The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
45
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajpslc
TYPE
Original Research
PAGE NO.
45-53
10.37547/tajpslc/Volume07Issue07-09
OPEN ACCESS
SUBMITED
20 May 2025
ACCEPTED
16 June 2025
PUBLISHED
18 July 2025
VOLUME
Vol.07 Issue07 2025
CITATION
Farangiz Bahodirovna. (2025). Legal policy as a fundamental basis for
forming the concept of law
‑
making policy. The American Journal of
Political Science Law and Criminology, 7(07), 45
–
53.
https://doi.org/10.37547/tajpslc/Volume07Issue07-09
COPYRIGHT
© 2025 Original content from this work may be used under the terms
of the creative commons attributes 4.0 License.
Legal policy as a
fundamental basis for
forming the concept of
law
‑
making policy
Farangiz Bahodirovna
Theory and History of the State and Law. History of Legal Doctrines,
Doctoral Candidate, Institute for Legislation and Legal Policy under the
President of the Republic of Uzbekistan
Abstract:
This article comprehensively highlights the
theoretical and practical aspects of the concept of legal
policy, its role and functional significance in public
administration. As the subject of the study, legal policy
is considered an important direction of state policy. The
author analyzes the dual nature of legal policy
—
as
policy based on law, and as law used as an instrument
of political governance. The study reveals the
theoretical foundations of the interaction between
politics and law, emphasizing the need for their balance
and consistency as a condition for democratic reforms.
The methodological basis includes general theory of
law, systematic, functional, and analytical approaches.
The article scientifically substantiates the structure of
legal policy, its types and forms of expression, in
particular, the relationship between lawmaking policy
and law enforcement policy. As a result, it is established
that effective implementation of legal policy serves as a
guarantee of democratic development. The conclusion
emphasizes that legal policy represents the nationwide
nature of state policy and is the main driving force of
legal reforms. This approach contributes to establishing
legal policy as an independent and leading category of
legal theory.
Keywords:
Legal policy, state policy, lawmaking, law
enforcement, political-legal system, legal regulation,
democracy, rule of law.
Introduction:
In the process of building a modern rule-
of-law state, the inseparable link between politics and
law is gaining ever greater importance. In particular,
legal policy is an important avenue of state activity
aimed at regulating society through law and ensuring
social stability, while defining its theoretical foundations
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
46
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajpslc
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
remains one of the pressing issues of jurisprudence.
The purpose of this article is to provide a theoretical
analysis of the essence and content of the concept of
legal policy, its structure and principal types, and to
elucidate the place of legal policy within the policy of
law-making.
Within the scope of the study, the views of scholars
such as A.P. Mazurenko, N.I. Matuzov, A.V. Malko, L.A.
Korobova, O. Rybakov, N.V. Putilo, K.V. Shundikov, N.V.
Isakov, and V.V. Subochev on legal policy are
examined. Their approaches allow legal policy to be
considered as an effective strategy of legal regulation.
At the same time, other approaches are critically
examined as well
—
such as the narrow view of politics
as a process carried out exclusively by legal
instruments.
METHODS
The study explores the dual nature of the concept of
legal policy on the basis of the interrelationship of its
components
—
the policy of law-making and the policy
of law enforcement. The hierarchy of normative legal
acts and the influence of legal policy on the principle of
the rule of law were also examined.
As its methodology, the research employed methods
of systems analysis, the logical-analytical method,
comparative analysis, and interpretation of normative
documents. The object of the study is the theoretical
model of legal policy, while the subject is the
mechanisms for exercising state power through legal
policy.
RESULTS
The theory of state and law, like any other branch of
jurisprudence, possesses a distinctive categorical
apparatus composed of general scholarly concepts
that mirror various phenomena of legal reality. It is
well known that most of these concepts have reached
us from ancient times, while a significant part was
shaped by jurists of the modern and contemporary
eras. Yet the process of cognition is irreversible, and
the dialectic of its development demands the creation
of new concepts
—
among which the notion of legal
policy undoubtedly belongs. It is no exaggeration to
state that legal policy is a unique phenomenon. Its
uniqueness lies, above all, in the fact that it objectively
pertains simultaneously to both law and politics.
It should be especially emphasized that politics, by its
very nature, seeks the normative shaping of political
relations, which, when necessary, must assume the
form of legal relations
—
finding expression in laws,
treaties, constitutions, and other state decisions. Thus,
it is precisely the connection with law that turns
politics into a factor ensuring social stability and the
sustainability of social relations. Otherwise, a
continuous chain of political changes arises (a zone of
political instability), leading to great hardships for
people. Practice shows that under normal conditions
law and politics can act as allies, closely cooperating
with each other and assisting one another in achieving
common goals. This is possible if politics is legally
oriented and develops and is implemented by legal
means, corresponding to the ideals of law
—
that is, if it
is legal in nature.
