THE SYSTEM OF IMPERIAL GOVERNANCE IN THE CAUCASUS AS A PATH TO CIVILIZATIONAL COMPROMISE

The article studies the formation of an imperial system of legal regulation in the Caucasus during the deployment of the active phase of the Caucasian war and in the irst decades after its completion. The author points to its transitional nature. The system of legal regulation of life in territories controlled by the Russian authorities combined elements of imperial written and mountain customary law. The irst steps to form a system of governance in the Caucasus were taken by Prince M.S. Vorontsov and continued by Prince A.I. Baryatinsky. Both Caucasian governors were proponents of actively attracting people from the local environment to power institutions that established imperial authorities in the region. An experimental site for Prince M.S. Georgia served Vorontsov, where he made adjustments to the processes of civil administration and judicial proceedings. The Russian authorities did not intervene in the adat case study, which could be quite successfully applied along with the written laws of the empire. In the future, this practice became widespread in the North Caucasus, where it gained its supporter in the person of Prince A.I. Baryatinsky, who prepared the program according to which, having stood at the head of the People's Court and the People's Police, took under their influence and under the protection of state coercive power the people's law and then, creating favorable conditions for the further development of all these historically established elements, to provide an opportunity for the highlanders of the Caucasus and Transcaucasia to grow to complete statehood and citizenship by the natural process that all the peoples of Europe have reached them. The tradition of poliuridism fully corresponded to the mental preferences of the population, seemed natural and was understood with understanding by a signiicant part of mountain societies. The tribal institutions, until they began to oppose the basic demands of the imperial world order (for example, did not motivate them to engage in raiding activities), did not cause rejection among the tsarist administration. Moreover, representatives of the Russian authorities in the Caucasus paid tribute to their effectiveness and compliance with the level of development of mountain tribes. Being in conditions of military instability, the Russian administration concentrated the control of the mountaineers in the hands of the army, which fully corresponded to the peculiarities of the current moment, although it was a temporary, transitional measure. The local administration received the broadest powers, which made it possible to quickly respond to changes and not to apply every time to the authorities, losing time and authority in the eyes of the population. The Highlanders saw that in the ranks of oficials they attract people who have real merits to the authorities and are distinguished by competence in the work entrusted to them. And finally, involving the residents themselves in the resolution of judicial issues, taking into account their opinions and traditions, could not but impress and not work for the authority of the "Russian party" in the midst of autochthons.

management system, Russian Empire, the Caucasus, mountain societies, legal regulation, poliuridism, transitional measure

1. Акты, собранные Кавказской археографической комиссией / Под ред. А.П. Берже. 1885. Т. Х. 936 с.

2. Акты, собранные Кавказской археографической комиссией. 1904. XXII. 1552 с.

3. Всеподданнейший отчёт главнокомандующего Кавказскою армиею по военно-народному управлению за 1863 -1869 гг. СПб.: Кавказское краевое военно-народное управление, 1870. 120 с.

4. Гершельман Ф. Причины неурядиц на Кавказе. СПб.: В. Березовский, 1908. 72 с.

5. Иваненко В. Разлад между уголовным законом и народным обычаем на Кавказе и его влияние на преступность // Русская мысль. 1904. № 6. С. 1-21.

6. Клычников Ю.Ю. Деятельность А.П. Ермолова на Северном Кавказе (1816-1827) / Под редакцией и с послесловием В.Б. Виноградова. Ессентуки, 1999. 135 с.

7. Кобахидзе Е.И. От «военно-народного» управления к «гражданскому»: административная практика России на Центральном Кавказе в конце 50-х - начале 70-х гг. XIX в. // Известия СОИГСИ. 2009. № 3 (42). С. 107-128.

8. Лазарян С.С. Военно-политическая и административно-правовая деятельность князя М.С. Воронцова в Кавказском крае. 1845-1854 гг. Пятигорск: ПГЛУ, 2012. 323 с.

9. Малахова Г.Н. Становление и развитие российского государственного управления на Северном Кавказе в конце XVIII - XIX вв. Ростов-на-Дону: 2001. 400 с.

10. Невская Т.А., Кондрашева А. Северный Кавказ: традиционное общество и реформы (конец XVIII - начало ХХ вв.). Ставрополь: СКФУ, 2015. 368 с.

11. Романовский Д.И. Генерал-фельдмаршал князь Александр Иванович Барятинский и Кавказская война. 1815-1879 гг. // Русская старина. 1881. № 2. С. 247-318.

12. Эсадзе С. Историческая записка об управлении Кавказом. XI. Тифлис: тип. «Гуттенберг», 1907. 616 с.