biased information - all this delays the development of the conflict and hinders it. its quick and painless cessation prevents the identification of the real culprits.
The end of the conflict is ambiguous. The conflict may be resolved (for example, reconciliation of the parties), but may end due to one of the parties withdrawing from the conflict or its destruction (during a war or during the commission of a crime). Finally, it is possible to suppress development and end the conflict as a result of the intervention of third parties. This is how in a number of cases so-called criminal conflicts end. The practice of international relations increasingly uses third forces to suppress interethnic conflicts (deployment of UN troops, diplomatic mediation, etc.). These methods, as is known, began to be used in our country and the CIS countries.
Thus, the end of the conflict should be considered the cessation of actions of all warring parties, regardless of the reason for which this takes place.
Let us now consider the intrasystem aspect of the development of the conflict and the determination of its boundaries. Every conflict occurs in a certain system, be it a family, a group of colleagues, a state, the international community, etc. Intrasystem connections are complex and diverse. The conflict between parties belonging to the same system can be deeper, more extensive, or private and limited. A conflict on “garden grounds” might not have arisen, but it might have affected not only two families, but also other neighbors. In interstate conflicts, there is a great danger of growth and spread of aggravated relationships not only in territorial, but also in social, national, and political aspects; such a conflict can affect the broadest sectors of society.
Determining the intrasystem boundaries of a conflict is closely related to a clear identification of the conflicting parties from the entire circle of its participants. As we will see later, in addition to the directly warring parties, participants in the conflict can be such figures as instigators, accomplices, organizers of the conflict (themselves not directly involved in it), as well as arbitrators, advisers, supporters and opponents of certain persons in conflict between yourself. All these individuals (or organizations) are elements of the system. The boundaries of the conflict in the system depend, therefore, on how wide a circle of participants will be involved in the conflict. It is important to know the intrasystem boundaries of the conflict in order to influence ongoing processes, in particular to prevent the system as a whole from destruction (if this, of course, is necessary).
3. Functions of conflict.
It is already clear from what has been said that conflict serves as a way to identify and resolve contradictions. If opposing forces and their interests cause tension that turns into open confrontation, then, naturally, this confrontation must come to an end sooner or later. The conflict and its subsequent resolution is one of the ways out of the current impasse.
With this approach to assessing the functions of conflict, the question arises: is it good or bad that conflict occurs? The prevailing point of view, one might say the ordinary one, is an unambiguously negative assessment of any conflicts. In fact, we have suffered enough not only from everyday quarrels and troubles, official troubles, but recently also from serious interethnic, territorial, socio-political and other confrontations and confrontations. Therefore, the conflict is generally assessed by public opinion as an undesirable phenomenon, and this is what it is, perhaps, as a whole - at least for one of the parties. At the same time, there is another point of view, according to which conflict is not only an inevitable social phenomenon, but also useful.
Researchers who recognize conflict as an undesirable phenomenon believe. his destroyer (or violator) of a normally functioning social system. In their opinion, in its original basis, conflict is not inherent in the system and usually goes away when those forces in the system that return appear (or become active). i.e. to a position of balance and stability. But it follows from this that already in the conflict itself there is an incentive for the emergence of institutions to maintain the system in a stable state. This includes legislative activity, adopted procedures for resolving various disputes, and political meetings where party conflicts are resolved in a “war of words,” i.e. in debates and discussions, and the market, where competing interests between buyers and sellers are resolved through transactions, etc. It follows from this that even those experts who consider conflict in general a negative phenomenon, see some positive features in it.
Another scientific tradition generally views conflict not as an aberrant and passing phenomenon, but as a permanent and even necessary component of social relations. This tradition goes back to Aristotle, Hobbes, Hegel, Marx, Weber. According to this view, the fact of any shortage in a society is in itself sufficient to cause conflict; each person in any group tries to increase his share of scarce resources and, if necessary, at the expense of others. And if among the seekers of territories and resources we also discover a struggle for leadership, power and prestige, then conflict is simply inevitable! And here there will be no analogy with a conflict over the possession of material goods, where the parties can make sure that each person’s share increases. “For the real world,” wrote R. Dahrendorf, “the intersection of different views, conflicts, and changes is necessary. It is conflict and change that gives people freedom; Without them, freedom is impossible.”