In a modern democratic political system, law performs
at least two principal functions: first, it protects the
private interests of individual citizens and their
associations; second, it recognizes, confirms, or rejects
the possibilities of particular actions by political actors
—
that is, it legitimizes politics while simultaneously
ensuring the legitimacy of the decisions adopted. [1, 34-
p].
The validity of this approach is confirmed by the view
that a genuinely democratic political regime does not
exclude the struggle for political power. However, the
role of law in this process lies in ensuring the creation
and strengthening of just political and state institutions
and legal norms that correspond to the natural rights
and freedoms of individuals, provide non-violent and
lawful forms of conflict resolution, and facilitate civilized
political discourse. [2, 14-p].
Thus, it can be said that law serves as an effective
stabilizer of political life, an expression and safeguard of
justice, and a barrier to the voluntaristic attempts of
leaders and officials at all levels. In the twentieth
century, the idea also emerged that “law is a means of
governan
ce and the implementation of policy in life.” [3,
21-p]. This proposition can be reinforced by
emphasizing that law is a mechanism for the exercise of
legitimate political power, grounded in the following
managerial and social characteristics:
•
the open and public nature of the norms applied
in law;
•
the diversity of sanctions employed within the
legal framework, allowing for the selection of the most
appropriate means of regulating social life;
•
the clear delineation and strict definition of the
rights and duties of participants in legal relations;
•
the relative stability of legal norms and their low
susceptibility to arbitrariness and the personal qualities
of office-holders;
•
the “uniformity” of the law, which functions as
a “universal, equal criterion for all.” [4, 14
-p].
In this connection, it should be especially noted that the
very idea that law serves as a means of governance and
the
implementation
of
policy
underlies
the
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
47
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajpslc
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
development, practical formation, and realization of
the theoretical foundations of legal policy. Moreover,
legal policy has come to be understood not only as a
“means of governance” but also as a “means of limiting
power by law.” As N.V. Putilo observes, “the
phenomenon of legal policy is inherent in any state. A
serious conversation about the legitimacy of state
power is possible only from the ‘heights’ of legal
policy.” [5,128
-p].
The interaction between law and politics can be highly
effective, provided one is always able to find the
optimal balance between them. Such balance is usually
achieved when politics assumes a legal character. The
very term “legal policy” shows that the two
phenomena are closely linked and follow the same
vector of development. In other words, they perform
the same functions while employing their own
methods. If politics is the art of what is attainable and
expedient, law is the art of what is good and just. These
functions do not contradict each other. [6, 29-p]. In my
view, it is difficult not to agree with the correctness of
this assertion.
It should
be noted that the phrase “legal policy” is
important from the standpoint of various disciplines
—
most often from such fields of knowledge as
jurisprudence and political science. Accordingly, either
the political-science or the legal aspect of this
phenomenon becomes determinative. It is clear that in
the legal sciences the term “legal policy” has a
completely different meaning than in political science.
Therefore, it should be stated at once that in this study
the concept of “legal policy” is examined preci
sely
from the perspective of the general theory of law.
At the same time, it should be observed that the term
“legal policy” has been most systematically employed
by legal scholars at the sectoral level, in particular by
specialists in the field of criminal law. An independent
doctrine of criminal policy has already taken shape
here. However, despite the topic’s relatively thorough
treatment, scholars have yet to reach a consensus
—
particularly regarding the nature and essence of this
type of state policy. In the literature, criminal policy is
interpreted in various ways. The substance of these
differences is set out well by A. I. Korobeev. [7,41-p].
At the same time, debate primarily centers on the
relationship between the concepts of “criminal policy”
and “policy in the sphere of combating crime,”
whereas the question of the nature of such policy is
scarcely discussed. This indicates that the term is used
rather formally, without specific semantic content and
without attempts at a deep scholarly analysis of the
concept it conveys.
To confirm this, we cite the viewpoint of N. A. Belyaev,
who holds that politics as a whole is an ideological
category, that is, “a set of ideas formulated by the
bodies that determine policy.” [8, 12
-p]. Boshqa holatda
u jinoyat siyosati - davlat tomonidan ishlab chiqilgan va
jamiyat
rivojlanishining
obyektiv
qonunlariga
asoslangan davlat va jamoat organlari hamda
tashkilotlarining mehnat ahli manfaatlarini jinoiy
tajovuzlardan jazo qo'llash yo'li bilan himoya qilish
bo'yicha faoliyat yo'nalishidir, deb ta'kidlab, urg'ularni
o'zgartiradi[9, 15-p]. In another instance he shifts the
emphasis, asserting that criminal policy is a line of
activity pursued by state and public bodies and
organizations to protect the interests of working people
from criminal encroachments through the application of
punishment
—
an activity devised by the state and based
on the objective laws of social development \[9, p. 15].
