Perm University Herald. Juridical Sciences. 2020. Issue 1 (47)


A. V. Dolzhikov, Saint Petersburg State University

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
ORCID: 0000-0001-8866-8993
ResearcherID: J-4829-2014
Articles of «Scopus» & «Web of Science»:       ---
Requisites: Dolzhikov A. V. Konstitutsionnyy printsip sorazmernosti: mezhdistsiplinarnyy podkhod [The Constitutional Principle of Proportionality: an Interdisciplinary Approach]. Vestnik Permskogo universiteta. Juridicheskie nauki – Perm University Herald. Juridical Sciences. 2020. Issue 47. Pp. 6–27. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.17072/1995-4190-2020-47-6-27
DOI: 10.17072/1995-4190-2020-47-6-27

Introduction: proportionality is an object of study in various fields of knowledge, with each discipline only focusing on particular aspects of this phenomenon. General scientific and legal aspects of proportionality are not to be mixed up. However, the interdisciplinary approach allows going beyond a strictly formal (legal) approach and seeing new dimensions of proportionality. Methods: the author argues that the application of an exclusively dogmatic approach in legal research is not capable of solving the complex issues of society, including the most difficult problem of balancing public and private interests. Therefore, in this paper, interdisciplinary methodology is used to provide a deeper analysis of the constitutional principle of proportionality. Purpose: interdisciplinary analysis of proportionality is geared not only to theoretical goals but also to applied tasks. In this regard, an attempt was made to link the interdisciplinarity approach with the judicial practice of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation. In accordance with this goal, the study is to solve three main tasks. The first part of the paper aims to identify the essential characteristics of the constitutional principle of proportionality; the author refers to philosophy, logic, psychology and ethics. In the second part, the idea of proportionality is analyzed through the prism of linguistics. Linguistic aspects are important when interpreting proportionality in its judicial sense in cases on the protection of constitutional rights. The third part analyzes proportionality in such fields as economics, sociology and political science from the perspective of finding a possible balance between constitutional rights of individuals and public interests. Results:the author justifies that only interconnection of various aspects of the interdisciplinary approach is meaningful in the analysis of proportionality. Each of the aspects cannot be applied separately. Conclusions: in constitutional adjudication, a combination of various interdisciplinary approaches is necessary depending on the circumstances of the case. Such a conclusion should not deny the value of legal dogmatics in application to the proportionality analysis. However, the latter topic deserves further research.

