The Teaching of S. S. Alekseev on Law: A Concise Scholarly Biography. A Report at the Monograph Debate

The report substantiates the necessity and objectives of the book dedicated to the scientific work of the great legal scholar, thinker, outstanding statesman-reformer Sergey Sergeevich Alekseev, one of the leading developers of the Constitution of the Russian Federation and the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. A distinction is made between the notions of intellectual and scholarly biography. The book dedicated to the analysis of the latter, also contains important elements of intellectual biography. Key milestones that affected Alekseev’s worldview are highlighted: his family, Stalin’s repressions against his father, who was later rehabilitated, Alekseev’s participation in the Great Patriotic War and then in perestroika reforms. It is noted that his choice of legal education was not accidental. The post-perestroika criticism of S. S. Alekseev for his ‘support’ of the Soviet regime is shown to be erroneous. In fact, he is criticized for the official ideology on which all Soviet social science was based and in the language of which all Soviet social science ‘spoke’. It is absurd to blame a single scientist for the shortcomings of the Soviet era, considering that he was only one member of the scientific community. The qualifier ‘concise’ in the heading’s subtitle, which represents only a very preliminary beginning in the study of the legacy of the great jurist and reformer, is explained. The book consists of three parts, 15 chapters, 103 paragraphs. The first part is devoted to the personality and historical context in which the scholar lived and worked. The second part focuses on to the Soviet, specific legal, and theoretical aspects, and the third explores the post-Soviet philosophical-legal, practical - reformative stage of the scholar’s work. At the same time, the fundamental basis of all his work remained unchanged: law opposes violence, protects human rights, and increases the level of organization in society. The jurist spoke about it throughout both phases, although in slightly different scientific language - that which was accepted in each era. It is suggested that the genre of systematic presentation of the main ideas of the thinker, implemented in the book, could be used in relation to other outstanding Soviet legal scholars to systematize the serious potential of jurisprudence accumulated in the mentioned period in our country.