Why laws and rules are needed in society

In the history of modern Russia, the attitude toward law, as a consequence of right, is quite ambiguous. During the imperial era, offenders departed for Siberia and were “lost” in the vast expanses of Central Asia. The Civil War and the Stalinist years, for all the severity of accountability, were characterized by rampant banditry and opposition to the state¹. The Khrushchev Thaw partially stabilized the situation. The period of Perestroika and the subsequent collapse of the Soviet system brought all the problems with crime in the country to the surface. The 1990s — a stage of democratic reforms — was marked by high levels of banditry and homicide rates. According to some studies, the number of deaths from unnatural causes during the last decade of the 20th century in Russia amounted to just over 3,000,000 people². These are additional arguments in favor of the conclusion that with a high level of legal nihilism in society, the crime rate is high, since people do not believe in legal and lawful methods of resolving their issues. The level of fear regarding the inevitability of punishment decreases. This leads to chaos in society and its atomization.

Much has been written about legal nihilism in Russia. For example, Doctor of Law, Professor Sergei Ivanovich Zakhartsev notes that legal nihilism in Russia is an integral (?) feature of the Russian people due to the historical experience they have survived. This has been reflected in folklore. For example, “One beaten man is worth two unbeaten ones” and “With a good whip, no gingerbread is needed”³. Looking further back, Alexander Herzen wrote: “The legal insecurity that has weighed upon the people from time immemorial was a kind of school for them. The crying injustice of one half of their laws taught them to hate the other; they obey them as a force. Complete inequality before the law killed in them all respect for legality. A Russian, whatever his rank, evades and violates the law wherever this can be done with impunity; and the government acts in precisely the same way”⁴.

In general, it is hard to recall even a single Russian tsar or emperor who did not become famous for his cruelty, violation of human rights, breach of agreements, or the absence of mass executions. Small exceptions in the form of the less bloodthirsty Alexander II, Nikita Khrushchev, Georgy Malenkov, and Mikhail Gorbachev are perceived as “weak” rulers, because the periods of their rule are associated with a decrease in administrative pressure on citizens; partial or full respect for human rights. This gives rise to erroneous conclusions about the allegedly inherent legal nihilism of certain peoples, which, nevertheless, feeds on their current legal nihilism, which bears the blame for the emergence of such opinions.

On the origin of laws

Human rights are realized with the help of laws, the quantity and quality of which determine interactions in society. I should note that the concepts of “right” and “law” are not equivalent. For a visual illustration of their difference, it is necessary to refer to the theory of state and law.

Thus, the Theological theory of the origin of law holds that law arose by divine will. In the treatise “Summa Theologiae”, the famous medieval theologian Thomas Aquinas pointed out that there is an eternal law contained in God, and all other laws derived from it. All natural rights and human laws are derived from eternal law and are an extension of God in human reason. And if so, then man is incapable of independently eradicating evil through human laws (as he called the progenitors of natural law), and human reason is incapable of arriving at truth without the Bible⁵.

Natural law became popular in the 18th-19th centuries, but the first ideas that people possess certain rights from birth arose in ancient times. Thus, Confucius believed that people are divided from birth into nobles and commoners, each having their own set of rights and duties. John Locke believed that man’s natural state is a state of freedom in his thoughts and actions. A person’s natural rights are property, labor, and creativity. Georg Hegel, being a positivist, believed that natural rights cannot exist without being enshrined in law, that is, on paper. If the law does not provide for it, there is no right.

The Historical theory considers that law appeared through the complication of social relations. Thus, Friedrich Karl von Savigny believed that law develops like an organism: first there was custom, after which written rules appeared. In his opinion, laws reflect the national and cultural characteristics of the citizens of each state⁶. Gustav Hugo specifies: law arises independently as a regulator of social relations. Without state intervention. The latter fixes accomplished facts in the form of laws. Law develops independently.

The Realistic theory arose in Germany as a reaction to the historical one. Rudolf von Jhering is the founder of this theory. He believed that there is no unequivocally objective, fair law, since it is born through the prevalence of one force over another in the struggle of interests. In other words, a subject with greater power (state) will form legal norms, guided by its own interests, which nevertheless express to some extent the interests of society. According to Jhering, the state is the most important social institution; it ensures order through coercion, without which law cannot function normally⁷.

