cultural sovereignty. Cultural sovereignty as the basis of Russia's national security. The Impact of Technology on Information Sovereignty

I. General provisions

1. This Concept regulates relations in the field of implementation, protection and preservation of traditional values as an important part of the historical and cultural heritage in the Russian Federation.

2. The purpose of this Concept is to protect and protect the national traditional heritage of spiritual culture in the field of traditional values.

3. The main tasks in the field of implementation, protection and preservation of traditional values are:

a. ensuring and protecting the right of citizens to realize their cultural potential in the field of traditional values in the Russian Federation;

b. obtaining the most complete picture of the traditional values of the Russian Federation;

in. determination of the principles of state cultural policy and policy in the field of traditional values, legal norms of state support for the culture and traditions of the peoples of Russia, as well as determination of the basic principles of cooperation between the state and society in the implementation of this value and cultural policy;

d. increasing the responsibility of the expert community and management bodies that assess and regulate traditional values in society.

e. implementation of continuity and reproduction of traditional values in civil society;

f. creation of a legal framework for the full implementation of the cultural and value sovereignty of Russia, the protection and preservation of the traditional, cultural and value foundations of the multi-ethnic people of the Russian Federation;

well. creation of legal guarantees for the protection, implementation and institutionalization of the traditional values of the peoples of Russia as the basis of cultural identity;

h. streamlining the activities of public authorities, local governments and civil society in the field of propaganda, popularization, education;

and. exercising control over the implementation and institutionalization of traditional values in public life.

4. Basic concepts used in this Concept:

State cultural policy (state policy in the field of cultural development) - a set of goals, principles, norms, value systems, formalized by the relevant regulatory legal acts that guide the state in its activities to preserve, develop and disseminate the cultural and historical heritage of the peoples of Russia, to create and development of a system of education and education of citizens on the basis of involvement in various types of cultural activities and awareness of their cultural identity and cultural sovereignty of society, based on traditional Russian moral values, civic responsibility and patriotism.

The state sovereignty of the Russian Federation is a historically necessary condition for the existence of the statehood of Russia, which has a centuries-old history, culture and established traditions, expressed in the right to independence and freedom of the multi-ethnic people of Russia in determining their political, economic, social and cultural development, as well as in the principles of territorial integrity, the supremacy of the state and its independence in relations with other states.

Spiritual culture is a set of cultural, religious, scientific, legal, moral and other non-material values.

Cultural diversity - the uniqueness and diversity of forms of culture, manifested in the characteristics inherent in various socio-demographic groups, ethnic, territorial and other cultural communities, especially indigenous peoples and national minorities, which are the common property and source of human development;

Cultural traditional heritage of the Russian Federation - tangible and intangible cultural objects created in the past and of value from the aesthetic, socio-cultural, historical, archaeological, architectural and other points of view, significant for the preservation and development of the cultural identity of the Russian Federation, ethnic and other cultural communities , their contribution to world civilization;

Cultural sovereignty of the Russian Federation - the independence of the cultural policy of the state and the protection of cultural foundations and traditional values of society; the ability to defend, promote, distribute to other countries and regions their cultural values, ensuring their inviolability; to have international influence in the field of culture, to create a positive civilizational image of the nation and incentives for cultural exchanges.

Material culture is a set of material, technical, economic, material, household and physical values.

The people of Russia is a community of citizens of Russia, civilizationally united on the basis of common traditional values, the Russian language, culture, historical memory, religion, customs, territory of residence, realizing itself as a subject of state building and social development, consisting as a single nation of numerous ethnic groups.

Traditional values of the Russian Federation - a type of basic cultural values as stable, positive, non-material ethical categories that have the status of universally recognized and generally accepted in Russian society; which are passed down from generation to generation as historically formed sacred social experience society, expressed as an integral system (norms, ideals, symbols, meanings, patterns of behavior) and possessing the qualities of socio-historical universality and uniqueness; forming the cultural identity and sovereignty of society, the ethical core of the national spirit and character of the people, its identity, vitality and development potential; ensuring the continuity of social life, collective social cohesion, collective and individual moral perfection of the individual, the unity of cultural and historical social memory; which are basic and universal in relation to human rights and freedoms recognized by international law.

Civilizational identity is a spiritual sociocultural collective type of the symbolic system of the unity of society and the individual, which is a form of cultural and historical self-awareness and a sense of belonging of the individual to a civilizational community that unites the peoples of countries (countries) on the basis of common sociocultural imperatives.

Sovereignty of the Russian Federation in the field of traditional values and cultural policy.

The Russian Federation independently adopts and implements on its territory agreements and other acts regulating the relations of the Russian Federation in the field of establishing the foundations, implementation and protection of traditional values with other states, associations of states, as well as international organizations.

The cultural policy of the state is the actions carried out by the state authorities of the Russian Federation, local governments and other public institutions aimed at supporting, preserving and developing all branches of culture, preserving and developing cultural traditions, all types of creative activity of Russian citizens and shaping personality based on the inherent Russian society of the system of traditional values.

6. Traditional values have such properties in the Russian cultural and civilizational space that express normative rationality, as well as in the institution of human rights and freedoms.

