STATE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION IN THE DOMESTIC POLITICAL DIMENSION
https://doi.org/10.18384/2224-0209-2025-4-1654
Abstract
Aim. To identify the development features of the Russiansovereigntyinmodernconditions, to make an internal politicalmeasurement of thisphenomenon
Methodology. Based on a political analysis of the current situation, the evolution of Russian sovereignty is considered, and its main types are characterized. The range of opinions of Russian and foreign researchers on the problems of the current state of sovereignty is considered.
Results.Thecomplexityandstructure of sovereignty is shown, itstypesintegratedinto the systemicessence of itsquality are highlighted.Thearticlepaysspecialattention to the innovativefeatures of sovereigntybroughttolife by the turbulence of the moderntransitionalstage of humandevelopment. The analysis of Russiansovereignty is complemented by a description of the currentpolitical science discourseanditsreflectionin the currentRussianagenda.
Research implications. The results of the study are of interest for the study of modern Russian politics.
About the Authors
Vladimir G. Egorov
Plekhanov Russian University of Economics;
Bauman Moscow State Technical University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Dr. Sci. (Historical Sciences), Dr. Sci. (Economics), Prof., Department of Political Economy and History of Economic Science;
Cand. Sci. (Political Sciences), Assoc. Prof., Department of Comparative Political Science, Faculty of Political Science
Andrey V. Abramov
Lomonosov Moscow State University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Cand. Sci. (Political Sciences), Assoc. Prof., Department of Comparative Political Science, Faculty of Political Science
References
1. Efremov, A. A. (2017). Formation of the State Information Sovereignty Concept. In: Law Journal of the Higher School of Economics, 1, 201–215 (in Russ.).
2. Jouvenel, B. (2010). Du Pouvoir. Histoire naturelle de sa croissance. Moscow: IRISEN publ. (in Russ.).
3. Karpov, D. (2023). Russia’s Dependence on Intermediate Product Imports and Foreign Trade Shocks. Analytical Note. In: Bank of Russia, 28.06.2023. URL: https://www.cbr.ru/content/document/file/149496/analytic_note_20230628_dip.pdf (accessed: 27.04.2025) (in Russ.).
4. Katurzhevskaya, O. V. & Kachurina, T. S. (2023). Identifying Modern Younger Generation’s Attitude to Traditional Values. In: Problems of Modern Pedagogical Education, 79-2, 129–132 (in Russ.).
5. Kozlyakov, V. N. (2025). “The List” of the Treasury of the Moscow State Plundered in 1610–1612. In: Russian History, 1, 34–52 (in Russ.).
6. Krasinsky, V. V. (2015). State Sovereignty: The Epistemological Aspect of the Problem. In: Modern law, 7, 5–10 (in Russ.).
7. Kuchenkova, A. V. (2023). Popular Sovereignty and the Right to Rebellion in the Concept of the Social Contract of J.-J. Rousseau. In: RSUH/RGGU BULLETIN. Series: Philosophy. Social Studies. Art Studies, 4, 79–88 (in Russ.).
8. Lenchuk, E. B. (2024). Technological Sovereignty as a New Vector of Russia’s Scientific and Technological Policy. In: Journal of the New Economic Association, 3, 232–237 (in Russ.).
9. Nikitina, V. S. & Chudayeva, E. A. (2019). Jean Bodin’s Theory of Sovereignty. In: Bulletin of the Samara Humanitarian Academy. Series: Law, 1, 129–133 (in Russ.).
10. Safronova, E. V. & Kaskova, N. V. (2014). “Autocracy”, “Supremacy”, and “Sovereignty”: Terminological Relationships in Russian Political Science of the Late 19th – Early 20th Centuries. In: Issues of Law, 4, 87–90 (in Russ.).
11. Tikhomirov, L. A. (2006). Monarchist Statehood. Moscow: Iris-press publ. (in Russ.).
12. Fukuyama F. (2015). The End of History and the Last Man. Moscow: AST publ. (in Russ.).
13. Hanna, P. (2019). Connectography. Mapping the Future of Global Civilization. Moscow: Mann, Ivanov and Ferber publ. (in Russ.).
14. Eilbart, N. V. (2023). The Image of Ivan the Terrible in European Propaganda during the Livonian War (Based on the Poetic Works of S. Wolf and J. Kochanowski). In: Scientific Dialogue, 12 (2), 509–522 (in Russ.).
15. Yuryevich, M. A. (2023). Technological Sovereignty of Russia: Concept, Measurement, Possibility of Achievement. In: Issues of Economic Theory, 4, 7–21 (in Russ.).
16. Buga, M. (2025). Conceding or Defending Sovereignty? Lessons from Small States. In: Small States & Territories, 8 (1), 99–102.
17. Damon, L. (1986). Freedom of Information versus National Sovereignty: The Need for a New Global Forum for the Resolution of Transborder Date Flow Problems. In: Fordham International Law Journal, 10 (2), 262–287.
18. Espinosa, M. (2025). Strengthening Europe: How Strategic Autonomy Reguires a Shift in Sovereignty. In: IE University IE International Policy Review (IPR), 1, 2–10.
19. Glanville, L. (2013). The Myth of “Traditional” Sovereignty. In: International Studies Quarterly, 57 (1), 79–90.
20. Hardt, M. & Nedri, A. (2000). Empire. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
21. Khan, S. H. & All, S. (2021). The Concept of State Sovereignty in International Law. In: Asian Social Studies and Applied Research (ASSAR), 2 (4), 390–404.
22. Perrit, J. (1998). The Internet as a Threat to Sovereignty & Thoughts on the Internet’s Role in Strengthening National and Global Governance. In: Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, 5 (2), 423–442.
23. Price, M. (2002). Media and Sovereignty: The Global Information Revolution and its Challenge to State Power. Cambridge: MIT Press.
24. Snyman, F. (2006). The Evolution of State Sovereignty: A Historical Overview. In: Fundamina, 12, 1–28.
25. Hent, K. & Skinner, Q., eds. (2010). Sovereignty in Fragments: The Past, Present and Future of a Contested Concept. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Supplementary files
Review
Views:
139
Email this article 