Such a sharp shift in emphasis when describing the
concept in question
—from a “complex
of ideas” to a
“line of activity”—
does not clarify the essence of this
complex politico-legal phenomenon. The example cited
is not the only one; therefore, it is advisable to analyse
in greater detail the characteristic definitions of legal
policy offered in the literature.
A number of authors understand legal policy as a policy
founded on law. For instance, K. V. Shundikov defines
legal policy as a set of legal ideas, attitudes, principles,
aims, tasks, priorities, and also legal means directed
toward ensuring an optimal level of development and
functioning of social relations. In his view, the
distinguishing feature of legal policy is that it is
grounded in law and is manifested in the state’s
adoption of the relevant normative acts and the
implementation of law-enforcement activity on their
basis. [10,149-p].
Thus, this term is understood as a policy carried out by
legal means. It is in this sense that the term is used in a
number of scholarly studies devoted to issues of legal
policy. It is well known that policy can be implemented
by various means: organizational, economic, technical,
and also legal. Numerous normative legal acts can be
cited as confirmation of this.
Another matter is that if one characterizes legal policy
solely as a policy conducted “through law” or “by means
of legal instruments,” such an understanding
substantially limits the meaning and potential of this
phenomenon. Accordingly, the literature contains the
opinion that a policy may be considered legal if it is
carried out within the framework of the law. In
particular, Y. Y. Permyakov writes: “If power relies on
law, there is every reason to regard it as legal policy.”
[11,6-p]. Such an assertion cannot be accepted even in
part, for this position reflects merely an instrumental
approach to the essence of law, assigning the leading
role in this unique tandem to concrete policy rather than
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
48
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajpslc
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
to law. This understanding of the concept of legal
policy creates a dissonance with the theory and
practice of the rule-of-law state. At the same time, as
practice has repeatedly shown, where policy “relies
only on law” yet “is not confined by it,” the likelihood
arises of both unexpected policy shifts and outright
arbitrariness. In such circumstances, policy fashions a
law convenient to itself “for the convenience of leaning
on it.”
There are, however, other approaches to describing
the essence of legal policy. For instance, V. V. Subochev
maintained that legal policy is the most optimal form
of governing and regulating social relations, grounded
in an optimal combination of legal instruments and
juridical structures that together constitute an
effective mechanism of legal regulation
—
one that
manifests itself in various forms, encompasses all
levels of authority, accords with the elaborated
concept of the state’s development strategy, and
pursues socially beneficial goals. [12, 145-p].
O. Rybakov, for his part, suggests examining the
concept of legal policy in both a narrow and a broad
sense. In the narrow sense, legal policy is the
development and implementation of tactics and
strategy in the sphere of creating and applying law on
the basis of the general principles of humanism. In the
broad sense, it is, above all, the activity of state and
local authorities, public associations, and individuals
that encompasses a system of ideas, goals, measures,
and methods ensuring the functioning and
reproduction of a legal mechanism grounded in the
Constitution and the norms of international law, aimed
at realizing the interests, rights, and freedoms of the
individual in interaction with his or her duties. [13, 30-
p].
The definitions cited constitute an attempt at a
profound scholarly analysis of the phenomenon under
study; however, in our view, they are marked by
excessive detail and breadth, which hampers a clear
understanding of the meaning of the concept they
address.
Analysis of research results
In our view, a more successful approach to defining
legal policy is demonstrated by N. I. Matuzov and A. V.
Malko in their works on the subject. Thus, N. I.
Matuzov maintains that legal policy, as a general type
of policy (as a general concept), is a complex of
measures, ideas, tasks, goals, programs, and methods
implemented in the sphere of legal influence and
through law. [14, 28-p][15, 15-p]. The given definition
quite fully reflects the essence of the phenomenon in
question, since, on the one hand, it points to the
organic connection of legal policy with the ideas, tasks,
and attitudes directed toward the study of this politico-
legal phenomenon, and, on the other, it orients toward
the implementation of strategic and tactical decisions in
the sphere of legal influence and by means of law.