7. Traditional values have their own functional status, the totality of which includes a number of organically related functions.

Sergei Chernyakhovsky

Culture, history, historical memory is always a space of informational and semantic competition of national-state, socio-economic and socio-political systems. The space of struggle for the preservation of historical, identification, political, economic and cultural sovereignty.

In this regard, the main task of state policy in the field of culture and art is the preservation and protection of the cultural sovereignty of the country.

The cultural sovereignty of a country includes:

· the right of the country and its people to be guided by those patterns, values and norms of behavior that have been developed in the course of their history, are recognized and accepted by its people. Acceptance or non-acceptance by the people of certain samples, norms and values is more important than recognition or non-recognition of them by subjects external to the given country;

· the right of the country and its people to counteract the dissemination of information products that threaten the historical and cultural self-identification of society, its significant patterns of behavior, values, ethical, aesthetic and everyday norms;

· the right of the people and citizens, the right and duty of the state to prevent the use of the sphere of culture to damage the national state-political sovereignty and territorial integrity of the country.

In modern conditions, the cultural sovereignty of the country faces both objective and subjective threats.

The former include: the spread of behavioral models of the "consumer society", asserting the growing consumption as the main value of human existence; "mass culture", reducing high cultural patterns to their primitive perception; quasi-civilization of "postmodern", which denies the unity of the laws of the world, the objectivity of truth, ethical and aesthetic categories and affirms moral and value relativism.

Taken together, they threaten the value foundations of Russian culture, the national mentality, as well as the basic values of classical world and European civilization.

Among the subjective threats is the information aggression of Russia's geopolitical competitors, aimed both at the destruction of the domestic historical, cultural and state-political self-identification, and at the use of culture to discredit and destroy Russia's political sovereignty.

These threats must be eliminated, and information aggression repelled.

The basis for counteracting threats to the country's cultural sovereignty is the creation of a "mass culture of high standards": based on targeted state support, the elimination of the gap between the highest cultural achievements and the everyday life of the masses by raising the latter to the level of high cultural achievements.

One of the central tasks in this direction is to eliminate this gap in its following sections: on a regional basis; on a social basis; according to the professional affiliation of the educational institution.

The creation of a system for protecting the cultural sovereignty of the country includes the following main points:

· recognition of the fact of this aggression and threat to the cultural sovereignty of the country;

· Creation of a system for tracking and analyzing the propagation of waves of this aggression and its main directions;

· elimination of the gap between the everyday level of everyday culture and the cultural potential available in the country, the connection of a person's everyday life with the resources of national culture;

· the implementation of a kind of "second cultural revolution" - a cultural educational program in the country. Informational aggression appeals to primitive perception, the repetition of bright but simplified cultural patterns - and turns out to be powerless where it is opposed by the national culture rooted in tradition and high standards of art that appeal to the essential principles in man;

· de-unification of the education system in the humanitarian and creative fields, training of highly qualified personnel in the field of culture and art, carrying the beginning of creative burning and good taste that captivate people, capable of making high examples of art accessible and perceived;

· Ensuring the daily availability of cultural resources for each person.

And most importantly, the entire sphere of culture and the entire cultural life of society must be saturated with understanding, perhaps the main thesis: a person differs from an animal in that he has meanings and values greater than his own physiological existence.

Sovereignty is self-significance and independence. The right of the country to determine the meanings of its development, its values and those public ethical norms that determine the identification, patterns of behavior that make this country itself.

No one will argue that the modern world is developing in a competitive environment - including competition for success, for resources, for the opportunity to influence the definition of rules and norms of behavior in the modern world. Each of the competing parties is trying to achieve recognition of those norms and rules that most reveal its competitive advantages.

But there are no a priori generally accepted norms: if they do appear, it is only as a result of their recognition as such by different parties. Even the value of human life will be perceived differently in different countries and different civilizations.

Russia is undoubtedly a country of European culture and European civilization. The problem is that the states located to the west of its borders are not always related today to the classical values of Europe - not only Christian, but also ancient, not to mention the heritage of the Renaissance.

The Russian state enters into its "cultural struggle" and, waging it, protects not only our national self-identification and cultural sovereignty of the country, but also the remnants of European culture itself, the bearer and custodian of which Russia remains today.

New policy 5.06.2014

Number of impressions: 2092
Rating: 3.1

Sergei Chernyakhovsky

In this regard, the main task of state policy in the field of culture and art is the preservation and protection of the cultural sovereignty of the country.

The cultural sovereignty of a country includes:

In modern conditions, the cultural sovereignty of the country faces both objective and subjective threats.

Taken together, they threaten the value foundations of Russian culture, the national mentality, as well as the basic values of classical world and European civilization.

These threats must be eliminated, and information aggression repelled.

The creation of a system for protecting the cultural sovereignty of the country includes the following main points:

· recognition of the fact of this aggression and threat to the cultural sovereignty of the country;

· Creation of a system for tracking and analyzing the propagation of waves of this aggression and its main directions;

· Ensuring the daily availability of cultural resources for each person.