According to L. Coser, conflict within a group can contribute to its unity or restoration of unity. Therefore, internal social conflicts that affect only such goals, values ​​and interests that do not contradict the accepted principles of intra-group relations, as a rule, are functionally positive in nature.
The general thesis that conflict is a normal state of society is also expressed by domestic authors.
From a comparison of the above points of view, it is clear that they are talking about slightly different things. In reality, conflict is useful because it somehow resolves the contradiction. But at what cost? By destroying or seriously damaging the system, or even by destroying one of the parties. It is better if an objectively existing contradiction does not lead to conflict, but is eliminated by peaceful, civilized means. Therefore, from our point of view, we can talk about the usefulness of conflicts only in very specific cases and, moreover, in a rather conditional sense.
Resolving contradictions is an objective function of social conflict. Does this mean that it coincides with the goals of the participants? No, it doesn’t mean that, or at least not always. If the goal of one of the parties to the conflict may actually be to eliminate the contradiction (and precisely in its favor), then the goal of the other side may well be to maintain the status quo, avoid the conflict, or resolve the contradiction without confrontation between the parties. It may not even be the warring parties themselves who are interested in the conflict, but a third party provoking the conflict. Therefore, the functions of the conflict from the perspective of its participants can be much more diverse.
To conclude this topic, consider one example from recent political practice. In August 1992, the trade union of Russian air traffic controllers demanded that the government double wages for air traffic controllers. It should be noted that already in July, air traffic controllers received more than ten times the minimum salary of a civil servant at that time. The government, taking this into account, refused their demands. The union threatened a strike. The Moscow City Court declared the strike illegal and, in turn, threatened the instigators with civil action and criminal liability. The conflict was then suspended.
What functions did this conflict serve? From the air traffic controllers' point of view, he was forcing the government to raise wages. For the government, the emerging conflict was not necessary, but by opposing the trade union, it not only maintained the economic status quo, but also maintained its prestige. The court upheld the requirements of the law. It is not difficult to see that the goals of the parties and the functions of the conflict were different for them. In general social terms, this conflict can be assessed in one way: it is an expression of economic distress in which the state cannot guarantee adequate material support for its employees. The conflict with the air traffic controllers' union was a failed attempt to resolve the contradiction between the state's scarcity of economic resources and the vital needs of the population.
4. Specifics of the legal conflict.
Legal conflictology generalizes and studies those features that characterize a conflict from the standpoint of law. The theoretical significance of this approach lies in the possibility of connecting conflicts with state institutions (and law is one of them) and, therefore, considering conflicts not in an abstract social space, but in a real connection with existing legal instruments and structures. Hence the practical meaning of this approach: to establish whether the rules of law can influence the origin, development and resolution of conflict, and if they can, then how to increase the effectiveness of this action.
First, we will determine which elements of the conflict can be of a legal nature and, accordingly, which conflict can be called legal.
Familiarization with conflicts of various kinds leads to the conclusion that from a legal point of view they are very heterogeneous. The legal aspect is most fully expressed in those conflicts that arise and develop in connection with objectively existing contradictions between two or more legal norms related to the same subject. These are legal conflicts in the strict (or) narrow sense of the word. The interests of the opposing parties and the motives for their behavior in such a conflict are determined by the meaning and significance of legal norms, on which the actions of the participants directly depend. Such a conflict begins and ends with the use of legal means and procedures. To a large extent, it is of a cognitive nature, since the dispute is about the understanding of law, but behind this dispute there are often other, quite practical interests of the parties.
However, most conflicts arise outside the legal sphere and only later, in the process of development, acquire legal characteristics, thereby acquiring a transitional or mixed character. The motivation for such conflicts is initially far from the legal sphere and is associated with economic, national, social - personal or public interests. This is in the full sense of the word “conflict of interest”, gradually acquiring legal form.
The legal element in a conflict of interest can be expressed with varying degrees of intensity. There are cases when such an element is very weakly expressed and other motives predominate. For example, in motivating an interpersonal conflict that arose on the basis of jealousy, perhaps only vague fears of one of the participants in the conflict can play a legal role that the matter may end in criminal consequences and therefore an overly violent development of events should be avoided. Basically, emotions prevail here, moral and often religious norms apply.