According to A. V. Malko, “legal policy is a sc
ientifically
grounded, consistent, and systematic activity of state
and local authorities in the cultured use of legal means
to achieve such goals as improving an effective
mechanism of legal regulation, fully safeguarding the
rights and freedoms of the individual and citizen,
strengthening discipline, legality, and law and order,
forming rule-of-law statehood, and developing a high
level of legal culture in the life of society and the
individual.” [16, 15
-p].
The scholarly value of such a definition lies in the fact
that
first, legal policy is characterized as a scientifically
grounded and systematic activity conducted not only by
state bodies but also by non-state entities;
second, it is not an abstract activity, but a purposeful
one connected with law
—
both within the sphere of
legal influence and by means of law;
third, this understanding of legal policy makes it
possible to view the phenomenon as “the result of
abstract intellectual work,” placing the notion and
category of legal policy among the important concepts
that hold a worthy place in the general theory of state
and law.
A similar viewpoint is upheld by I. S. Morozova, who
understands legal policy as state activity aimed at
creating legal conditions that give rise to
—
and ensure
the functioning of
—
processes and changes in society
that are beneficial to the state. [17, 150-p]. This
viewpoint is close to that of the author, yet in our
opinion it does not sufficiently highlight the strategic
orientation of this activity and its systematic nature.
After all, any policy
—
whether in the sphere of law,
economics, science, or education
—
implies not only
urgent, day-to-day, routine activity; as A. V. Malko
noted, real policy is linked with anticipating situations,
predicting new “movements” of reality, and
presupposes scientific forecasting, planning, and so
forth. In public consciousness, policy is always
understood as an activity that is strategically and
tactically elaborated, aimed at the future, and carried
out in accordance with a pre-established plan.
A definition close to this approach is the following: legal
policy as the state’s strategy of activity in the sphere of
legal regulation. It is in this sense that A. P. Korobova
employs the category “legal policy.” She emphasizes
that, by its very nature, legal policy is state activity in the
domain of legal regulation. The specificity of this activity
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
49
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajpslc
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
consists in the development and/or implementation of
strategic legal ideas
—
that is, ideas that determine the
directions of society’s overall development. At the
foundation of legal policy lies legal ideology. [19, 7-p].
This definition of legal policy is attractive for its
originality in interpreting the phenomenon in
question; however, it is essential to exercise
moderation
—
that is, to think and act in such a way
that, in so crucial a sphere of nationwide policy as legal
policy, ideology does not prevail over law. At the same
time, it is impossible to deny that any policy is always
a form of ideology, or, in other words, an activity with
a definite inner orientation. It is important that this
orientation be directed toward the interests of society
as a whole rather than those of narrow political groups.
In his doctoral dissertation, which is devoted
specifically to the problems of legal policy, N. V. Isakov
presents a well-substantiated approach to defining the
concept that interests us. Legal policy is understood as
a distinctive politico-legal phenomenon that takes
shape through the systematic, scientifically grounded
activity of the state and public associations, and is
directed toward defining the strategy and tactics of
society’s legal development, improving the mechanism
of legal regulation, safeguarding the rights and
freedoms of the individual and citizen, and shaping
relations for the construction of a rule-of-law state.
[20, 30-p].
Despite the soundness of this approach, the author’s
logical progression raises certain questions. The
definition offered does not yield a clear conclusion
regarding the nature of legal policy. On the one hand,
it refers to a politico-legal phenomenon; on the other,
to a systematic, scientifically grounded activity of the
relevant actors, which, in our view, appears more
plausible. At the same time, demonstrating the
simultaneous strategic and tactical orientation of this
activity is of particular scholarly value, for it is well
known that strategy without tactics is dead. This is
confirmed by the fact that even the finest “strategic
ideas” cannot be realised on their own without clear
tactical steps for their implementation.
The viewpoints presented allow us to regard legal
policy as a special form of expressing state policy, a
powerful means of transforming society within the
constitutional framework. With its help, the legal
consolidation and implementation of the country’s
political course, the will of its leaders and power
structures, are effected. It safeguards the social order,
develops, and improves social relations.
Proceeding from the above, it can be said that, in its
content, legal policy is a complex phenomenon of dual
nature. On the one hand, its meaning lies in the fact
that it is policy based on law; on the other, it is law used
as an instrument of domination and governance in the
political sphere of society.
The necessity of legal policy in contemporary conditions
stems from the fact that, without it, no other kinds of
policy can be carried out in a civilized and reliable
manner. An ill-considered and weak legal policy, an
imperfect and hollow legal framework, contradictions in
legal documents, and undefined priorities likewise lead
to failures in the implementation of social, economic,
and national policy. [21, 15-p].