Klebanov Lev, senior researcher at the Institute of State and Law of the Russian Academy of Sciences, candidate of legal sciences, associate professor.

In the next decade, the primary condition for the competitiveness of any society will be the preservation of public identity. A special role will be played by the improvement and maintenance of a stable system of social values that effectively motivate society to achieve success in global competition. A society that does not recognize itself as a separate entity participating in fierce competition, as well as a society whose motivation system is not focused on collective success, is doomed to defeat and destruction.<1>. In other words, the loss of national identity entails the loss of the country's ability to position itself as a sovereign state in the modern world and defend its own interests.

<1>See: Delyagin M. Global requirements for Russia // Our contemporary. 2004. N 2. S. 192.

One cannot but agree with the opinion that any culture has, among other things, the function of protecting and preserving national-state identity. The undermining of sovereignty does not begin with the abandonment of nuclear weapons and not with the transition to the control of other states or military blocs of borders, strategic airfields or gas transportation system, but with control over identity and culture as an important generator of identity<2>. In such conditions, the cultural sovereignty of the country and its protection acquires special significance.

<2>See: Okara A. "Cultural Sovereignty" of the Nation in the Era of Postmodernism, or How to Recode "Local" Culture // Zerkalo Nedeli. Man. 2007. N 42. November 11 - 18.

If we talk about the concept of sovereignty in general, it should be noted that there are several types of it in the literature. The most common of these is state sovereignty, which refers to the supremacy of state power within the country and its independence in the external sphere. In addition, constitutional law operates with two more types of sovereignty, such as national sovereignty and popular sovereignty.<3>.

<3>See: Big Law Dictionary / Ed. AND I. Sukharev. 3rd ed. M.: Infra-M, 2006. S. 727.

Along with the above, there are also economic, legal, technological, food, tax, consumer, and resource sovereignties. Cultural sovereignty is also considered as an independent category and is understood by some authors as the ability to defend, promote, spread to other countries and regions their cultural values and influence in the field of culture, create a positive image of the nation and incentives for mutual exchanges.<4>.

<4>See: Glushchenko V.V. Law as a tool to reduce investment risks of the national economy in the context of globalization // Legislation and Economics. 2006. N 9.

Any sovereignty implies external and internal aspects.

The external aspect of the cultural sovereignty of Russia is the independence of cultural policy with other states, international and foreign organizations, as well as with foreign citizens; the ability (as stated above) to disseminate cultural property in international relations and to ensure the inviolability of cultural property in such relations.

The internal aspect of the cultural sovereignty of Russia is the supremacy of the cultural policy of the state within the country, the protection of cultural foundations and ensuring the inviolability of cultural values.

The essence of cultural sovereignty lies in the realization of the constitutional right of citizens to have access to cultural property and in the constitutional duty of everyone to take care of the preservation of cultural property, to protect them, as well as to exercise the rights of the Russian Federation and its multinational people to preserve and develop their cultural and national identity, protect , restoration and preservation of the historical and cultural habitat without any outside interference.

We are aware that the above characteristics are by no means the "ultimate truth". However, they seem to provide an opportunity to form a general idea of cultural sovereignty, especially since this concept does not have a uniform understanding. In part, this can be explained by the multivariance of the meanings of the word "culture". As noted by A.P. Semitko, "... in the philosophical literature there are over 500 definitions of the concept of "culture" and their number is constantly growing"<5>. Regarding the difficulty of understanding this concept, the German philosopher I. Herder pointed out: "There is nothing less definite than this word -" culture "..."<6>.

<5>See: Semitko A.P. Legal culture of socialist society: essence, contradictions, progress. Sverdlovsk, 1990. S. 12.
<6>See: Herder I. Ideas to the history of the philosophy of mankind. M., 1977. S. 6 - 7.

The importance of cultural sovereignty is difficult to overestimate, especially at the present time. It is known that the coming century is characterized by the construction of a new global society and the dominance of the process of globalization. One of the features of this process is the unification of the cultures of different peoples into one "melting pot" and the formation of a supranational cultural continuum. According to a number of researchers, the emergence of a global culture of an objective nature can make a positive contribution to the development of creativity, contribute to the enrichment of various cultures in the process of their interaction, the formation of global markets for the exchange of cultural products, cause impressive changes in the cultural space that occur under the influence of changes in sectors such as radio, film, television, the World Wide Web<7>. At the same time, they rightly, in our opinion, warn against an idyllic perception of globalization, which can lead to social instability and damage national and ethnic cultures. Globalization, among other things, is accompanied by a crisis of basic values: a pronounced trend towards the gradual destruction of the family, the strengthening of the influence of anticulture and mass culture, characterized primarily by spiritual impoverishment.<8>.

<7>See: Bogatyreva T. Globalization and the imperatives of the cultural policy of modern Russia // http://www.viperson.ru.
<8>See: Bogatyreva T. Decree. op.; Azroyants E. Globalization: a catastrophe or a path to development? M.: Novy Vek, 2002. S. 332 - 333.

It should be noted that any cultural sovereignty is based on cultural values, their protection, proper use, storage and multiplication. Pitirim Sorokin noted that it is value that serves as the basis and foundation of any culture.<9>. Consequently, cultural values will be the basis of cultural sovereignty.