The legal element has a completely different meaning in inheritance disputes and in general in any dispute about property rights, when two individuals or institutions, referring to the law, defend their real or imaginary rights. Transitional cases are also possible in which the legal element in the conflicting relationships of the parties is expressed with varying degrees of intensity.
So, many elements of a wide variety of conflicts are directly related to legal norms and institutions. What kind of conflict should be called legal?
Since the question is about a name that has not yet been established in the literature, we are free to choose and discuss one or another terminology. In practice, the matter comes down to the following alternative: either all elements of the conflict (motivation, participants, objects, etc.) must have a legal characteristic in order for the conflict as a whole to be recognized as legal, or for this it is enough that at least one of its elements has legal characteristics .
We are inclined to the latter solution and believe that a legal conflict should be recognized as any conflict in which the dispute is in one way or another connected with the legal relations of the parties (their legally significant actions or states) and, therefore, the subjects, either the motivation for their behavior, or the object of the conflict have legal characteristics, and the conflict entails legal consequences.
In other words, it is necessary to recognize as legal, say, a conflict over property, even if the opponents had a legal relationship with each other (for example, two companies are applying to rent the same premises). Although there are no legal relations between the companies yet, they will inevitably arise as soon as the entities turn to a government body (court, arbitration) to resolve the conflict. If they don’t appeal, but resolve the matter “amicably”, then the registration of rental relations by one of the companies will still be a legal procedure
Any interstate conflict, including between parties not bound by an agreement, should be considered legal. The fact is that the relations of any state are subject to the norms of international law.
All labor, many family, industrial, domestic and interethnic conflicts are legal in nature if they affect the constitution of the country, agreements between regions or branches of government, the status of nations and nationalities. (All these types of conflicts will be discussed in more detail later).
Many conflicts are of a mixed nature and contain both legal and non-legal elements (for example, in political confrontations or national unrest). We will consider the issue of the development of a non-legal conflict into a legal one in the next paragraph.
A very important aspect of any conflict is the ways and means of its prevention, termination and resolution. In defining a legal conflict, we did not touch upon this aspect, but proceeded from the nature of the conflict relationships themselves. If we proceed from the methods of preventing, resolving or ending conflicts, then almost each of them can be called legal, because, apparently, there is no such case when it would be impossible to intervene in the development of certain events with the help of legal norms and institutions ( perhaps a rare exception would be cognitive conflict).
In other words, it can be argued that not every conflict is legal, but almost every one can end in one or another legal procedure. Legal possibilities for preventing, resolving or ending a conflict are, in principle, broader than the legal nature of the conflict. However, in most cases there are legal grounds for legal intervention in a conflict from the outset.

Sociological Dictionary. Minsk, 1991. P. 80
Zaprudsky Yu. G. Social conflict. Rostov, 1992 P. 54.
Social conflicts: Expertise, forecasting, resolution technology. Vol. 1. M., 1991. P. 27.
See: Social conflicts... Vol. 1. P. 31.
Due to conflicts in production, up to 15% of working time is lost. See: Danakin N. S., Dyatchenko L. Ya. Technologies of cooperation and confrontation. Belgorod, 1993. P. 43.
See - Darendorf R. The modern socia confict. L., 1988. P. 87.
See: Coser L. A. The function of socia confict. Sociogica theory. London, 1957. P. 199.
See, for example: Social conflicts... Vol. 1. P. 13 et seq.
§ 2. PARTICIPANTS IN THE CONFLICT

1. Levels of scientific consideration.
Since we are talking about confrontation between people, then, naturally, the participants in the conflict are people, albeit in very different roles, guises and groups. The simplest thing in this case is a confrontation between two individuals. It is based on a certain contradiction between these individuals. The so-called interpersonal conflict can involve several people and grow to a group scale, but its essence does not change depending on the size. When two mechanics quarreled among themselves over whose turn it was to go get vodka, each of them was joined by friends and it all ended in a massive brawl. But, despite the number of participants, the conflict remained interpersonal. The fact is that it is based on personal, not social contradictions, although intergroup differences may develop here over time.
Interpersonal conflict always involves specific individuals. The groups that emerge are generally random formations that disintegrate as soon as the conflict ends. Therefore, no matter how many participants in an interpersonal conflict there are, the level of its scientific consideration should mainly remain psychological.