The Marxist theory assumes that law arose along with private property and the task of law is to consolidate class division. Hence the definition of law as the will of the ruling class elevated into law. Its founder was Karl Marx.

Sources of laws

Law does not exist by itself; it has its source. The source of law is understood as the official expression and consolidation of norms that regulate social relations. The sources of law are:

1. Legal custom;
2. Contract;
3. Judicial precedent;
4. Legal doctrine (legal science);
5. Normative legal act.

Legal custom — an historically developed rule of behavior that has no documentary consolidation, yet is used to regulate relations. In the Russian Federation, legal customs of indigenous small-numbered peoples of Russia are recognized. Overall, legal customs remain in African countries and in international law. In the latter case, they are used very often.

Contract — an agreement between parties that defines the rights and obligations of the parties. In certain cases, a contract can be a source of law. For example, collective agreements at enterprises or international treaties between states: Conventions on Human Rights, declarations et cetera.

Judicial precedent — a court decision that is binding not only for the parties to the dispute, but also for others in cases where related relationships will be considered. It is a source of law in the Anglo-Saxon legal family and is not recognized in Russia. However, in Russian law there is a surrogate for it — reviews of judicial practice of the Supreme Court of the RF on certain issues and Resolutions of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the RF, which contain clarifications on how to correctly apply legal norms.

Legal doctrine — works on legal topics by respected professors, doctors of science et cetera who have made a major contribution to the development of legal scientific thought. They are not used in Russia, with the exception of the amicus curiae institution — friend of the court. This is when a court invites a respected scientist or scientific organization to give an opinion on the issue under consideration. It was officially enshrined in the rules of procedure of the Constitutional Court of the RF until the Klishas-Krasheninnikov amendments of 2020. Now it is used informally.

Normative legal act — this is the law itself and its derivative — a regulatory act. A normative legal act defines rules of conduct for an indefinite circle of persons. A non-normative act defines behavior for specific individuals or legal entities.

It turns out that law is a form of expression of rights: to life, freedom of assembly, religion, labor, creativity, et cetera. Consequently, laws must bring benefit, and complying with them is natural for every citizen in a democratic society.

Simple explanation of the importance of laws

Laws are needed to reach consensus in society. Not a situation where everyone is happy — such a state of affairs is impossible — but a situation that more or less suits the majority of society and does not severely infringe on anyone’s interests. Different social groups have different interests, and in a non-legal society, the tool for realizing these interests is violence. In a state governed by the rule of law, however, unnecessary violence can be avoided by promoting laws that facilitate the realization of these interests. Instead of civil war, different social groups seek the implementation of their legislative initiatives, often making concessions to one another, resulting in compromise, consensus-based laws. In other words, laws resolve (or prevent altogether) conflicts peacefully.

They also contribute to the establishment of moral norms. What is illegal is more likely to be immoral. Thus, society gains an additional lever to combat, for example, fraud. Laws regulate public morals, thereby exerting an influence on the prosperity of society as a whole. They allow justice to be realized. As noted above, in a society without laws or with a low level of the rule of law, the “right of the strong” operates — whoever is strong is right. This is unfair to the majority of people who cannot be classified as the “powers that be”. Therefore, law is in the interests of the majority, in the interests of the oppressed; in essence, it is a left-wing idea.

Laws also establish clear “rules of the game” for everyone. Even in children’s games, rules are established — this is the lesser evil that suits everyone so that all players understand how they can win fairly and so that they understand how to play at all. Rules of society grow into laws. How will a society without laws act? In much the same way as road traffic without rules. If you remove all road signs, strip away road markings and traffic lights — how will road traffic be carried out? Society without laws will live in roughly the same way.

They are also essential tools for conducting policy, social progress, and societal development, making it possible to change society. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 changed the United States forever, making it a more equal and just society. A significant role in the development of Great Britain was played by the Navigation Act of 1651.

Research on the importance of obeying laws

Before exploring this topic, attention must be drawn to the following. If sentiments arise in society that “An unjust law is no law at all”, the inevitable consequence will be a decrease in the effectiveness of legal regulation. Therefore, current legal reality proceeds from the maxim “Where there is no law, there is no crime”. Consequently, certain prohibitive conduct must stem from a clearly formulated prohibition. If these boundaries are blurred and norms become “elastic”, that is, allow a broad interpretation of their application, society will come to the thought that “There is a law, but no crime”. This devalues the very meaning of all legal regulation. This means there is a need to form a legal culture that should explain the necessity of obeying laws, including from a scientific point of view.