<9>See: Sorokin P. Man. Civilization. Society. M.: Politizdat, 1992. S. 429.

The significance of cultural values is truly unique and multifaceted. They play a decisive role in many ways in the education of patriotism and citizenship; allow you to study and understand the thousand-year history of Russia and its peoples; introduce people to the understanding of the outstanding achievements of world and domestic art; help preserve the identity and spiritual uniqueness of the peoples of Russia in the era of globalization and prevent cultural assimilation; strengthen state-confessional relations and contribute to the improvement of the spiritual and religious climate; positively affect the state of mind of a person; promote a friendly dialogue of cultures of different peoples and countries; are important for the development of such a sphere of the national and international economy as tourism<10>.

<10>See: Vershkov V.V. Criminal liability for non-return to the territory of the Russian Federation of objects of artistic, historical and archaeological heritage of the peoples of the Russian Federation and foreign countries: Abstract of the thesis. dis. ... cand. legal Sciences. M., 2005. S. 10 - 11.

It is necessary to ensure the cultural sovereignty of Russia by taking appropriate measures, among which legal measures stand out. Among these measures, in turn, it is necessary to highlight the criminal law. However, certain difficulties arise in the legal (including criminal law) protection of cultural sovereignty. The fact is that the current norms of criminal law do not contain a uniform definition of the subject of crimes that infringe on cultural values.

As you know, if the terminology of the subject is unknown, the subject itself is also unknown. Let's try to bring some clarity to the definition of cultural values.

According to culturologists, culture has two characterological aspects: 1) deaxiological (non-value, objectivist), according to which everything created by man is included in culture: the means of creation, and the tools of destruction, and the literary language, and criminal jargon. According to the figurative expression of V.E. Davidovich, "as the facts of culture rely in one row a plow and a guillotine, a majestic symphony and an obscene ditty"; 2) axiological (value), when the facts of culture are correlated with the accepted system of values and are ranked into positive and negative, light and dark. Value, valued, preferred, beneficial - all this points to something positive for a person and human life.<11>.

<11>See: Culturology. Brief thematic dictionary. Rostov n / a: Phoenix, 2001. S. 69.

A similar, in our opinion, concept of cultural value through the prism of the axiological aspect is given by B.I. Kononenko. He includes in this concept moral and aesthetic ideals, norms and patterns of behavior that have a historical and cultural significance of buildings, structures and objects, etc.<12>. In this regard, V.V. Kulygin notes that "in a broad philosophical sense, this concept covers both material objects and products of spiritual activity." Further V.V. Kulygin says the following: “Of course, such an understanding is unacceptable for jurisprudence, therefore, in law and legal science, only the material values of culture are recognized as cultural values. This does not mean that spiritual values are not the subject of legal regulation. They are protected by law, primarily as intellectual property, in other legal forms..."<13>.

<12>See: Kononenko B.I. Culturology in concepts, terms, names. M.: Shield, 1999. S. 127.
<13>See: Kulygin V.V. Criminal Law Protection of Cultural Property: Monograph. M.: IG "Jurist", 2006. S. 25.

In principle, we agree with V.V. Kulygin that cultural values in the context of interest to us at the moment are only material objects. Nevertheless, we should not forget that already in the 1990s, the circle of intangible heritage objects that became objects of museumification was defined in the Russian museum business. This is a spiritual culture (music, dance, folklore); production processes (in industry, agriculture, crafts, crafts, etc.); traditional activities, rituals, customs, etc.<14>. Suffice it to say that some experts consider (and rightly so) one of the threats to Russia's national security in the new millennium is the possibility of losing the Russian literary language.<15>.

<14>See: Museum Affairs of Russia / Ed. M.E. Kaulen, I.M. Kosova, A.A. Sundieva. M.: Publishing house "VK", 2003. S. 418.
<15>See: Gurov A.I. Threats to the National Security of the Russian Federation and Their Criminal Law Regulation // Criminal Law in the 21st Century: Proceedings of the International Scientific Conference at the Faculty of Law of Moscow State University. M.V. Lomonosov. May 31 - June 1, 2001 M .: LeksEst, 2002. S. 13 - 14.

At the turn of the 20th and 21st centuries, UNESCO for the first time compiled a list of 19 "intangible" objects to be protected as part of the world cultural heritage. Cultural policy materials published by UNESCO literally say the following: "Our definition of cultural heritage needs serious revision"<16>.

<16>See: Museum business in Russia. S. 418.

It should be noted that the non-criminal legal framework used to protect this legacy is controversial. To date, there are about two hundred acts of an international and national character that regulate relations regarding cultural values. Often these acts contradict each other, and in some cases - the criminal law. for example, blanket legislation does not recognize the independence of the crime under Art. 190 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, and considers it only as a form of smuggling<17>.

<17>See more: Art. Art. 56 and 57 of the Law of the Russian Federation of April 15, 1993 "On the export and import of cultural property".