The sociological level prevails in the analysis of group, class or other social conflict, where social groups, strata, classes operate and the conflict is based on group contradictions. Of course, specific individuals also play an important role here, for example leaders, managers. Moreover, an episode of group conflict can be a clash between two or more people. But still, the main participants here will be mass formations and the positions here are defended by groups, not individual ones. L. Coser noted that group conflicts are characterized by intolerance and the desire for absolute personal involvement of all its members in the confrontation. This strengthens conflicting groups and increases social danger and tension.
Domestic authors note that in group conflicts, clear identification of groups is not always observed. This correct observation is confirmed by the chaotic behavior of the population in a number of interethnic conflicts (Tajikistan, Abkhazia, Georgia, etc.), where it was sometimes difficult to determine the preferences of the participants and the goals of their actions.
It is well known that intragroup, as well as intergroup, conflicts are quite widespread; they permeate our whole life, being important element social interaction. Very diverse subjects turn out to be competing: not only individual individuals, small work collectives, families, neighbors, but also large communities; as stated above, these can be social strata, classes, state and religious organizations, parties, mass movements, etc. It is these social communities that ultimately give the conflict a pronounced social character. Any conflict (from interpersonal to international) is social in a broad sense. All the more obvious is the social nature of the conflict of social communities as elements of the social structure at one or another stage of the historical process. These social-structural communities represent a connection between people that is determined by the coincidence or proximity of their interests, the relative similarity of being and the commonality of subjective ideas. This community is formed not only on the basis of the objective living conditions of individuals and their awareness of their interests, but also as a result of certain activities to develop and achieve their goals.
At the psychological level, the opposition of two or more social groups occurs according to the principle: “us and the rest.” This opposition is found in a variety of cases - where it is declared, sometimes without any reason, that some people prefer others over others, for example: “We and other relatives” - in the family, “we and neighbors” - in the house, “we are students X class and others” - at school, “we and the construction battalion members” - in the army, etc.
Conflicts seem to be more complex in the context of interaction between functional and target groups formed on a professional or socio-political basis (parties, public organizations, mass movements). These groups are characterized by a specific structure, isolation in relation to other groups, a fairly high organizational level, and a pronounced identification of their members. In them, individuals, uniting along political, ideological or professional grounds, strive to realize their not only similar, but also quite heterogeneous needs, which leads to the need to identify leaders who have the ability to give a certain direction to the actions of group members. Leaders, “ideologists”, “activists” appear. IN social conflicts they play the role of direct subjects of activity, in contrast to mass, group subjects (political party as a whole, etc.).
The latter express the most high level sociality. This also includes such large communities as the population of countries and regions, ethnic groups, and people. With the interaction of these communities, the zone of possible conflicts expands, covering all spheres of social relations (economic, political, ideological, interethnic, etc.). At the same time, wars - extreme manifestations of conflicts - affect all aspects of existence, under certain conditions threatening the very existence of humanity. International conflicts sharply worsen the economic situation of the population, violate the territorial integrity and political structure of the participating countries.
Conflict relationships between large social communities inevitably become overgrown with many smaller contradictions and conflicts, even individual ones. It can therefore be justifiably argued that the social community (group) plays a fundamental role in understanding the conflict. Of course, one should not lose sight of the fact that the actions of any social groups ultimately manifest themselves through the actions of specific individuals. Each of them is produced by the will of a person, but it is mediated by an organization, and often carried out from. e.e. name.
At a high state level, political science and geopolitical approaches to conflict analysis are legitimate. We can say that conflictology itself was formed as a scientific direction largely on the basis of research international conflicts and in modern foreign science this is still given important.
The political science approach complements and deepens sociological analysis. Political or economic power ensures the realization of the interests of the subject that has the preponderance of forces. That is why there is tension (either tending to increase or decrease) caused by inequality in the degree of realization of interests. And this leads to political and other changes in society.
In a legal conflict, two groups of subjects can be distinguished: individuals and legal entities.
When it comes to confrontation legal entities, then the conflict necessarily acquires a legal nature, because legal relations are developing (or already exist) between these subjects, and such a conflict can most likely be resolved only by legal means.