The question of obeying laws and the importance of this compliance are noted by scientists, philosophers, and legal scholars alike. For example, law professor Tom Tyler notes that order and security are the primary foundation of laws. Studies show that legal systems make it possible to maintain public order and minimize social conflicts. In his work “Why People Obey the Law”, he notes that obeying laws maintains not only order, but also procedural justice⁸. At the same time, the philosopher Plato, in his dialogue “Laws”, asserts that obeying rules is necessary for the harmonious existence of people and the prevention of disorder. He emphasizes that laws must be wise and just in order to maintain order and stability⁹.

Studies by the World Justice Project (WJP Rule of Law Index) show that countries with high levels of adherence to laws also possess high levels of protection of citizens’ rights¹⁰. Consequently, this underscores the fact that in legal science, the concept of protecting human rights is tied to the “rule of law”. In turn, John Locke believed that laws are created to protect people’s “natural rights”, such as life, liberty, and property. In “Two Treatises of Government”, Locke asserts that compliance with the law is necessary to protect these rights, and when the state fails to fulfill this role, it loses legitimacy¹¹.

The fundamental researcher of compliance issues Joseph Raz asserts that “a general moral good in the system encourages compliance with the law by being a reason to believe in and trust the moral worth of every individual law. Again there is no question of a special obligation to obey the law”¹². Consequently, if the legal system as a whole is good and just, citizens have plenty of reasons to trust its law-making and judicial institutions. This means that no additional formalization of the necessity/obligation to obey laws is required. Moreover, the paradox is that an obligation to obey the law does not exist even in a society with a good and just legal system.

In another work, “On Service and Other Authorities”, Raz explores why people are obligated to obey laws. His “service conception of authority” suggests that legal authority is justified if it helps people follow already existing moral reasons better than they could do on their own. Laws act as a tool, simplifying complex moral and practical decisions. If a legal system is unjust or does not promote moral goals, the moral obligation to obey it is weakened.

The importance of obeying laws stems from the fact that laws maintain order and ensure justice, but only if they are legitimate. Legitimacy is achieved if laws contribute to the good of society¹³.

John Rawls, in “A Theory of Justice”, reflects on the nature of law obedience when legitimizing inequality. He allows it on the condition that:

1. Equality in basic liberties is granted to all;
2. Social and economic inequalities are permissible if they work to the maximum benefit of the least advantaged.

Laws must observe these principles in order to be morally binding. Violation of the law is permissible only in the form of civil disobedience if it is aimed at restoring justice. The need to obey laws stems from their regulatory function: they support a just structure of society where all citizens have equal opportunities¹⁴.

Legal scholar Jürgen Habermas, in “Between Facts and Norms”, develops the concept of “discourse democracy”, where the legitimacy of laws is based on the rational agreement of citizens. Laws adopted as a result of democratic discussion possess moral obligation. Law is a mediator between facts and norms, unifying society. If laws are unjust or imposed, citizens have the right to challenge their legitimacy. At the same time, compliance with laws created through democratic procedures maintains stability and strengthens trust in the legal system¹⁵.

German scholar Hans Kelsen proposes separating law from morality, because the legal system must be evaluated as an autonomous structure. In his view, legality is based on a “basic norm” (Grundnorm), which accepts the legal system as legitimate. Even unjust laws must be obeyed to preserve the legal order. In this regard, the legal order depends on the strict implementation of laws. If laws are ignored, the legal system collapses, and society falls into chaos. Therefore, in his opinion, it is important to obey laws¹⁶.

“Law and Obligations” by Leslie Green considers law from the standpoint of its social utility. He argues that laws minimize conflicts and promote societal well-being. They perform a coordinating function, helping people interact and resolve disputes. Unjust laws lose their moral force, but compliance with them may be necessary to prevent anarchy. Compliance with laws is obligatory, as they create a predictable structure that fosters peace and prosperity¹⁷.

Legal philosopher from Oxford University Robert Alexy, in his work “The Argument from Injustice”, notes that a law is just if it reflects moral principles and human rights. If laws violate moral principles, complying with them becomes problematic. However, to maintain order, it is often required to obey even imperfect laws. Compliance with just laws strengthens the legal order and protects human rights, while non-compliance destroys social structures¹⁸.