In Art. 190 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation as the subject of a crime are objects of artistic, historical and archaeological heritage of the peoples of the Russian Federation and foreign countries; in part 2 of Art. 188 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation - cultural values; in Art. 164 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation - objects or documents of special historical, scientific, artistic or cultural value. In Art. 243 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, historical and cultural monuments, natural complexes or objects taken under state protection, objects and documents of historical or cultural value, as well as especially valuable objects or monuments of all-Russian significance are provided as objects. As rightly noted on this occasion by S.A. Pridanov and S.P. Shcherba, "instead of a single and clear concept, we get an abundance of misleading definitions"<18>. At the same time, all crimes are contained in different chapters and sections of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (except for Articles 188 and 190), which means that, based on the logic of the legislator, they have different specific and generic objects.

ConsultantPlus: note.

Issues related to crimes infringing on cultural property are also discussed in the article by S.P. Shcherby, S.A. Pridanova "Crimes infringing on cultural values, and their qualification according to the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation" // Journal of Russian Law. 1998. No. 9.

<18>See: Pridanov S.A., Shcherba S.P. Crimes infringing on the cultural values of Russia: qualification and investigation. M.: Yurlitinform, 2002. S. 29.

It should also not be forgotten that crimes against cultural property can also be qualified under other articles of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, which is clearly evidenced by official statistics. As a rule, these are norms that provide for criminal liability for theft (theft, robbery, robbery, fraud). However, it is possible that the acts, the subject of which are cultural property, may be misappropriation or embezzlement, causing property damage by deceit or breach of trust, intentional or negligent destruction or damage to property.<19>. So, for example, if we study the structure of thefts of artistic, historical and cultural values in 2006, we can see that the actual thefts in this structure account for 86.5%<20>.

<19>See, for example: Criminal encroachments on cultural values in Russia. GIAC of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia. M., 2007. S. 8; Lukashuk I.I., Naumov A.V. International Criminal Law: Textbook. M.: Spark, 1999. S. 179.
<20>See: Criminal encroachments on cultural values in Russia. 2007, p. 9.

In addition, the criminal law protection of cultural sovereignty can be carried out with the help of Art. 356 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation "Use of prohibited means and methods of war" regarding the plunder of national property. This act is included in the group of war crimes, which, in turn, are classified as crimes against the peace and security of mankind. Experts in the field of international criminal law, relying on the relevant conventions, in particular on the Hague Convention "On the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict" of May 14, 1954, under the looting of national property in the occupied territory, they primarily understand the looting of cultural property<21>.

<21>See: Naumov A.V. Russian Criminal Law: A Course of Lectures. In 2 vols. T. 2. Special part. M.: Yurid. lit., 2004, p. 818; Kibalnik A.G., Solomonenko I.G. Crimes against the peace and security of mankind / Under the scientific. ed. A.V. Naumov. St. Petersburg: Legal Center Press, 2004. P. 229.

Such a "scatter" of norms, where cultural values act as the subject of a crime, according to different chapters and sections of the Criminal Code does not contribute to the optimization of the criminal law protection of cultural values. In this regard, V.V. Kulygin, in particular, writes: “You can still understand the logic of the authors of the Criminal Code in relation to the smuggling of cultural property, where they are included in the list of contraband items along with drugs ... but in cases of theft of cultural property, their non-return to the territory of the Russian Federation, and even especially the destruction or damage of historical and cultural monuments, the very object of encroachment and the direction of the intent of the perpetrators clearly indicate that such acts cause damage precisely to culture as such, but there is no corresponding "niche" in the current Criminal Code for this object"<22>. In this regard, V.V. Kulygin believes that crimes that infringe on cultural property should be combined in a separate chapter. 25.1 "Crimes against historical and cultural heritage"<23>, which, as it is easy to see, will be contained in section IX of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation "Crimes against public safety and public order".

<22>See: Kulygin V.V. Criminal Law Protection of Cultural Property: Monograph. M.: IG "Jurist", 2006. S. 33.
<23>See: Ibid. pp. 187 - 189.

THEM. Matskevich and O.A. Kutyaeva literally note the following: “Based on ... the distribution of offenses related to the protection of cultural property, the following questions arise. 190, article 243 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation - L.K.) were scattered over various chapters of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, which led to some chaotic perception of generic and specific objects ... Meanwhile, it is obvious that the group of crimes under consideration is distinguished from other crimes, first of all signs of the subject"<24>.

<24>See: Matskevich I.M., Kutyaeva O.A. Criminal-legal and criminological analysis of the main components of crimes that encroach on objects and documents that have a special historical, scientific, artistic or cultural value // Prosecutorial and investigative practice. 2003. N 3 - 4. S. 129 - 130.

We believe that crimes against cultural values will be united by an independent generic object. A generic object, as you know, is a group of homogeneous benefits (interests) of a homogeneous group of crimes undergoing encroachment, and it is the generic object that is the basis for dividing the Special Part of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation into sections, and sometimes into chapters<25>.

<25>See: Naumov A.V. Russian Criminal Law: A Course of Lectures. In 3 volumes. T. 1. General part. M.: Wolters Kluver, 2007. S. 307.