Keywords: proportionality principle; constitutional rights, constitutional adjudication; interdisciplinary approach 
  download the full-version article
References: 1. Abercrombie N. Sotsiologicheskiy slovar' / N. Abercrombie, S. Hill, B.S. Turner. 2-e izd. [Sociology Dictionary; N. Abercrombie, S. Hill, B.S. Turner. 2nd ed.]. Moscow, 2004. 620 p. (In Russ.).
2. Aleksandrova Z. E. Slovar' sinonimov russkogo yazyka: Prakticheskiy spravochnik. 11-e izd. [Dictionary of Synonyms of the Russian Language: Practical Guide. 11th ed.]. Moscow, 2001. 568 p. (In Russ.).
3. Antonov M. V. O nekotorykh teoreticheskikh problemakh primeneniya ekonomicheskogo analiza prava v Rossii [On Some Theoretical Problems for Applying Economic Analysis in Russian Law]. Pravo. Zhurnal Vysshey shkoly ekonomiki – Law. Journal of the Higher School of Economics. 2011. Issue 3. Pp. 10–25. (In Russ.).
4. Blankenagel A. O skrytoy pol'ze sravnitel'nogo pravovedeniya i sravnitel'nogo konstitutsionnogo prava [On the Hidden Benefits of Comparative Jurisprudence and Comparative Constitutional Law]. Sravnitel'noe konstitutsionnoe obozrenie – Comparative Constitutional Review. 2004. Issue 3 (48). Pp. 51–52. (In Russ.).
5. Bol'shoy tolkovyy slovar' russkogo yazyka / sost. i gl. red. S. A. Kuznetsov [The Large Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language; ed. by S. A. Kuznetsov]. St. Petersburg, 2000. 1534 p. (In Russ.).
6. Vasil'eva S. V. Ne doveryayte sozdanie zakona cheloveku, kotoryy khochet provesti v nem tol'ko svoi egoisticheskie interesy! [Do not Entrust Law-Making to a Person Who Wants to Pursue Only His Selfish Interests!]. Metodologiya poiska (vybora) optimal'nykh pravovykh resheniy / pod nauch. red. M. V. Vilisova, I. Yu. Kolesnik, M. Netesova i dr. [Methodology for Searching (Selecting) Optimal Legal Solutions; ed. by M. V. Vilisov, I. Yu. Kolesnik, M. Netesov et al.]. Moscow, 2012. Issue 1–2. Pp. 116–119. (In Russ.).
7. Gadzhiev G. A. Predmet konstitutsionnoy ekonomiki [The Scope of Constitutional Economics]. Ocherki konstitutsionnoy ekonomiki / otv. red. G. A. Gadzhiev [Essays on Constitutional Economics; ed. by G. A. Gadzhiev]. Moscow, 2009. Pp. 37–91. (In Russ.).
8. Golovko L. V. Pravovaya nauka protiv social sciences: kakim dolzhen byt' rossiyskiy vybor? [Legal Science against Social Sciences: what should Russia Choose?]. Zakon – ZAKON. 2014. Issue 12. Pp. 32–43. (In Russ.).
9. Golubok S. A. Rossiyskoe pravosudie po evropeyskim standartam. Retsenziya na knigu Bur¬kov A. L. Konventsiya o zashchite prav cheloveka v sudakh Rossii (M.: Volters Kluver, 2010) [Russian Justice under the European Standards. Book Review: Burkov A. L. Convention on the Protection of Human Rights in the Courts of Russia (Moscow: Wolters Kluwer, 2010)]. Sravnitel'noe konstitutsionnoe obozrenie – Comparative Constitutional Review. 2010. Issue 5 (78). Pp. 172–174. (In Russ.).
10. Dahl V. Tolkovyy slovar' zhivogo veliko¬russko¬go yazyka. V 4-kh t. [Explanatory Dictionary of the Living Great Russian Language. In 4 vols.].  Moscow, 2006. Vol. 4. 672 p. (In Russ.).
11. Evseev A. P. Psikhologiya konstitutsionnogo sudoproizvodstva: monografiya [The Psychology of Constitutional Proceedings: Monograph]. Kharkov, 2013. 230 p. (In Russ.).
12. Eryshev A. A., Lukashevich N. P., Slastenko E. F. Logika. 3-e izd. [Logic; A.A. Eryshev, N. P. Lu¬kashevich, E. F. Slastenko. 3rd ed.]. Kiev, 2000. 184 p. (In Russ.).
13. Kak sud'i prinimayut resheniya: empiricheskie issledovaniya prava / pod red. V. V. Volkova [How Judges Make Decisions: Empirical Studies of Law; ed. by V. V. Volkov]. Moscow, 2012. 368 p. (In Russ.).
14. Karapetov A. G. Ekonomicheskiy analiz prava [Economic Analysis of Law]. Moscow, 2016. 528 p. (In Russ.).
15. Kokotov A. N. Konstitutsiya i obshchestvo: balans interesov [Constitution and Society: Balance of Interests]. Chinovnik" – Civil Servant. 2003. Issue 6. Pp. 15-21. (In Russ.).
16. Kulikov E. A. Kategoriya mery v prave: voprosy teorii. Avtoref. dis. ... kand. yurid. nauk [The Concept of Measure in Law: Theoretical Issues: Synopsis of Cand. jurid. sci. diss.]. Chelyabinsk, 2013. 26 p. (In Russ.).
17. Kurbatov A. Ya. Konstitutsionnyy sud RF: problemy s kompetentsiey trebuyut resheniya [Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation: Competence Problems Need to Be Solved]. Zakon – ZAKON. 2011. Issue 8. Pp. 115–122. (In Russ.).