In this regard, U. Rybakov stresses that a balanced,
systemic, strategically justified, and economically
grounded policy is necessary
—
one that serves the
interests of both the individual and the state. In his view,
legal policy is not merely a fiction or an ideal remote
from everyday realities; rather, it is law itself, which
constitutes an indispensable component
—
indeed, the
very foundation
—
of the category of truth reflected in
legislation.[22, 6-p]. Consequently, legal policy is closely
connected with law. It possesses an essential unity and
fundamental compatibility with law. The literature
stresses that legal policy does not
—
and cannot
—
exist in
a pure,
distilled form, without any “external
interference,” because it serves as a collector and
conduit of diverse opinions, needs, and interests
(economic, social, cultural) and therefore carries their
imprint. Legal policy brings together different spheres of
human activity, synthesizing them in norms and
institutions, which, in turn, exert a stabilizing influence
upon them. [23, 9-p].
According to A. Mazurenko, legal policy is the most
optimal, rational, effective, and cultured form of
governing society. In principle, any reasonable policy
should be legal
—
that is, it must conform to laws and
legal norms, always remain within the legal framework,
and meet international standards and the ideals of
human rights. [24, 24-p].
To accomplish its tasks, legal policy must be realistic and
scientifically grounded, rest on a system of fundamental
principles, and set the directions of its activity in such a
way that priorities of decisive significance for the
development of society and the state remain at the
center of attention.
As its primary priority, legal policy must be directed
toward safeguarding the most important values in the
sphere of legal regulation
—
above all, the inalienable
rights and freedoms of the individual. Yet to genuinely
respect and protect human rights, it is essential to
create the necessary conditions, among which are the
formation of a rule-of-law state and a civil society
—
goals that, in turn, constitute the main objectives of the
country’s legal development. In this connection, it is
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
50
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajpslc
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
necessary to carry out political, economic, legal, and
other actions
—
alongside the use of legal-policy
instruments
—
through which every person enjoys not
only political rights but also the requisite set of social
and economic rights and opportunities.
Summarizing current legal and socio-political realities,
the need for legal policy lies chiefly in the fact that
without
it
democratic
reforms
cannot
be
implemented. In addition to the aforementioned goals,
it must aim at fostering law-abiding citizens, raising
their legal culture and legal consciousness, and
overcoming legal nihilism.
When formulating a country’s legal policy, it is
essential
—
alongside ensuring its full conformity with
internationally recognized standards based on global
experience
—
to take into account the specific features
of that state. It is fundamentally important that legal
policy can be formed only when the ruling elite
possesses the political will, the rule of law prevails over
politics, and society enjoys stability, accepted order,
and predictable conditions.
The analysis carried out allows us to view legal policy
as a complex phenomenon with legal, political, social,
and ideological aspects. In the Republic of Uzbekistan,
these facets are in fact insufficiently balanced; a clear
priority of politics over law is often observed. A
scientifically grounded legal policy should correct this
situation and serve as an important instrument for
implementing democratic legal reforms.
Proceeding from the above, legal policy, in our view,
should be understood as the scientifically grounded,
consistent, and systematic activity of state and non-
state structures aimed at creating the conditions
necessary for formulating and implementing the
strategy and tactics of the country’s legal
development.
At the same time, the cutting edge of legal policy must
be directed first and foremost toward devising
legislative
measures
against
arbitrariness,
bureaucracy, corruption, crime, terrorism, and
disrespect for individual rights. This means that legal
policy primarily presupposes active steps in the sphere
of law-making, which are primary in relation to all
other forms of legal activity.
This is confirmed by the fact that the country’s legal
policy encompasses various facets and lines of activity
of the relevant actors in the field of law
—
its creation,
interpretation, and application. Therefore, from a
theoretical standpoint, it is essential to grasp clearly
that the structure, functions, content, types, and forms
of expression of legal policy are interrelated,
underpinning and mediating the implementation of
legal policy as a whole.
The literature notes that the legal policy of our state, like
that of many other states (including CIS countries),
consists of the following main directions, which can fully
be regarded as its forms of implementation:
-
law-making;
-
law enforcement;
-
interpretation of legal norms;
-
scientific-theoretical (doctrinal) activity;
-
legal education, etc.
In our view, the universal forms for implementing legal
policy are law-making and law enforcement. These
principal directions of legal policy
—
being the most
important and the most comprehensive in terms of
content
—
ought to be recognized as independent types
of legal policy, that is, as a policy of law-making and a
policy of law enforcement. In light of their particular
significance, we shall dwell on them in detail.
