The article is devoted to the issue of increasing the requirements for writing dissertations in legal science, which, according to experts, is in deep crisis.

Purpose of the article – to draw the attention of the scientific community to the current problem of choosing methodologically and conceptually verified object and subject of dissertations on legal issues, which are a marker of their autonomy in the system of legal research and compliance with specialty passports.

The authors draw attention to the need to distinguish between the concepts of “object” and “subject” of legal science and “object” and “subject” of research in legal science. Bypassing the field of discussion about the object, subject and method of legal science, they offer their understanding of the object. It is emphasized that each individual legal study is designed to improve knowledge about the object of legal science, which is important for its self-development and the fullest satisfaction of the needs of legal practice.

The authors warn against the same formulation of the object of dissertation research in various branches of legal science through the prism of social relations because of their questionable effectiveness for the development of doctrine and improvement of legal practice, especially in terms of solving the key problem of legal science to ensure the stable functioning of society in the coordinates of a fair legal order.

According to the authors, in the coordinates of the methodological dimension it is advisable to formulate the object and subject of dissertation research in accordance with the existing conceptually verified scientific directions in legal science, which have a wide range of possible forms: theoretical jurisprudence, dogmatic jurisprudence, doctrinal jurisprudence, institutional jurisprudence with relevant functions, tasks, and, consequently, contribution to the general system of legal knowledge.

Bibliography

Authored books

1. Danylian O, Taranenko V, Osnovy filosofii: Navchalnyi posibnyk (Pravo 2003) (in Ukrainian).

2. Serhiienko V, Zhyliaiev I, Torkatiuk V, Atestatsiia naukovykh kadriv vyshchoi kvalifikatsii v Ukraini: problemy i rishennia (KhNAMH 2006 ) (in Ukrainian).

3. Tarasov N, Istorija i metodologija juridicheskoj nauki: metodologicheskie problemy jurisprudencii: uchebnoe posobie dlja vuzov (Jurajt 2019) (in Russian).

4. Yavych L, Obshchaia teoryia prava (LHU 1976) (in Russian).

Edited books

5. Semenov Yu, ‘Obshchestvo kak tselostnaia systema’ v Hobozov Y (red), Sotsyalnaia fylosofyia. Kurs lektsyi: uchebnyk (Yzdatel Savyn SA 2003) (in Russian).

Encyclopaedias

6. Kulchytskyi S, ‘Dyktatura proletariat’ v Entsyklopediia istorii Ukrainy, t 2 (H–D) (Smolii V holova redkol, Naukova dumka 2004) (in Ukrainian).

Journal articles

7. Baranov V, ‘Jenciklopedija jurisprudencii: sushhnost’, struktura, cennost’’ [2016] 2 (34) Vestnik Nizhegorodskoj akademii MVD Rossii 13–35 (in Russian).

8. Bondarev A, ‘Social’naja priroda i sootnoshenie obshhih (statusnyh) i konkretnyh (statusno-rolevyh) pravootnoshenij v zhizni obshhestva’ (2009) 1 Leningradskij juridicheskij zhurnal 39–51 (in Russian).

9. Ershova I, ‘Ispol’zovanie arsenala jempiricheskoj sociologii v teoreticheskih i prikladnyh civilisticheskih issledovanijah’ (2018) 3 Metodologicheskie problemy civilisticheskih issledovanij: Sbornik nauchnyh statej. Ezhegodnik 11 (in Russian).

10. Koziubra M, ‘Pravorozuminnia: poniattia, typy ta rivni’ (2010) 4 Pravo Ukrainy 10–22 (in Ukrainian).

11. Melikhova O, ‘Poniattia, oznaky ta funktsii yurydychnoi nauky yak ob’iekta orhanizatsiino-pravovoho mekhanizmu upravlinnia: teoretyko-pravovyi analiz (2013) 1 Yurydychnyi elektronnyi naukovyi zhurnal 127–30 (in Ukrainian).

12. Molodtsov O, ‘Metodolohichni aspekty teorii instytutsionalnykh matryts u konteksti dynamiky instytutsionalnykh zmin (chastyna persha)’ (2016) 2 Teoriia ta praktyka derzhavnoho upravlinnia i mistsevoho samovriaduvannia <http://el-zbirn-du. at.ua/2016_2/8.pdf> (accessed: 11.01.2021) (in Ukrainian).

13. Petrushyna T, ‘Stan nauky v Ukraini (za otsinkamy vitchyznianykh ta zarubizhnykh ekspertiv)’ (2017) 11 Visnyk NAN Ukrainy 68 (in Ukrainian).

14. Stefanchuk R, ‘Iurydychna osvita i nauka v Ukraini: chy vse harazd?’ (2010) 9 Biuleten Ministerstva yustytsii Ukrainy 18–31 (in Ukrainian).

15. Stuchka P, ‘Na puti k klassovomu ponimaniju prava 1917–1930’ (1931) 13 let bor’by za revoljucionno-marksistskuju teoriju prava: Sbornik statej 42 (in Russian).

16. Tsvik M, ‘Pravorozuminnia (znachennia povtoriuvanosti suspilnykh vidnosyn dlia yoho doslidzhennia)’ (2010) 4 Pravo Ukrainy 25 (in Ukrainian).

17. Vedeneev Ju, ‘Juridicheskaja nauka: vvedenie v konceptual’nuju istoriju’ [2017] 3 (124) Teorija gosudarstva i prava 12 (in Russian).

Websites

18. Fedevych K, ‘Pokhovaty Akademiiu Nauk Ukrainy abo vidrodyty’ (ZAXID.NET. TV, 10.02.2021 <https://zaxid.net/pohovati_akademiyu_nauk_ukrayini_abo_vidroditi_ n1473320> (accessed: 10.02.2021) (in Ukrainian).

19. Balyta V. ‘Stan nauky v Ukraini blyzkyi do truinatsii’ (ZAXID.NET. TV, 09.10.2012 <https://zaxid.net/stan_nauki_v_ukrayini_blizkiy_do_ruynatsiyi__akademik_ n1267278> (accessed: 10.02.2021) (іn Ukrainian).