18. Lopatin V. V., Lopatina L. E.  Russkiy tolkovyy slovar' [Russian Explanatory Dictionary]. Moscow, 2000. 831 p. (In Russ.).
19. Losev A. Mera [Measure]. Filosofskaya entsiklopediya / pod red. F.V. Konstantinova. V 5 t. [Encyclopedia of Philosophy; ed. by F.V. Konstantinov. In 5 vols.]. Moscow, 1964. Vol. 3. Pp. 389–394. (In Russ.).
20. Mill J. S. Osnovy politicheskoy ekonomii [Principles of Political Economy]. Moscow, 1981. Vol. 3. 447 p. (In Russ.).
21. Odintsova M. I. Ekonomicheskie dovody v Konstitutsionnom Sude: vozmozhnosti i granitsy ikh primeneniya [Economic Reasoning in the Constitutional Court: Possibilities and Limits of Its Application]. Ocherki konstitutsionnoy ekonomiki / otv. red. G. A. Gadzhiev [Essays on the Constitutional Economics; ed. by G. A. Gadzhiev]. Moscow, 2009. Pp. 223–231. (In Russ.).
22. Parsons T. O sotsial'nykh sistemakh [On Social Systems]. Moscow, 2002. 830 p. (In Russ.).
23. Parsons T. Sistema sovremennykh obshchestv [The System of Modern Societies]. Moscow, 1998. 269 p. (In Russ.).
24. Reusner M. A. Gosudarstvo [State]. Pt. 2; Pt. 3. Gosudarstvo i obshchestvo; Gosudarstvennye formy [State and Society; State Forms]. Moscow, 1912. 291 p. (In Russ.).
25. Sanzharevskiy I. I. Proportsional'nost' v sovremennykh sotsial'no-politicheskikh otnosheniyakh [Proportionality in Modern Socio-Political Relations]. Saratov, 2004. 144 p. (In Russ.).
26. Slovar' sinonimov russkogo yazyka / sost. A. Yu. Mudrova [Dictionary of Synonyms of the Russian Language; comp. by A. Yu. Mudrova]. Moscow, 2009. 507 p. (In Russ.).
27. Smith A. Issledovanie o prirode i prichinakh bogatstva narodov [An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations]. Moscow, 2007. 960 p. (In Russ.).
28. Starodubtseva E. B., Lozovskiy L. Sh., Rays¬berg B. A. Sovremennyy ekonomicheskiy slovar'. 6-e izd. [Modern Dictionary of Economics. 6th ed.]. Moscow, 2017. 512 p. (In Russ.).
29. Syrunina T. Perspektivy i slozhnosti primeneniya sudami ekonomicheskogo analiza prava pri razreshenii sporov [Perspectives and Challenges for Applying Economic Analysis in Judicial Practice]. Sravnitel'noe konstitutsionnoe obozrenie – Comparative Constitutional Review. 2011. Issue 4 (83). Pp. 79–90. (In Russ.).
30. Timoshina E. V., Kraevskiy A. A., Salmin D. N. Metodologiya sudebnogo tolkovaniya: instrumenty vzveshivaniya v situatsii konkurentsii prav cheloveka [Axiology of the Judicial Interpretation: Means of Weighing in the Situation of Competition of Human Rights]. Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo universiteta. Seriya 14. Pravo – Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Law. 2015. Issue 3. Pp. 4–34. (In Russ.).
31. Troitskaya A. Mezhdistsiplinarnost' v sravnitel'nom konstitutsionno-pravovom issledovanii [Interdisciplinary Approach in Comparative Constitutional Research]. Sravnitel'noe konstitutsionnoe obozrenie – Comparative Constitutional Review. 2017. Issue 5 (120). P. 57–77. (In Russ.).
32. Etimologicheskiy slovar' slavyanskikh yazykov. Praslavyanskiy leksicheskiy fond [Etymological Dictionary of Slavic Languages. Proto-Slavic Lexical Stock]. Moscow, 1992. Issue 19. 254 p. (In Russ.).
33. Etimologicheskiy slovar' sovremennogo russkogo yazyka / sost. A. K. Shaposhnikov: v 2 t. [Etymological Dictionary of the Modern Russian Language; comp. by A. K. Shaposhnikov: in 2 vols.]. Moscow, 2010. Vol. 1. 584 p. (In Russ.).
34. Berkowitz P. Constitutional Conservatism. Policy Review. 2009. Vol. 153. Pp. 3–22. (In Eng.).
35. Blair T., Schröder G. Europe: the Third Way / Die Neue Mitte. The New Labour Reader; ed. by A. Chadwick. Cambridge, 2003. Pp. 110–115. (In Eng.).
36. Coase R. H. The Problem of Social Cost. The Journal of Law and Economics. 1960. Vol. 3. Pp. 1–44. DOI:10.1086/466560. (In Eng.).
37. Cost-Benefit Analysis; ed. by R. Layard, St. Glaister. Cambridge, 1994. 497 p. (In Eng.).
38. Dworkin R. M. Is Wealth a Value? The Journal of Legal Studies. 1980. Vol. 9. Issue 2. Pp. 191–226. (In Eng.).
39. Florida R. The Rise of the Creative Class: And How It's Transforming Work, Leisure, Community and Everyday Life. New York, 2002. 434 p. (In Eng.).
40. George T. E., Weaver T. G. The Role of Personal Attributes and Social Backgrounds on Judging. The Oxford Handbook of U.S. Judicial Behavior; ed. by L. Epstein, St. A. Lindquist. New York, 2017. Pp. 286–339. (In Eng.).
41. Giddens A. The Third Way and Its Critics. Cambridge, 2000. 189 p. (In Eng.).