The law-making form is embodied chiefly in the
adoption, amendment, and rescission of normative
legal acts and treaties. The main problem here lies in
binding them into a single system. In this process, an
important role is played by the legislator’s ability to
harmoniously combine new and previously adopted
normative acts on the basis of a properly developed
strategy and tactics on the part of the subjects of law-
making.
It is well known that one of the most complex problems
of legal reform in the realm of law-making is upholding
the principle of strict sequence in the adoption of acts
—
stemming from the hierarchical structure of the national
normative legal system, including the strict dependency
in the order of their issuance. At the pinnacle of this
hierarchical ladder stands the Constitution of the
country, followed by laws, resolutions of the chambers
of the Oliy Majlis, decrees and resolutions of the
President, government resolutions, departmental
documents, and decisions of local state authorities. For
example, one of the pressing problems of Russian law-
making is ensuring the scrupulous observance of the
universally recognized and mandatory hierarchical
order of normative legal acts. Because a correct and
consistent resolution of this issue has exceptionally
important practical significance
—
especially in situations
where conflicts arise between legal norms and it is
difficult to determine which norm should be applied in
practice.
The literature emphasizes that the rule of law is
recognized as one of the fundamental principles of the
legal system. This principle presupposes a special role
and significance of the legislative form in regulating
relations in society, as well as the possibility of
preventing (or at least limiting) state arbitrariness. One
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
51
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajpslc
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
of the most important forms of manifestation and
qualitative indicators of the rule of law is that, when a
collision arises between legal norms and subordinate
acts, priority is accorded to the rule of law. This is
particularly crucial in the work of the courts and other
law-enforcement bodies. [25,131-p]. Unfortunately, in
practice both law-enforcement officials and law-
makers sometimes lose sight of the principle of the rule
of law and the hierarchical structure of the legal
system.
Observance of a strict hierarchical relationship among
normative legal acts is one of the mandatory and most
important requirements imposed on the law-making
process, guaranteeing the most effective regulation of
social relations through law.
To address these and a number of other problems in
Uzbekistan’s law
-making system, a balanced,
scientifically grounded law-making policy must be
employed.
An important link between the state’s law
-making
activity and the practical application of legal norms is
the policy of law enforcement. It ensures their unity
and interconnection in matters of legal regulation. The
policy of law enforcement embodies the main
directions of the strategy and tactics of state
governance while simultaneously expressing the
state’s position in the practical implementation of legal
norms. [26, 26-p].
Law-enforcement policy not only establishes the
managerial conditions necessary for the optimal
implementation of the legislator’s will, but also
enables the state to concentrate its efforts on the most
important areas of legal regulation; it likewise
stimulates law-making bodies to adopt legal
requirements that most closely correspond to the
objectives of legal policy and take into account the
capacities and needs of law-enforcement practice (one
of the significant forms of interaction between the
subjects of law-making and law enforcement
—
especially the right of legislative initiative of higher
judicial instances
—
is precisely the right of legislative
initiative).
Practice-oriented proposals and recommendations for
improving existing legislation, emanating from the
subjects of law-enforcement policy, will help to
overcome its declaratory features and enhance the
effectiveness of legal influence.
The existence and specific characteristics of law-
enforcement policy are determined primarily by the
following key factors:
•
The
law-enforcement
activity
of
multifunctional and complex state bodies and officials.
Successful implementation of this activity requires the
state to pursue a unified and consistent law-
enforcement policy. This, in turn, calls for coordination
and a systemic approach in all aspects of law
enforcement.
•
The effective realisation of the legislator’s will.
This process presupposes taking into account the
changing dynamics of social relations, the strategic goals
and tasks of the state, and the growing needs and
interests of society. Therefore, law-enforcement policy
must ensure an optimal match between laws and their
practical application.
•
State interests in regulating and overseeing law-
enforcement processes. This requires managing law
enforcement in accordance with the will of the state,
ensuring its effectiveness, and maintaining the stability
of the legal system.
Law-enforcement policy is directly linked to law-
enforcement processes and the activity of specialized
bodies and is of primary importance chiefly as a means
of safeguarding the general interests of the state and
enhancing the effectiveness of legal regulation. A lawful
and realistic law-enforcement policy likewise serves as
a necessary guarantee for the practical protection of the
rights and freedoms of the individual, his or her honor,
and dignity. In a certain sense, it is precisely at this stage
that legal policy becomes “real policy,” because it is
implemented in the activity of law-enforcement bodies
and directly influences the behavior of legal subjects.
The strengthening of guarantees of individual rights, the
rule of law, and public order, the implementation of
legal responsibility without undue constraints, and
other pressing issues are moving from outwardly
appealing formulas within the state to actual practice.
