Legal Structures and the Logic of Volitional Relations in Public and Private Law

Introduction: The article analyzes volitional relations as the content of formal legal constructs. The
objective of the study is to identify and demonstrate the fundamental principles of the interdependence
of the constructive legal form and the volitional content in public and private law.
Methods and materials: The methodological basis of the study is a formal-content approach and
an understanding of the dialectical interdependence of form and content. To achieve this, the article
also identifies the logical foundations of the species gradation of relations: equivalence, subordination,
intersection, and the relationship between part and whole. Research results and discussion: The author substantiates that, in accordance with the logical foundations of equivalence, subordination, and intersection, the legal framework can be represented by the concepts of volitional unity and equality, as well as by the concepts of imperative and dispositive
relations. Moreover, all of these logical foundations of legal constructs are presented in the logic of
comparing parts and wholes, i. e., in the relationship between private and public will. The topic of volitional relations is discussed in terms of the fundamental concepts of subjectivity, will, volitional activity, and volitional interaction. Conclusions: A legal construct is a way of solving legally significant tasks, presented and formulated as the result of discrete professional understanding of the logic of volitional relations. The general concept of volitional relations, focused on legal activity, provides a theoretical basis for understanding the semantic content of fundamental categories of public and private law. 

1. Gorshenev, V. M. (1978) Atypical Normative Provisions in Law. Soviet State and Law. No. 3. Pp. 117–118.

2. Ivannikov, V. A. (2010) Will // National Psychological Journal. No. 1 (3). Pp. 97–102.

3. Ivashevsky, S. L. (2013) Legal Design as a Model of Social Relations. Legal Technique. No. 7, Part 2. Pp. 266– 270.

4. Jhering, R. (1898) Geist des Römischen Rechts auf den Verschiedenen Stufen seiner Entwicklung. Theil 2. Leipzig, 390 р.

5. Ilyin, E. L. (2009) Psychology of the Will. 2nd ed. St. Petersburg: Peter, 364 p.

6. Ol, P. A. (2025) The Source of Law: Form and Content in the Context of the Sovereignization of the National Legal System. Bulletin of the Military Academy of the National Guard Troops. No. 1 (30). Pp. 47–56.

7. Ol, P. A. (2024) The Sovereignty of the State and the Sovereignty of the Legal System of the Russian Federation: Vectors of Inevitable Changes. Theory of State and Law. No. 4 (41). Pp. 150–170. DOI: 10.25839/ MATGIP-2024-4-41-150

8. Pereverzev, V. V. (2009) Legal Construction as a Scientific Problem: A Theoretical and Legal Aspect. Philosophy of Law. No. 3. Pp. 113–116.

9. Razuvayev, N. V. (2023) The Law-Making Significance of the Writings of Jurists in the Legal Tradition of the Ancient World. Journal of Legal Anthropology and Conflict Studies. No. 2. Pp. 7–33.

10. Razuvayev, N. V. (2025) The socio-historical context of the right of ownership in Roman private law. Russian Justice. No. 12. Pp. 57–67. DOI: 10.52433/01316761-2025-12-57

11. Razuvayev, N. V. ( 2019) Legal Doctrine as a Means of Constructing Legal Reality. Theoretical and Applied Jurisprudence. No. 1. Pp. 5–21.

12. Sapun, V. A. (2012) Law. Legal means. Legal consciousness. St. Petersburg : NWIM RANEPA, 416 p.

13. Tulchinsky, G. L. (2017) The Problem of Will: Modern Thematizations. Philosophical Sciences. No. 7. Pp. 33–44.

14. Cherdantsev, A. F. (1993) Logical and Linguistic Phenomena in Law, Legal Science, and Practice. Yekaterinburg: Nauka, 189 p.

15. Cherdantsev, A. F. (1972) Legal Constructions and Their Role in Science and Practice. Jurisprudence. No. 3. Pp. 12–19. 16. Sheptulin, A. P. (1967) The System of Categories of Dialectics. Moscow : Nauka. 374 p.