Fear of punishment and awareness of responsibility for an offense are powerful motivators for obeying laws. Research in criminology shows that threats of punishment reduce crime rates. Chicago economist Gary Becker, who won the Nobel Prize for extending the domain of microeconomic analysis to a wide range of human behavior and interaction, including non-market behavior, developed the “rational offender theory”, showing that the threat of punishment can deter from committing crimes²¹. Here Thomas Hobbes echoes him: in “Leviathan”, the latter argued that in a state of nature, where law is absent, people tend to act in their own interests, which leads to chaos. Laws and punishments, in his view, prevent a “war of all against all”.

Research shows that legal stability and compliance with laws increase trust in the economy and contribute to business development. Economists and legal scholars, such as North and Weingast, have shown that the predictability of laws is the foundation for long-term economic investment and stability²². Montesquieu, in his work “The Spirit of Laws”, emphasized the importance of laws in regulating economic relations. He believed that laws should create conditions in which everyone can confidently conduct business without fear of injustice or deception²³.

Sociologists, in turn, argue that states where laws are obeyed and applied consistently have a higher level of legitimacy. When people feel that laws are fair, they begin to respect state institutions more²⁴. Jean-Jacques Rousseau, in “The Social Contract”, argued that a state is legitimate only when it serves the interests of society. To do this, it must implement fair laws and demand their compliance. When people understand that laws protect their interests, they tend to support state authority²⁵.

In the era of globalization, countries rely on international laws and agreements. Researchers have concluded that compliance with international laws improves relations between countries, fostering peace and cooperation²⁶. Immanuel Kant, in his work “Perpetual Peace”, believed that international law is important for maintaining peace between states. He argued that compliance with international norms creates a foundation for mutual respect and prevents military conflicts²⁷.

Psychologists have found that obeying laws helps people build a sense of social responsibility and moral obligation. This is especially relevant in studies on collective responsibility and social identity²⁸. The concept of moral duty was also central to Kant, who in “Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals” wrote about the “categorical imperative”. He believed that people are obligated to obey laws so that their behavior could be universal, that is, applicable to everyone²⁹.

Correlation between laws and freedom

It would be a mistake to assume that freedom is the absence of laws. The school social studies curriculum changes, but the main idea remains unchanged: freedom ends where the freedom of another person begins. The form and limits of this freedom are determined by law. Thanks to it, we can determine that boundary of permissions that renders a person’s model of behavior acceptable and safe for other citizens.

a) It is worth understanding that the law always appears later than right and legal relations. An example is electric scooters. In Russia, they appeared back in 2019, while regulation only came in 2023. It took 4 years before a law was enacted introducing rules of conduct in this area. This means that during those 4 years, regulation was carried out through adjacent laws or other sources of law.

b) The law also appears in cases where an abuse of right occurs or a realization arises that such a state of affairs is inconvenient or creates certain risks. An example is Russia’s electoral legislation. The ban on observers from other regions appeared after several successful “tours”, when professional observers exposed falsifications, causing a scandal to break out. Another example is “rally” requirements. After Alexey Navalny’s rallies, a requirement was established to create temporary bank accounts through which payment for holding a rally would pass if more than 500 people were present. Or “donor” legislation: the requirement to provide a SNILS appeared after the realization that paying an lump-sum payment to Honorary Donors of Russia and reflecting their “time off” should be handled through a single information system.

c) For the most part, laws strive to prevent dangerous behavior and organize security. For example, after the 2010 terrorist attacks in Russia, metal detectors appeared at the entrances to metro stations and airports. Such security measures, for instance, are absent in Bulgaria. Because there are practically no terrorist attacks in Bulgaria.

d) Law forms the concept of justice. The absence of laws leads to the emergence of the “right of the strong”, which we observed during the era of the Civil War and the “wild” nineties. Furthermore, not everyone can be strong.

The problem with Russian laws is their unintelligibility. The Higher School of Economics conducted studies on the quality of Russian law writing and concluded: they are more complex than Leo Tolstoy and Immanuel Kant. The researchers stated that the average number of words in a law grew from 4,970 in 1991 to 12,450 in 2019, and an individual article increased in volume threefold — from 96 to 291 words. Among the record-holders is an article of the law on state regulation of the production and turnover of alcohol with 707 words³⁰.