V. L. Rudkovskiy notes that this circumstance
underscores the particular significance of law-
enforcement policy in ensuring the stability of state
power, public order, and the legality of state authority.
[27,222-p].
Taking into account the importance of more thoroughly
developing and implementing the principal types and
directions of legal policy, it can be said that they
constitute the real expression of the state’s will in the
sphere of legal regulation. This view is also supported by
N. I. Matuzov, who holds that one of the most important
features of legal policy is its state-volitional character
and authoritative-imperative content. [28, 34-p].
According to Matuzov, legal policy is termed “legal”
precisely because:
1. it is based on law and connected with law;
2. it is carried out by legal methods;
3. it predominantly encompasses the legal sphere of
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
52
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajpslc
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
activity of individuals and their communities;
4. it relies on the possibility of coercion;
5. it is open
—
that is, collective and official in nature;
6. it differs from other forms of policy by its normative-
organizational foundations.
These factors reveal in depth not only the theoretical
basis of legal policy but also its practical significance.
CONCLUSIONS
The findings of the study conducted have
demonstrated the necessity of reassessing legal policy
as a fundamental component of state policy through a
scientifically grounded approach. Legal policy is a
politico-legal mechanism based on law, ensuring social
stability, possessing a strategic orientation, and serving
not only the lawful exercise of state power but also as
a means of strengthening legal consciousness, culture,
and trust within society. It manifests itself as a
harmonious
expression
of
law-making,
law
enforcement, and normative-legal thinking.
Legal policy is likewise the principal (substantive)
foundation for the formation of all its types. This is
explained by the fact that they share a unity of nature
and common characteristics. Each of them is an activity
carried out within the framework of legal policy, which
appears as an integral part of that policy
—
that is, as a
separate, specific variety.
Viewed from this standpoint, the status of law-making
policy
—
and its subordinate position vis-à-vis legal
policy
—
becomes evident. The policy of law-making
serves to create the necessary conditions for devising
and implementing not the general directions of legal
development, but one of its crucial areas: the strategy
and tactics within the framework of law-making.
Hence, legal policy is the broader concept in relation to
the policy of law-making. In other words, they are
connected in a “whole
-and-
part” relationsh
ip.
As an overall conclusion, it should be noted that if legal
policy
—
and, in particular, its law-making component
—
is scientifically grounded and developed in accordance
with real life, it can become a nationwide policy and a
reliable instrument of democratic reforms at the
national level.
Based on the results of the study, the following
proposals are put forward:
1.
Legal policy, as one of the basic categories of
the theory of state and law, must possess a systemic
concept establishing its independent scholarly status,
and, on the basis of this concept, a generally accepted
scientific definition of the term “legal policy” should be
developed. Within the specialties recommended by
the Higher Attestation Commission, a separate line of
research may be established.
2.
An official procedure should be introduced for
the preliminary assessment (expert examination) of
normative legal acts developed by bodies of state
authority, in particular by subjects of legislative
initiative, for their compliance with the strategy of legal
policy. These powers have been formally entrusted to
the Institute of Legislation and Legal Policy under the
President, and legislation should stipulate that an expert
opinion issued by this div entails such consequences
as the amendment or repeal of the draft normative legal
act. It is also possible to establish, under the Legislative
Chamber of the Oliy Majlis, a “Center for the
Assessment and Harmonization of Legal Policy.”
3.
A separate Law of the Republic of Uzbekistan
“On the Fundamentals
of Legal Policy” must be drafted
and adopted. This instrument should enshrine the goals,
principles,
actors,
principal
directions,
and
implementation mechanisms of legal policy, as well as
clearly define the interrelationship between the policy
of law-making and the policy of law enforcement.
4.
The subject “Legal Policy” should be introduced
as an independent discipline in the curricula of higher
legal education institutions, thereby instilling in
students a scholarly worldview that forms the basis for
a deep understanding of the interrelationship between
politics and law.
5.
A criterion of “harmony and consistency of legal
policy” must be incorporated into the indicators used to
evaluate the effectiveness of the legal reforms being
implemented in the country, thus creating a system that
determines whether adopted documents conform to
the current legal policy.
REFERENCES
Korobova L.P. Legal Policy: Concept, Forms of
Implementation, Priorities in Contemporary Russia.
Cand. Jurid. Sci. Diss. Samara, 2000. pp. 32, 34.
Matuzov I.I. “The Concept and Main Priorities of Russian
Legal Policy.” // Jurisprudence. 1997. No. 4. p. 14.
