Methods, principles and presumptions of constitutional and conflict diagnostics

Abstract

The article examines the main elements of constitutional and conflict diagnostics, which is a system of consistently applied methods, legal principles and presumptions, aimed at obtaining information about the causes, content, consequences and methods of preventing and resolving a constitutional conflict. Constitutional and conflict diagnostics is theoretically justified by the author as a new method of the science of constitutional law, which allows lawyers to study constitutional conflicts and constitutional norms of the conflictological type. The use of constitutional and conflict diagnostics will allow to establish and investigate the causal relationship between the formation of law, its normative expression and subsequent law enforcement, which will reflect the constitutional conflict. The author believes that the following methods are used in the course of diagnosing a constitutional conflict: dialectical, systematic, historical, statistical, methods of formal logic, formal-legal method, method of legal modeling, and other methods. The author also proposes to consider as the principles of such diagnostics: the principle of taking into account the specific historical situation, dialectical unity, systematic study of the conflict and the principle of the rule of law. The author suggests considering the following presuppositions used in the course of constitutional and conflict diagnostics: the presumption of the inevitability of constitutional conflicts, the presumption of the solvability of constitutional conflicts, and the presumption of the prevention of conflicts.