The article is devoted to clarifying the nature, defining the concept of customary law and its functional role in the structure of law as an object of historical and legal law.

       The purpose of the article. Based on the concepts of total vision of law and its universality as a system present in human society at any stage of its development, formulated, respectively, by the Russian philosopher G. Hurvich and the Ukrainian sociologist M. Kovalevsky, the nature of customary law and its role in the structure of law as an instrument of a peaceful environment are analysed.

       The meaning of the concept of “law” is revealed, which can be equally effectively applied to the analysis of legal processes both in the societies organized in the state, and those which are at a stage of this organization. An analysis of the relationship between the concepts of “custom”, “legal custom”, “customary law”. The difference in the concepts of “legal custom” and “judicial custom” is proved.

        It is established that the basis for the transformation of a custom or several customs into a legal custom was a collective agreement of authorization. The positive regulatory role of legal custom in the mechanism of law was legalized not by government institutions, but by the court – a community institution, not alienated from the general, holistic system of power relations, which found, formulated and applied the newly created norm, filling it with legal content.

        It is proved that according to the method of formation legal customs are divided into two types: 1) the actual legal customs, the method of formation of which was a contract; 2) judicial customs – the method of formation of which was judicial law making and judicial law enforcement. Using the method of dichotomous analysis of objects of scientific research, it is established that customary law in the structure of law as an object of scientific analysis of the history of law is an ideal basis that connects dichotomous oppositions of the object into integrity and serves as a translator of natural law into sociocultural layer. It combines in its entirety at the level of socio-spiritual practice, which is the basis of self-organization and organization of social relations, all the main regulators of the legal life of the people and acts as a stimulant for the incorporation of any law into national culture.

        The hypothesis is formulated that the nature of customary law is rooted in the socio-cultural space of legal communication, which generates autonomous regulatory mechanisms in the organizational and normative system of social relations, subject to the laws of natural law

Bibliography

Authored books

1. North D, Institutions, institutional change and economic performance (Cambridge University Press 1990) (in English).

2. Cherniavskaia V, Nauchnyi dyskurs: vydvyzhenye rezultata kak kommunykatyvnaia y yazykovaia problema (LENAND 2017) (in Russian).

3. Dmytriiev A ta Muraviov V, Mizhnarodne publichne pravo: navchalnyi posibnyk (Yurinkom Inter 2000) (in Ukrainian).

4. Kovalevskyi M, Obshchee uchenye o hosudarstve (1909) (in Russian).

5. Miroshnychenko M, Derzhavnist i pravo Ukrainy: henezys u yevropeiskomu konteksti (Z naidavnishykh chasiv do pochatku KhIKh st.) (Atika 2006) (in Ukrainian).

6. Miroshnychenko M, Istoriia ukrainskoho prava. Dzherela: navchalno-metodychnyi posibnyk do samostiinoi roboty, сh 1 (Kyivskyi universytet imeni Tarasa Shevchenka 2015) (in Ukrainian).

7. Presniakov A, Kniazhoe pravo v Drevnei Rusy: ocherky po ystoryy X–XII veka: lektsyy po russkoi ystoryy. Kyevskaia Rus (Nauka 1993) (in Russian).

 Edited books

8. Peterburhskaia shkola fylosofyy prava. K 150-letyiu so dnia rozhdenyia Lva Petrazhytskoho: sbornyk statei (Poliakov A і Tymoshyna E red, SPb hos un-t 2018) (in Russian). Dictionaries 9. Sreznevskyi Y, Materyaly dlia slovaria drevnerusskoho yazyka, t II (1895) (in Russian).

Journal frticles

10. Bedrii M, ‘Formy fiksatsi ukrainskoho zvychaievoho prava: istoryko-pravovyi analiz’ (2019) Visnyk Lvivskoho universytetu. Seriia yurydychna 68 (in Ukrainian).

11. Bedrii M, ‘Zvychaieve pravo yak obiekt istoryko-pravovykh doslidzhen’ (2013) 2 Chasopys Kyivskoho universytetu prava 31 (in Ukrainian).

12. Kostenko O, ‘Sotsialnyi naturalizm yak metodolohichnyi pryntsyp filosofii prava’ (2006–2007) IV–V Problemy filosofii prava 98 (in Ukrainian).

13. Repyna L, ‘Opyt mezhdystsyplynarnoho vzaymodeistvyia y zadachy yntellektualnoi ystoryy’ (2005) 15 Dyaloh so vremenem: Almanakh yntellektualnoi ystoryy 10 (in Ukrainian).

14. Tsvetkov V, ‘Dykhotomycheskyi analyz slozhnosty systemy’ [2014] 2 (8) Perspektyvy nauky y obrazovanyia 15 (in Ukrainian).

Conference papers

15. Antroposotsiokulturna pryroda prava: Materialy naukovoi konferentsii. Chernivtsi, 25–27 travnia 2016 r. (2016) (in Ukrainian).

16. Kahan M, ‘Perspektyvy razvytyia humanytarnykh nauk v XXI veke’ v Metodolohyia humanytarnoho znanyia v perspektyve XXI veka. K 80-letyiu professora Moyseia Samoilovycha Kahana. Materyaly mezhdunarodnoi nauchnoi konferentsyy (2000) (in Russian).

Websites

17. Kostenko O, ‘Tezy do sotsialno-naturalistychnoi teorii pryrodnoho prava <www. academia.edu/41029743/Kostenko_Tezy_pro_pryrodne_pravo> (accessed: 04.09.2020) (in Ukrainian).

18. Spivvidnoshennia formalnoi i dialektychnoi lohiky. Multymediinyi pidruchnyk (NAVS, 2010) <https://arm.naiau.kiev.ua/books/logika/lections/lection4_1.html> (accessed 01.09.2020) (in Ukrainian).