The origin of the phrase "generic object" implies an appeal to the concept of "genus", since without studying this concept it is hardly possible to give a definition of a generic object, which is based on the word "genus". Genus is a general philosophical characteristic for a group of objects with common essential properties, the non-essential properties of which differ from each other.<26>.

<26>See: Philosophical Encyclopedic Dictionary. M.: Infra-M, 2004. S. 398.

Based on the definition outlined above, such essential properties common to a group of objects will include crimes that infringe on cultural property in a single section, i.e. combined such acts will be a common generic object.

Taking into account all of the above, we can conclude that it is cultural values as objects of criminal encroachments that underlie the interest (law-protected good), which is the generic object of the corresponding crimes.

In addition, we are in solidarity with V.V. Kulygin that crimes infringing on cultural values should be structurally isolated. However, we believe that the rules on such crimes should be contained in an independent section, and not in a chapter (see the argument above).

In this regard, the question arises: is there an urgent need for the existence of an independent section within the framework of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation that protects cultural property? In our opinion, the answer to this question can only be in the affirmative. To clarify our position, we will have to turn to the problem of the relationship between the symbolic and the rational in criminal law.

So, for example, A.E. Zhalinsky noted that, by its nature, criminal law has a symbolic content, which is perceived by addressees as a symbol, a message about the intentions of the state, its policies, protected values, and at the same time acts as a real phenomenon that has its own rational grounds and consequences.<27>. The inclusion of an independent section on crimes that infringe on cultural property would be a truly significant step towards strengthening cultural sovereignty and would demonstrate a high degree of concern for cultural wealth on the part of the state. It is noteworthy that such a decision has already been made by the Chinese legislator. The Chinese Criminal Code contains a separate paragraph 4 "Crimes against the management of cultural property" (Art. 324-329). At the same time, the Spanish Criminal Code contains nine provisions providing for liability for infringement of cultural property, which are contained in different parts of the Criminal Code of this country. At the same time, the Criminal Code of Spain includes an independent Chapter II "On Crimes Concerning Historical Heritage".

<27>See: Zhalinsky A.E. Criminal law between symbolic and rational // State and law. 2004. N 3. S. 51.

Cultural sovereignty, as already noted, can be irreparably damaged during armed conflicts and wars. From time immemorial, the connection between captured treasures and the fate of their conquered owner has been well known. This was achieved by "reducing the country", "bringing it to non-existence"<28>. Commenting on the loss of cultural property during the Great Patriotic War, M.M. Boguslavsky notes that "the organized looting of art treasures was one of the manifestations of the misanthropic policy of German fascism, the implementation of national cultural genocide"<29>. The result of such a policy was to be the complete destruction of the culture of the occupied countries and enslaved peoples, primarily the USSR. A. Hitler spoke quite eloquently in this regard: "Monuments of art on the Eastern Front are of no importance and are subject to destruction ... The Slavs cannot, and most importantly, should not have culture." It is no coincidence that A.N. Trainin singled out national-cultural genocide as an independent special form of genocide, aimed at the destruction of the national culture of the persecuted peoples, its achievements and wealth.<30>.

<28>See: Bagdasarov R. The dispute about cultural sovereignty // www.promonitor.ru. 11/18/2007.
<29>See: Boguslavsky M.M. Cultural values in international circulation: legal aspects. S. 238.
<30>See: Trainin A.N. Selected works. Protection of the world and criminal law / Ed. ed. R.A. Rudenko. M .: Publishing house "Nauka", 1969. S. 408.

During the Second World War, the German fascist invaders tried with particular ferocity to destroy the ancient Russian cities that had preserved monuments of ancient Russian art. At the Nuremberg trials, the prosecutor from the USSR M.Yu. Raginsky spoke about the barbaric defeats of the cities of Novgorod, Pskov and Smolensk<31>.

<31>See: Nuremberg Trials. T. III. War crimes and crimes against humanity. M., 1958. S. 546 - 549.

The exact number of cultural property lost during World War II has not yet been determined. The Extraordinary State Commission for the Establishment and Investigation of the Atrocities of the Nazi Invaders, which began to operate as early as 1943, in which such authoritative specialists as I. Grabar, V. Lazarev and B. Vipper worked, established the damage caused to 64 especially valuable out of 427 victims Soviet museums, as well as 4000 libraries and archives of 19 regions. Search work is complicated by the fact that for the most part the Nazis destroyed inventories and inventory books. So, for example, the director of the Novgorod United Museum-Reserve N. Grinev noted that there is no documentation on the destroyed or exported 3,000 icons, 200 paintings and an extensive collection of porcelain, sphragistics (princely seals) and 30,000 books.<32>.

<32>See: Klin G. Losses in numbers. Roskultura presented the Internet catalog "Cultural values - victims of war" // Rossiyskaya Gazeta. 2008. February 5.

As follows from all of the above, there are many threats to the cultural sovereignty of the country, and its importance is truly colossal. It is, without a doubt, the "backbone" of Russian statehood, and the well-being of Russia in the new millennium largely depends on its preservation.

The problem of criminal law protection of domestic cultural sovereignty is quite relevant and new in order to become the object of close attention from both legal scholars and practitioners. The author hopes that this article will serve as an occasion for appropriate discussions among specialists not only in the field of criminal law, but also in other branches of law.

