The State in the Political Space and the Spatiality of Alternative Political Forms

The article explores the issues of methodology for identifying spatial political forms, considering the centrality of the state as an actual dominant of the world political space, and as the master-category of political analysis. The scarcity of political theory in this direction has a protracted character, which determines the need to search for tools to identify the elemental composition of the political space and the fundamental possibilities of its structuring. Analysis discovers the methodological insufficiency of empirically oriented approaches to solve the problem of finding structural alternatives to the state, associated with reliance on analytical scaling. Within this technic the conclusions regarding the main directions in the transformation of the political space acquire a competing character, not being contradictory in themselves, but only reflecting different sides of reality. The conceptual obstacle to this strategy is the standard idea for modern political theory idea of political space that is a vertically ordered leveled structure. A research strategy based on theoretical modeling of the possibilities of structuring political space is proposed. An approach employs the analysis of the quality of spatial elements constituting the spatial form of politics. It is shown that the possibility of this strategy is deeply rooted in the traditions of the theory of state and law, however, has not been properly developed. Within the framework of the proposed agenda, the state is considered as a spatial form based on a special strategy of territorialization. The influence of the insular territoriality on the social and power spatial dimensions of the state is investigated; the spatial uniqueness of state political form is shown; and, based on the possibilities of acquiring other systemic qualities by constitutive elements and the quality of their assembly into a functional unity, alternative forms are proposed.

1. Алексеева Т.А., Лебедева М.М. Что происходит с теорией международных отношений // Полис. Политические исследования. - 2016. - № 1. - С. 29-43. -. DOI: 10.17976/jpps/2016.01.03 EDN: VEBMUV

2. Бауман З. Национальное государство, что дальше // Отечественные записки. -2002. - № 6. - С. 419-435.

3. Еллинек Г. Общее учение о государстве. - М.: Юридический центр Пресс, 2004. -750 с. EDN: RYRVYL

4. Кревельд М. Расцвет и упадок государства. - М.: ИРИСЭН, 2006. - 544 с.

5. Луман Н. Власть. - М.: Праксис, 2001. - 256 с.

6. Луман Н. Дифференциация. - М.: Логос, 2006. - 320 с. EDN: QIZTYR

7. Луман Н. Общество как социальная система. - М.: Логос, 2004. - 232 с. EDN: PWOOCR

8. Матузов Н.И., Малько А.В. Теория государства и права. - М.: Юрист, 2004. -245 с. EDN: VDBUCR

9. Меньшенина Н.Н. Международное право. - Екатеринбург: Издательство Уральского университета, 2016. - 100 с.

10. Мельвиль А.Ю. Политический атлас современности: опыт многомерного статистического анализа политических систем современных государств. - М.: МГИМО-Университет, 2007. - 272 с. EDN: QIONFX

11. Окунев И. География международных отношений: структура и элементы мирового политического пространства // Вестник Пермского университета. Политология. - 2019. - Т. 13, № 3. - С. 5-16. -. DOI: 10.17072/2218-1067-2019-3-5-16 EDN: RVHPES

12. Панкевич Н.В., Руденко В.В. Политические и правовые ценности на уровне Европейского Союза и его стран-участниц: имеет ли пандемия СО'УГО-19 трансформирующий потенциал? // Антиномии. - 2021. - № 3. - С. 55-80. -. DOI: 10.17506/26867206_2021_21_3_55 EDN: HXKDDO

13. Парсонс Т. О социальных системах. - М.: Академический проект, 2002. - 832 с.

14. Тимофеев Н.С. К возрождению суверенитета и народовластия // Конституционное и муниципальное право. - 2020. - № 7. - С. 28-33. -. DOI: 10.18572/1812-3767-2020-7-28-33 EDN: WYSRWZ

15. Хантингтон С. Столкновение цивилизаций. - М.: АСТ, 2003. - 603 с. EDN: TUPBEP

16. Alff H., Benz A. The multi-dimensionality of space - an analytical framework for the empirical investigation of the production of place. Erdkunde. 2019, Vol. 73, N 2, P. 111-125. DOI: 10.3112/erdkunde.2019.02.03

17. Appadurai A. Sovereignty without territoriality: notes for a post-national geography. In: Low S.M., Lawrence-Zuniga D. (eds). The anthropology of space and place: locating culture. Oxford, UK: Blackwell, 2003, P. 337-349.