Another problem is their repressiveness. However, this trend is also observed in many other countries around the world: we are in a historical period where countries are closing themselves off from one another, and a struggle with dissent begins within them for the sake of consolidating society.

In general, whatever the laws may be, and however we may dislike them, in a democratic society we must comply with them. Especially if laws are passed without violating the principle of proportionality of imposed restrictions in order to protect the constitutional rights of citizens. Otherwise, the expediency of obeying them arises, since repressive laws are aimed, first and foremost, at suppressing dissent and emasculating any resistance: civil, passive, active, and legislative. At the same time, it is important to remember that disobedience, most often, is punished. Exceptions are rare laws when, due to a legislator’s mistake or the existence of a transition period, no responsibility for non-compliance is provided. A vivid example is the law on the register of bloggers, which imposes no responsibility for failing to appear in the register and for posting advertisements if one has 10,000+ subscribers.

At the same time, we must not forget that in a normal society, the presence of legal nihilism will lead to chaos on the level of the confrontations between Kadyrov and the Bakalchuk family. And if we do not like the laws, it is necessary to use the institutions of a full-fledged, healthy civil society and lobbying to change them.

Some laws are aimed at restricting the freedom of destructive actions, others — at restricting the freedom of actions positive for society. And restricting the freedom of destructive actions is a benefit for society. By law, you cannot kill anyone — that is, such a law, of course, restricts you in your actions. But in return you get more — others also cannot kill you without consequences in the form of state prosecution. Some are not satisfied with this — they would like to kill and rob, thereby obtaining benefits for themselves, however, they forget that in such cases “there will always be a bigger fish”, and in retaliation they may be killed themselves, they may be cruelly tortured, or their entire family may be slaughtered as punishment. The rule of revenge begins to operate. In the end, nobody wins. But with working laws that restrict destructive actions, everyone wins. Children are taught simple rules — not to run with scissors in their hands, not to touch a hot iron, and so on. Yes, these rules constrain their freedom. But a considerable portion of these rules protects them from a greater evil than the inability to run with scissors in their hands. It is the same with laws. The task of competent lawmaking is to create reasonable laws and reject ineffective ones.

Instead of an afterword

In conclusion, I would like to express the following thought. Compliance with laws is a fundamental condition for the sustainable and harmonious existence of society. It contributes to maintaining public order, reduces crime rates, and strengthens the sense of social responsibility, reinforcing collective identity. Furthermore, as the aforementioned studies indicate, the legitimacy and fairness of a legal system increase the level of trust in government institutions, which, in turn, reduces conflict and supports social consensus. In an economic context, compliance with laws stimulates stability and trust, providing a predictable legal framework for investment and long-term development. From a philosophical perspective, compliance with laws also lends legitimacy to state institutions, confirming that law is not merely a restriction, but an important tool for protecting rights and freedoms. In the conditions of globalization, compliance with international laws contributes to strengthening peace and cooperation, which underscores the significance of laws not only at the national, but also at the international level.

Thus, compliance with laws can be viewed as a necessary condition for creating a just, safe, and stable society. It should, however, also be noted that compliance with laws is mandatory in a democratic society where a wide range of citizens have access to ways to influence the adoption of laws and their correction. In those societies where citizens are cut off from the opportunity to influence policy and the formation of legislative bodies, disobedience to laws for the purpose of changing this situation is more morally justified than compliance with them.