Recently, more and more often we hear talk about the need for a new privatization. Being a categorical opponent of privatization in terms of large industrial, infrastructure and energy facilities, I wanted to once again speak on this topic.

And this time to link the problems of privatization with the problems of preserving Russia as an independent state in a historical perspective. And also to consider the question of whether it is possible to maintain the level of sovereignty that Russia has today and whether it is achievable to obtain full state sovereignty in the future if a new privatization does take place.

To begin with, let me remind you of my definition of Full State Sovereignty. It consists of 5 components:

Recognition by the international community of the country as a subject of international law and international relations. Flag, coat of arms, anthem.
diplomatic sovereignty.
military sovereignty.
economic sovereignty.
cultural sovereignty.

Moreover, the presence and implementation in practice of all five signs of sovereignty in some connection (and to varying degrees) is, in essence, the semantic skeleton of all international relations. A classic example is the behavior of today's US in the international arena. When the weakening of their economic sovereignty, as a result of the financial crisis, leads to an increase in military activity, with the help of the military sovereignty that has not yet been oppressed by the crisis. In concentrated form, this is expressed by the formula: "Saving the dollar is war."

When we are told about the new privatization in Russia, we are told about the increase in the economic and managerial efficiency of the industries being privatized. About whether this is a myth or reality, we will talk in the following articles. For now, let's focus on just one component of the problem: the country's economic sovereignty.

Russia is a separate civilization.

Russia has been formed over the centuries as a separate civilization. With all its inherent, as a civilization, its own civilizational attitudes. Russia is the civilization of the Russian people, around which all other small peoples that entered the orbit of Russian civilization were formed and took shape. Russia is a mosaic of many peoples and cultures on the common basis of the Russian people and Russian culture. Such an alliance of peoples, created around the Russian people, revealed to the world a unique fusion of many cultures and ways of life, various religions, languages and races. For centuries, the developing Russian civilization, as a civilization that creates conditions for the existence and formation of many peoples, demanded the creation of a powerful state capable of protecting the peoples included in it, connecting the geographical space into a single political, economic and cultural space (without Russian civilization, most of these peoples would probably just disappear from the stage of history).

This is seen as the meaning of the existence of Russia as a state, as a state-civilization. By the way, the very existence of Russia as a state-civilization gives the meaning of existence to many other newly formed states. For example, for the Baltic states. Created in opposition to Russia, on the initiative and with the support of our country's geopolitical adversaries, they play the role of a buffer holding back Russia's movement towards the coastline of the Baltic Sea. Their second task is, along with Poland, to divide Russia and Germany among themselves. The purpose of the creation and existence of these states was determined not by their peoples and not by their rulers, it has nothing to do with the true interests of these countries. But created by the opponents of Russia, they could not but be anything other than purely hostile to us, no matter who and no matter what they told us at the stage of their creation. If Russia is an example of realized successful multiculturalism and equality of peoples, then the buffer states, like the Baltic states, could not but be purely nationalistic. Well, and so on.

But now I would not like to dwell on this in detail.
Let's get back to privatization. Russia as a state-civilization has the only meaning of its existence - it is the preservation and development of the unique Russian civilization. The following follows from this postulate: when Russia, as a state, performs actions that contradict its sense of existence, it always endangers the existence of itself. That is, it endangers the peace and tranquility of all the peoples included in it. And vice versa, when the actions of Russia as a state correspond to its role as a state-civilization, then Russia is strengthened, and the peoples included in it live among themselves not only in peace, but also in prosperity. Based on this statement, we can come to the conclusion that we must consider all issues related to privatization through the prism not of the abstract "efficiency" of enterprises and industries, but through the prism of strengthening or weakening our state-civilization. We are obliged to look at proposals to "privatize" state property through the prism of following or not following Russia as a state to its civilizational destiny.

That's right - no more and no less.

The primary goal of any state (and even more so a state-civilization, which Russia is) is the creation, preservation and strengthening of the unity of the territory, the unity of culture, the unity of the common "rules of the game". The very rules of the game that exist only for their own. In our case - for citizens of Russia. This is what will distinguish them from citizens of other states not at the level of declarations, but in deeds. At the level of everyday, economic, semantic, if you like.

Once in the past centuries, with the development of technologies at the level of that time, distant imperial Petersburg with Kamchatka and Sakhalin at the household level was connected by culture, language, and traditions. This was the basis of political and economic unity. In our technologically and informationally advanced time, when it is closer to Hawaii from Vladivostok than to Moscow, the task of the state is to hold in its hands those sectors of the economy that, in addition to language, culture and traditions, become the basis of economic and political unity.

These are transport, energy, communications, natural resources. And a lever to access them. Russian citizenship should give the holders of power and sovereignty, which are the citizens of the country, tangible advantages over citizens of other countries. In the 21st century, in the conditions of the current level of technological and information development, the basis of the political and economic unity of the country, in addition to culture, language, traditions, should be transport, energy, communications, natural resources. And they will certainly become the basis of unity if we want to preserve our Russia as a civilizational global project familiar to us.