Livshits R.Z. State and Law in Modern Society (New
Approaches to Key Problems of the Theory of State and
Law). // Theory of Law: New Ideas. Moscow, 1991. p. 21.
Mazurenko A.P. Law-Making Policy in the Russian
Federation: Problems of Theory and Practice. Cand.
Jurid. Sci. Diss. 2004. p. 14.
Putilo N.V. “Legal Policy of the Modern Democratic
State.” // Sociology of Law, ed. V.M. Syrykh. Mosc
ow,
2002. p. 128.
Matuzov N.P. “Law and Politics in Their Interaction.” //
Russian Legal Policy: Course of Lectures, ed. N.I.
Matuzov & L.V. Malko. Moscow, 2003. p. 29.
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
53
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajpslc
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
Korobeev L.I. “Soviet Criminal Policy: Concept,
Content, Structure.” // Problems of Sov
iet Criminal
Policy, ed. L.I. Korobeev. Vladivostok, 1982. pp. 33
–
41.
Belyaev N.L. “Criminal Policy at the Present Stage.” //
Criminal Law at the Present Stage: Problems of Crime
and Punishment, ed. N.L. Belyaev, V.K. Glistin, V.V.
Orekhov. St Petersburg, 1992. p. 12.
Belyaev N.L. Criminal-Law Policy and Ways of Its
Implementation. Leningrad, 1986. p. 15.
Shundikov K.V. “Legal Means of Implementing Legal
Policy.” // Jurisprudence. 1997. No. 4. p. 149.
Permyakov Yu.E. Introduction to the Fundamentals of
Criminal Policy. Samara, 1993. p. 6.
Subochev V.V. Legal Policy of Contemporary Russia in
the Sphere of Lobbying: Theoretical Problems. Cand.
Jurid. Sci. Diss. Saratov, 2002. p. 145.
Rybakov O. “Concept and Features of Legal Policy.” //
Legal Policy of the Subjects of the Russian Federation.
Round-Table Materials. 26 Sept 2001. Vladivostok,
2002. p. 30.
Matuzov N.I. “General Concept and Main Priorities of
Russian Legal Policy.” // Legal Policy and Legal Life.
2000. November. p. 28.
Malko
L.V. “Contemporary Russian Legal Policy and
Legal Life.” // Legal Policy and Legal Life. 2000.
November. p. 15.
Malko L.V. “Contemporary Russian Legal Policy and
Legal Life.” // Legal Policy and Legal Life. 2000.
November. p. 15.
Morozova I.S. “The Place
and Role of Benefits in State
Legal Policy.” // Jurisprudence. 1997. No. 4. p. 150.
Malko L.V. “Contemporary Russian Legal Policy and
Legal Life.” // Legal Policy and Legal Life. 2000.
November. p. 15.
Korobova L.P. Legal Policy: Concept, Forms of
Implementation, Priorities in Contemporary Russia.
Cand. Jurid. Sci. Diss. Samara, 2000. p. 7.
Isakov N.V. Main Priorities of Contemporary Russian
Legal Policy, ed. V.L. Kaznacheev. Pyatigorsk, 2003. pp.
29
–
30.
—
Malko L.V. “Contemporary Russian Legal
Policy and L
egal Life.” // Legal Policy and Legal Life.
2000. November. p. 15.
Malko L.V. “Contemporary Russian Legal Policy and
Legal Life.” // Legal Policy and Legal Life. 2000.
November. p. 15.
Rybakov O. “Forms of Implementing Legal Policy.” //
Legal Policy and Legal Life. 2003. No. 2. p. 6.
Matuzov N.P. “Concept and Main Priorities of Russian
Legal Policy.” // Jurisprudence. 1998. No. 4. p. 9.
Mazurenko P. Law-Making Policy in the Russian
Federation: Problems of Theory and Practice. Cand.
Jurid. Sci. Diss. 2004. p. 24.
Kolesnikov E.V. “Rule of Law and the Institution of
Alternative (Non-
Military) Service.” // Jurisprudence.
1998. No. 1. p. 131.
Mazurenko P. Law-Making Policy in the Russian
Federation: Problems of Theory and Practice. Cand.
Jurid. Sci. Diss. 2004. p. 26.
Rudkovskiy V.L. “Law
-
Enforcement Policy.” // Russian
Legal Policy: Course of Lectures, ed. N.I. Matuzov & L.V.
Malko. Moscow, 2003. pp. 205
–
222.
Matuzov N.I. “General Concept and Main Priorities of
Russian Legal Policy.” // Legal Policy and Legal Lif
e.
2000. November. pp. 32
–
34.