The situation may be more diverse when the conflict unfolds between individuals (individuals, groups of people, crowds, etc.). Individuals, being citizens, are usually subjects of certain legal relations. This leaves a noticeable imprint on their behavior in conflict. A participant in a conflict who is in one or another legal relationship must balance his behavior with the existing rules of law, remember that a certain development of events may become of concern to the “guardians of order” - law enforcement, and consequently, for the participants themselves. The subject of the conflict may well subsequently become a participant in civil, administrative or criminal proceedings as a plaintiff, defendant, victim, accused or witness. This prospect threatens many conflict actors. In some cases, the legal aspect of the conflict remains selective, i.e. does not apply to everyone, but only to individual participants. Take, for example, the case of riots. The crowd attacks the police, destroys premises, and commits outrages. Although all crowd participants are citizens of the state and are bound by constitutional obligations, legal relations (in terms of liability for riots) still arise, according to the Criminal Code, not with the entire crowd, but only with the organizers of mass riots and their active participants.
2. Opposing parties.
The main subjects of the conflict are the warring parties. Not all participants in the conflict in the broad sense are those individuals (groups) who are in direct confrontation. After all, there are also accomplices, passive witnesses and eyewitnesses, intermediaries and other figures. In a word, warring parties can be called those participants in the conflict who directly carry out active (offensive or defensive) actions against each other. In a conflict there are usually two opposing parties (in an interpersonal conflict - two people), but in principle there can be three or more - each with its own tasks.
Conflict is a complex phenomenon that includes many aspects. Each side can also be involved simultaneously in other conflicts that involve a large number of participants. And yet it is the opposing sides that are the core of the conflict. If one of them disappears for one reason or another, the conflict ends (or the composition of its participants changes). Therefore, in the future we will consider in more detail the interests and goals of the warring parties, the reasons and mechanisms of their behavior, as well as the results of the confrontation.
In a specific conflict, the opposing sides are individualized and therefore irreplaceable. This is understandable in relation to interpersonal relationships. In a group conflict, indispensability refers not to the individual, but to the group, just as in an interstate conflict, it does not refer to the official or body representing the state, but specifically to the latter.
It should also be added that the opposing sides may not be equal, i.e. belong to different levels. Thus, an individual may conflict not with another person, but with a group or state. The state itself often conflicts not with an equal partner, but, for example, with public organization, political party, group of extremists, etc. Such conflicts, if they are not carried out in institutionalized forms, are usually very acute, cruel and often end in death weakest side, which, as a rule, is a person.
Both opposing sides may not be identified immediately. At first, there may be unclear ideas about the enemy. But, as we have already noted, the conflict as such must be considered to have begun when there is not only an initial, but also a response action in the confrontation. This means that both sides must sooner or later be identified quite definitely.
This is best illustrated by the procedure of criminal proceedings. Until the criminal is detained, the conflict between him and the justice authorities is latent. The culprit himself, of course, knows about both sides of the conflict, but the investigative, inquiry, court and prosecutor’s office may not know who exactly committed the crime. The procedural activity of solving a crime and punishing the perpetrator moves from the latent phase to the overt phase when the suspect is detained. Thus, the conflict takes on concrete shape.
Of course, the most important characteristics of the warring parties, which sometimes clearly determine the outcome of the conflict, include their physical, social, material and intellectual capabilities, skills and abilities. Their social differences are associated not only with different rank or level in the sense used above, but also with the breadth of social connections, the scale of public or group support. Intelligence and experience in fighting are indispensable in all types of conflicts - from diplomatic “bargaining” to armed conflict. It is these qualities that make it possible to formulate a strategy of confrontation that is correct and beneficial for the party and to anticipate the actions of the opponent. For direct physical clashes and armed conflicts, the “destructive potentials” of opponents are especially important. In interpersonal conflicts - this is physical strength, the presence of weapons; in interstate clashes, in wars - this is the scale of the armed forces, the nature of the weapons and the effectiveness of the military-industrial complex.
It is characteristic that a strong “destructive potential,” on the one hand, is a guarantor of one’s own security, on the other, it provokes an increase in the potential of other participants in social interaction. This is especially noticeable at the interstate level, where arms races or disarmament inevitably lead to a certain balance of power.
One or both warring parties may temporarily withdraw from the conflict (for example, declare a truce). However, practical life shows that in most conflicts the main role of the opposing side remains throughout development.