42. Giddens A. The Third Way: the Renewal of Social Democracy. Malden, 1999. 166 p. (In Eng.).
43. Heck P. Gesetzesauslegung und Interessenjurisprudenz. Archiv für die civilistische Praxis. 1914. Vol. 112. Issue 1. Pp. 1–318. (In Germ.).
44. Hunt I. Liberal Socialism: An Alternative Social Ideal Grounded in Rawls and Marx. Lanham, 2015. 182 p. (In Eng.).
45. Jakobs M. Ch. Der Grundsatz der Verhältnismäßigkeit. Mit einer exemplarischen Darstellung seiner Geltung im Atomrecht. Cologne, 1985. 243 p. (In Germ.).
46. Kennedy D. Cost-Benefit Analysis of Entitlement Problems: A Critique. Stanford Law Review. 1981. Vol. 33. Issue 3. Pp. 387–445. (In Eng.).
47. Kühn Z. Worlds Apart: Western and Central European Judicial Culture at the Onset of the European Enlargement. The American Journal of Comparative Law. 2004. Vol. 52. Issue 3. Pp. 531–567. (In Eng.).
48. Law D.S. The Anatomy of a Conservative Court: Judicial Review in Japan. Texas Law Review. 2009. Vol. 87. Issue 7. Pp. 1545–1593. (In Eng.).
49. Law D.S. Why Has Judicial Review Failed in Japan. Washington University Law Review. 2010. Vol. 88. Pp. 1425–1466. (In Eng.).
50. Milgate M. Equilibrium: Development of the Concept. The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics; ed. by Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 3rd ed. London, 2018. Pp. 3851–3857. Available at: 978-1-349-95189-5. (In Eng.).
51. Mishan E. J., Quah E. Cost-Benefit Analysis. London, 2007. 316 p. (In Eng.).
52. Mullender R. Theorizing the Third Way: Qualified Consequentialism, the Proportionality Principle, and the New Social Democracy. Journal of Law and Society. 2000. Vol. 27. Issue 4. Pp. 493–516. (In Eng.).
53. Myerson R.B. Nash Equilibrium and the History of Economic Theory. Journal of Economic Literature. 1999. Vol. 37. Issue 3. Рp. 1067–1082. (In Eng.).
54. Oxford Handbook of U.S. Judicial Behavior; ed. by L. Epstein, S. A. Lindquist. New York, 2017. 595 p. (In Eng.).
55. Petrażycki L. Law and Morality. Cambridge, 1955. 335 p. (In Eng.)
56. Pinello D. R. Linking Party to Judicial Ideology in American Courts: A Meta-Analysis. The Justice System Journal. 1999. Vol. 20. Issue 3. Pp. 219–254. (In Eng.).
57. Posner R. A. Economic Analysis of Law. 3rd ed. Boston, 1986. 666 p. (In Eng.).
58. Pound R. A Survey of Social Interests. Harvard Law Review. 1943. Vol. 57. Issue 1. Pp. 1–39. (In Eng.).
59. Robinson R. Cost-Benefit Analysis. The BMJ. 1993. Vol. 307. Issue 6909. Pp. 924–926. (In Eng.).
60. Rohr D. G. The Origins of Social Liberalism in Germany. Chicago, 1963. 179 p. (In Eng.).
61. Sawer M. The Ethical State?: Social Liberalism in Australia. Carlton, 2003. 224 p. (In Eng.).
62. Segal J. A., Cover A. D. Ideological Values and the Votes of US Supreme Court Justices. American Political Science Review. 1989. Vol. 83. Issue 2. Pp. 557–565. (In Eng.).
63. Shaffer R. Pan-European Thought in British Fascism: The International Third Position and the Alliance for Peace and Freedom. Patterns of Prejudice. 2018. Vol. 52. Issue 1. Pp. 78–99. (In Eng.).
64. Stampe E. Rechtsfindung durch Interessenwägung. Deutsche Juristen-Zeitung. 1905. Vol. 10. Pp. 713–719. (In Germ.).
65. Stuck H. Subsumtion und Abwägung. Archiv für Rechts- und Sozialphilosophie. 1998. Vol. 84. Is¬sue 3. Pp. 405–419. (In Germ.).
66. Sullivan K. M. Post-Liberal Judging: the Roles of Categorization and Balancing. University of Colorado Law Review. 1992. Vol. 63. Pp. 293–317. (In Eng.).
67. Toward a General Theory of Action; ed. by T. Parsons, E. A. Shils. Cambridge, 1951. 506 p. (In Eng.).
68. Voßkuhle A. Der Grundsatz der Verhältnismäßigkeit. Juristische Schulung. 2007. Vol. 47. Issue 5. Pp. 429–431. (In Germ.)
Received: 03.11.2019
Financing: ---




The Perm State University
614990, Perm, street Bukireva, 15
+7 (342) 2 396 275
ISSN 1995-4190 ISSN (eng.) 2618-8104
ISSN (online) 2658-7106
DOI 10.17072/1995-4190
(с) Editorial board, 2010
The magazine is registered in Federal Agency of supervision in sphere of communication and mass communications.
The certificate on registration of mass media ПИ № ФС77-33087 from September, 5th, 2008
The certificate on reregistration of mass media ПИ № ФС77-53189 from Marth, 14th, 2013

The magazine is included in List ВАК and in the Russian index of scientific citing

The founder & Publisher: the State educational institution of the higher training
“The Perm State University”.
Publishing 4 times a year