The Communicative Theory of Law by A. V. Polyakov as a Post-Classical Anthropological Approach to Law: A Critical Analysis of Opponents’ Remarks

Introduction. Andrey V. Polyakov’s communicative theory of law is an influential post-classical, anthropological approach in modern Russian legal theory that sometimes face with critical examination in academic literature. However, a significant portion of this criticism is based on a non-systemic understanding or misinterpretation of the theory’s key tenets. This study aims to conduct a systematic critical analysis of the most representative criticisms of the theory.

Methodology and materials. The research is based on a critical and systematic analysis of publications by following opponents of the communicative theory of law (V. V. Domakov, V. V. Matveev, L. V. Golovko, O. V. Martyshin, V. I. Kruss, A. A. Egorov, M. V. Antonov, E. N. Tonkov). The research employs logical methods (analysis, synthesis, generalization, comparison) within the methodological framework of the communicative approach itself, incorporating the principles of post-classical scientific rationality that emphasize complexity, non-linearity, and the role of the researcher in the process of cognition.

Results and discussion. The criticism directed at the communicative theory of law was classified into two types: 1) apparent criticism, stemming from a superficial engagement with the theory and interpretations of its provisions taken out of context; 2)reasoned criticism, based on adeep understanding of the theory but originating from different methodological premises (primarily positivism). For each type of criticism, the article provides detailed counterarguments and comprehensive responses that clarify and defend the main theses of the communicative approach.

Conclusion. The research confirms the heuristic value and methodological validity of the communicative theory of law as an effective tool for solving modern scientific and practical problems. Its key advantage is the use of anthropological approach, within which a person with his rights, freedoms and responsibilities is placed at the center of law. Law is understood not as a self-referential system, but as a phenomenon constructed in intersubjective communication, aimed at ensuring peaceful coexistence and balance between individual freedom and the commonweal, focused on social and practical significance.

1. Antonov, M. V. (2025) Communication and validity of law in A. V. Polyakov’s conception. Rossiiskaya yustitsiya. No. 5. Pp. 23–33. (In Russ.) DOI: 10.52433/01316761_2025_05_23 (In Russ.)

2. Berman, G. J. (1998) Western legal tradition: the era of formation.

3. Golovko, L. V. (2016) Post-Soviet theory of law: difficulties of positioning in historical and comparative context. In: Problems of Post-Soviet theory and philosophy of law: collection of articles. Yurlitinform. Pp. 92–126. (In Russ.)

4. Gurvich, G. D. (2004) Philosophy and sociology of law. Publishing House of St. Petersburg State University, Publishing House of the Law Faculty of St. Petersburg State University. 848 p.

5. Domakov,V.V., Matveev,V.V. (2016) The conceptual flaws of the “general theory of law: phenomenological and communicative approach: a course of lectures” A. V. Polyakov and their implications for legal science. Natsional’naya bezopasnost’ i strategicheskoe planirovanie. Iss. 3 (15). Pp. 84–92. (In Russ.)

6. Egorov, A. A. (2024) Communicative theory of law: analysis and alternative reading of the main provisions. Grazhdanin. Vybory. Vlast’. No. 3 (33). Pp. 38–50. (In Russ.)

7. Ilyin, I. A. On the essence of justice. Collected works in ten volumes. Vol. 4. Moscow, 1994. (In Russ.)  

8. Kozlikhin, I. Yu. (2006) On Unconventional Approaches to Law. Izvestiya vysshikh uchebnykh zavedenii. Pravovedenie. No. 1 (264). Pp. 31–40. (In Russ.)

9. Kruss, V. I. (2021) Constitutional Legal Understanding vs “Legal Epistemology”: Bjarne Melkevik and “Others”. Journal of Russian Law. Vol. 25. No. 11. Pp. 19–35. (In Russ.)

10. Martyshin, O. V. (2017) Philosophy of Law. Textbook for Masters. Prospect. (In Russ.)

11. Osvetimskaya, I. I. (2021) Deformations of Communication between State Power and Society in Russia. Ideology and Politics Journal. No. 2 (18). Pp. 292–312. (In Russ.) DOI: 10.36169/2227-6068.2021.02.00013

12. Osvetimskaya, I. I. (2023) Methodological Potential of Postclassical Legal Research. In Postclassical Legal Research: Prospects of the Scientific and Practical Program: Collective Monograph / edited by E. N. Tonkov, I. L. Chestnov. Aleteya. Pp. 241–265. (In Russ.)

13. Polyakov, A. V. (2001) General Theory of Law. Lecture Course. Legal Center Press Publishing House. (In Russ.)

14. Polyakov, A. V. (2003) General Theory of Law: Phenomenological and Communicative Approach: Lecture Course. 2nd ed., suppl. Legal Center Press Publishing House. (In Russ.)

15. Polyakov, A.V. (2004) General Theory of Law: Problems of Interpretation in the Context of the Communicative Approach: Lecture Course. Publishing House of St. Petersburg State University. (In Russ.)

16. Polyakov, A.V., Timoshina, E. V. (2005) General Theory of Law: Textbook. Publishing House of St. Petersburg State University, Publishing House of the Law Faculty of St. Petersburg state University. (In Russ.)

17. Polyakov, A. V. (2016) Psychological Theory of Law by Leo Petrazycki in the Light of the Communicative Approach. Pravovedenie. No. 5 (328). Pp. 144–155. (In Russ.)

18. Polyakov, A. V. (2021) The Principle of Mutual Legal Recognition: Russian Philosophical and Legal Tradition and Communicative Approach to Law. Proceedings of the Institute of State and Law of the Russian Academy of Sciences. No. 16 (6). Pp. 39–101. (In Russ.) DOI: 10.35427/2073-4522-2021-16-6-polyakov

19. Polyakov, A. V. (2023) Postclassical Jurisprudence, Evolutionary Theory, and Neuroscience (Confession of a Communicative Scholar). In: Postclassical Legal Studies: Prospects of the Scientific and Practical Program: Collective Monograph. Aletheia. Pp. 111–127. (In Russ.)

20. Polyakov, A. V. (2024) Law and the Problems of Its Axiological Interpretation: Introduction to the Philosophical Anthropology of Law and Morals. In: Interpretation of Law: Classics and Postclassics: Collective Monograph. Aletheia. Pp. 77–193. (In Russ.)

21. Radbruch, G. (2004) Five Minutes of Legal Philosophy. In: Philosophy of Law. International Relations. Pp. 225–228.

22. Soloviev, V. S. (1990) Preliminary Remarks on Law in General. Vlast’ i Pravo. Pp. 98–112. (In Russ.)

23. Tonkov, E. N. (2025) Communication and Discommunication in Russian Legal Realism. Rossiiskaya yustitsiya. No. 5. Pp. 44–51. (In Russ.) DOI: 10.52433/01316761_2025_05_44. EDN: IOOWWU

24. Hall, J. (1999) Integrative Jurisprudence. In: Anthology of World Legal Thought. Mysl’. Vol. 3, pp. 739–741.

25. Cherdantsev, A. F. (2016) Integrative Misunderstanding of Law. Journal of Russian Law. No. 10. Pp. 5–15. (In Russ.)

26. Yashchenko, A. S. (1912) Theory of Federalism. Experience of the Synthetic Theory of Law and State. Izdatel’stvo Marijskij gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Pp. 174–175. (In Russ.)

27. Polyakov, A. V., Osvetimskaya, I. I. (2023) Moral Foundations of Legal Communication. Kutafin Law Review. No. 10 (3). Pp. 475–494. DOI: 10.17803/2713-0533.2023.2.25.475-494.