1. Totalitarian Disorder: Banditry in the Final Years of Stalin’s Rule. Educational project on Russian-speaking civilization “Vatnikstan” [Electronic resource]. URL: https://vatnikstan.ru/history/total-besporyadok/ (accessed: 13.11.2024)
2. A. Vishnevsky. The Rise in Mortality in the 90s: Fact or Artifact? Universe of Russia. 2000. No. 3 [Electronic resource]. URL: https://www.hse.ru/data/2010/12/31/1208181184/2000_n3_p153-160.pdf (Accessed: 07.10.2024)
3. S.I. Zakhartsev. Legal Nihilism in Russia. Monitoring of Law Enforcement No. 2 (15) – 2015 [Electronic resource]. URL: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/pravovoy-nigilizm-v-rossii-1/pdf (Accessed: 06.10.2024)
4. Herzen A. I. Coll. works: in 30 vols. Vol. 7. M., 1956. P. 237
5. Thomas Aquinas. Summa Theologiae. Part I. Questions 1-43: 5-94773-003-0, 966-521-161-7. Publishing house: Kyiv: Elga, Nika-Center, Elkor-MK, Exlibris. 2002. Translation by Eremeev, A.A. Yudin [Electronic resource]. URL: https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/konfessii/summa-teologii-tom-1/ (Accessed: 14.10.2024)
6. Savigny F.K. von. System of Modern Roman Law: In 8 vols. Vol. IV / Trans. from German by G. Zhigulin; Ed. by O. Kutateladze, V. Zubar. – M.: Statut [Electronic resource]. URL: 2016.https://www.consultant.ru/edu/student/download_books/book/savinyi_fk_sistema_sovremennogo_rimskogo_prava_tom4/ (Accessed: 19.10.2024)
7. Kozlikhin I.Yu. Rudolf von Jhering / I.Yu. Kozlikhin // Jhering R. Selected works: In 2 vols. Vol. I / R. Jhering; Law Center Association. – St. Petersburg: Publishing house of R. Aslanov “Law Center Press”, 2006. – P. 7 – 11.
8. Tom R. Tyler. Why do People Obey the Law [Electronic resource]. URL: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/220011500_Why_do_People_Obey_the_Law (Accessed: 26.10.2024)
9. Republic. Laws. Statesman: trans. from Ancient Greek / Plato. – Moscow: Mysl, 1998. – 798 p.
10. World Justice Project. Rule of Law Index 2024 [Electronic resource]. URL: https://worldjusticeproject.org/rule-of-law-index/downloads/WJPIndex2024.pdf (Accessed: 30.10.2024)
11. Locke, J. Two Treatises of Government : monograph / J. Locke ; trans. from Eng. by E. S. Lagutin, Yu. V. Semenov. – 4th ed. – Moscow; Chelyabinsk: Socium, 2020. – 496 p.
12. Joseph Raz. The Authority of Law. Litres [Electronic resource]. URL: https://www.litres.ru/book/joseph-raz-3/avtoritet-prava-esse-o-prave-i-morali-70938826/chitat-onlayn/ (Accessed: 20.11.2024)
13. Raz, J. (1986). The Morality of Freedom. Clarendon Press.
14. Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press
15. Habermas, J. (1996). Between Facts and Norms. MIT Press.
16. Kelsen, H. (1967). Pure Theory of Law. University of California Press.
17. Green, L. (1990). The Authority of the State. Oxford University Press
18. Alexy, R. (2002). The Argument from Injustice: A Reply to Legal Positivism. Oxford University Press.
19. Tyler, T. R., & Huo, Y. J. (2002). Trust in the Law: Encouraging Public Cooperation with the Police and Courts. Russell Sage Foundation.
20. Aristotle. Works: In 4 vols. Vol. 4. – M.: Mysl, 1983.
21. Crime and Punishment: An Economic Approach. Gary S. Becker. Journal of Political Economy Vol. 76, No. 2 (Mar. – Apr., 1968), pp. 169-217
22. North, D. C., & Weingast, B. R. (1989). Constitutions and Commitment: The Evolution of Institutions Governing Public Choice in Seventeenth Century England
23. The Spirit of Laws / Trans. by A. Mateshuk Author: Ch. L. Montesquieu M.: Mysl, 1999.- 674 p
24. Tyler, T. R. (2006). Psychological perspectives on legitimacy and legitimation. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 375–400.
25. On the Social Contract. Treatises / Trans. from French —. M.: “KANON-press”, “Kuchkovo pole”, 1998. — 416 p.
26. Keohane, R. O. (1984). After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press.
27. Kant I. Perpetual Peace. — M, 1905.
28. Tajfel, H. (1981). Human Groups and Social Categories—Studies in Social Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
29. Kant, Immanuel. Works in six volumes. M., “Mysl”, 1965. (Philosoph. heritage). – Vol. 4. Part I.- 544 p.
30. Impossible to understand: Russian laws are more complex than the works of Leo Tolstoy and Immanuel Kant. Higher School of Economics [Electronic resource]. URL: https://www.hse.ru/news/expertise/350398575.html (Accessed: 17.10.2024)