18. Barron A. Legal discourse and colonization of self in the modern state. In: Carty A. (ed.). Post-modern law: enlightenment, revolution, and the death of man. Edinburgh: Edinburgh university press, 1990, P. 107-125.

19. Basedow J. The law of open societies - private ordering and public regulation of international relations. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill Nijhoff, 2015, 662 p.

20. Beale J.H. A treatise on the conflict of laws or private international law. Cambridge: Harvard university press, 1916, 189 p.

21. Benda-Beckmann F., Benda-Beckmann K., Griffiths A. (eds). Spatializing Law: an anthropological geography of law in society. Farnham: Ashgate, 2009, 225 p.

22. Blomley N.K. Law, space and the geographies of power. New York: Guilford, 1994, 259 р.

23. Calliess G.-P., Renner M. Between law and social norms: the evolution of global governance. Ratio Juris. 2010, Vol. 22, N 2, P. 260-280. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9337.2009.00424.x

24. Fain H. The idea of the state. Nohs. 1972, Vol. 6, N 1, P. 15-26. DOI: 10.2307/2214510

25. Fazal T., Griffiths R. A State of one's own: the rise of secession since World War II. The Brown journal of world affairs. 2008, Vol. 15, P. 199-209.

26. Feng P., Growe A., Shen Y. Decentralisation and functional specialisation in super mega-city regions. Erdkunde. 2020, Vol. 74, N 3, P. 161-177. DOI: 10.3112/erdkunde.2020.03.01

27. Florida R., Gulden T., Mellander Ch. The rise of mega-region. Cambridge journal of regions, economy and society. 2008, Vol. 1, N 3, P. 459-476. DOI: 10.1093/cjres/rsn018

28. Friedman T. The world is flat. A brief history of the twenty-first century. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 2005, 488 р.

29. Gierke O. von. Die Grundbegriffe des Staatsrechts und die neusten Staatstheorien. -Aufsatze und kleinere Monographien. Band 1. Hildesheim; Zurich; NY: Olms-Weidmann, 2001, 604 S.

30. Giddens A. Central problems in social theory: action, structure and contradiction in social analysis. London: Macmillan Press, 1979, 294 p.

31. Hardt M., Negri A. Empire. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard university press, 2000, 478 p.

32. Jackson R. The global covenant: human conduct in a world of states. Oxford: Oxford university press, 2000, 464 p.

33. Kelsen H. General theory of law and state. New York: Russell & Russell, 1961, 516 p.

34. Khanna P. Bridges to everywhere: connectivity as paradigm. Horizons: journal of international relations and sustainable development. 2018, N 12, P. 42-65.

35. Lacher H. Beyond globalization: capitalism, territoriality and the international relations of modernity. London: Routledge, 2006, 208 p.

36. Mann M. Sources of social power. Vol. 2: The rise of classes and nation-states, 17601914. Cambridge: Cambridge university press, 1993, 844 p.

37. Matsuzato K. (ed.). Emerging meso-areas in the former socialist countries: histories revived or improvised? Sapporo: Slavic Research Center, Hokkaido University, 2005, 415 p.

38. Meyer J.W., Boli J., Thomas G.M., Ramirez F.O. World society and nation-state. American journal of sociology. 1997, Vol. 103, N 1, P. 144-181. DOI: 10.1086/231174 EDN: CPGCVN

39. Ougaard M., Higgott R. Towards a global polity. London: Routledge, 2002, 265 р.

40. Рarsons T. The social system. Moscow: Academic Project, 2002, 832 p. (In Russ.) Reboredo R., Brill F. Between global and local. China perspectives. 2019, N 4, P. 9-16. DOI: 10.4000/chinaperspectives.9607

41. Sassen S. Territory. Authority. Rights. Princeton, NJ: Princeton university press, 2006, 502 р.

42. Sharp D. The urbanization of power and the struggle for the city. Middle East Report.2018, N 287, P. 2-5.

43. Scheuerman W.E. The center cannot hold. Nomos. 2009, Vol. 49, P. 205-218.

44. Spruyt Н. The sovereign state and its competitors. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton university press, 1994, 288 р.

45. Timofeev N.S. On the revival of sovereignty and the rule of the people (the hierarchical character of the regulated rule of the people). Constitutional and municipal law. 2020, N 7, P. 28-33. DOI: 10.18572/1812-3767-2020-7-28-33 EDN: WYSRWZ