If we understand and are aware of the above, it is easy for us to decide on our attitude to the proposals for privatization. No privatization of anything from the listed list is unacceptable. No arguments about "increasing efficiency" and expanding the tax base should not even be considered, due to the fact that the unified civilizational and economic, and after it the political field of the country, is being destroyed. Our unity will collapse - and soon there will be no one to collect taxes from this very "expanded taxable base".

I would like to note that no one talks about “greater efficiency” in other areas that are traditionally considered the zone of exclusive competence of the state. For example, if private business offers to privatize a piece of the state border on the grounds that the PMCs who will be entrusted with protecting the border are more efficient and professional compared to the soldiers and officers of the Border Troops. And such "privatization" will reduce government spending on the protection of the state border, while increasing its efficiency. For some reason, I am sure that such a proposal will not find understanding among the leadership of the country and the vast majority of its citizens.

Also, the country's leadership will not find understanding with the proposal to give for "outsourcing" and the diplomatic service of the state. Although, perhaps, the JSC "Ministry of Foreign Affairs" will be more efficient in terms of budget expenditures than the state Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Well, a public company or even CJSC "MVD", in general, would have solved a bunch of long-standing problems of the law enforcement system: from corruption to "werewolves in uniform." After all, “everyone knows” that a private trader is always more efficient than an official. This means that private detectives would quickly put things in order in the country, which would distinguish them favorably from the current police officers. However, even here the state and society would send away all those who would propose such ideas.

And why? What do you think? I think because there is an understanding that there is a list of functions included in the list of the exclusive sphere of competence of the state. What if the state gives something to private traders from this list, it inevitably gives rise to a logical question: why do we need such a state then?
After all, it will be clear to any sane person that if a piece of the state border is privatized for reasons of "increasing efficiency", then this simply means losing control over the entire border of the entire country. No matter what formidable restrictions you would impose on this private trader during the privatization of the “kilometer of the state border” ...

It is such an efficiency... As a private trader it is more efficient, so it will be. OJSC Ministry of Foreign Affairs and CJSC Ministry of Internal Affairs will also take care mainly of the profitability and efficiency of their work. As a result, it will be easier for them to negotiate with organized crime on the division of spheres of influence within the country, and with Russia's geopolitical "partners" in the international arena, than to defend the interests of Russian citizens. It will simply be cheaper and easier that way, which means, in the language of “privatizers,” it will be more efficient.

If you bring the "logic of efficiency" to its logical end, then this end will be unexpected. If the bearer of the sovereignty of the country, the Russian people, in the person of their state, gave away part of their sovereignty in favor of a private trader, then this sovereignty was not very necessary for him. And then the next question is within easy reach: why such a state? And as a result: why such a people?

Proceeding from this, no one is proposing to privatize a piece of the state border or create OJSC and CJSC "Ministry of Foreign Affairs" and "Ministry of Internal Affairs". But why, then, is the talk about the need to privatize the structural, state-forming sectors of the economy growing again? And all for the same reason - the privatization of such industries means the loss of the Russian state of its sovereignty. Do we need it? In no case. So the conclusion is the opposite.

The zone of EXCLUSIVE RESPONSIBILITY of the STATE should be everything related to the implementation of all 5 components of the Full State sovereignty.

In our specific conditions, in order to realize economic sovereignty, in the conditions of our distances, geographical and climatic features, the difference of territories in terms of general economic and resource content, the zone of EXCLUSIVE RESPONSIBILITY of the STATE must include: transport, energy, communications, control over natural and energy resources. This allows you to create common rules of the game for all subjects of the country's economy. This allows the state to perform its most important function of planning the development of the ENTIRE TERRITORY based on its general state and geopolitical tasks. The transfer of some of these functions into the hands of private and "effective" managers only leads to small-town selfishness and the growth of economic, and then political separatism. Because the interests of the development of the entire country can sometimes conflict with the interests of an individual company tuned to maximize profits here and now.

That is why, my deep conviction that privatization as an institution is good only where it does not affect the zone of the STATE'S EXCLUSIVE RESPONSIBILITY. This is first. And secondly, it does not lead to an increase in the stratification of the population, without aggravating the gap between the poorest and richest sections of the people. And thirdly, it actually removes from the state functions that are unusual for it. For example, the regulation of the economy at the level of small and medium-sized businesses, where it is quite enough for the state to play the role of an arbiter. On the one hand, it creates all the conditions for development, and on the other hand, it plays the role of a “dispute resolver”.

If you look at the problem of privatization from this side, then what else do we need to privatize from the non-privatized?

Actually, we have no grounds for a new wave of privatization, since it is proposed to privatize exactly what is the zone of EXCLUSIVE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE STATE. Which inevitably undermines the economic sovereignty of the country. But they talk and talk about privatization quite persistently.

Someone speaks of privatization as a political choice.

Someone about the need to improve efficiency.

Someone about the role of the new privatization in creating a new patriotic elite in the country.

Someone about the need for Russia to join the club of developed countries through privatization and integration into the international division of labor.

I will dwell on all this in detail in the following articles under the general title "On privatization and ..."

Nikolai Starikov