Abstract: This work, from the perspective of detailed historical method of research, analyzes the normative positions of jarligs of Tatar Khans extended to Russian metropolitan bishops as a particular type of subsidized immunity diplomas.  It is difficult to overestimate the importance and the value of jarligs within the history of Russian law, including criminal law. The Tatar-Mongol invasion had impact upon the development of statehood and culture of Russian people, as well as affected the area of jurisdiction. Being different in its nature from the norms of the Ancient Russian legal system as a whole, the legal norms of the Golden Horde “familiarize” the princes and clergy with crimes that most likely were unknown to the Ancient Russian criminal law. Among such crimes we can list the bribery and violation of the dictates of legal norms, namely as the infringement on the state interests reflected in administrative order. These criminal acts in the law of the Golden Horde were punished more severely and took precedents in importance of object as compared to other crimes. There emerged certain “compromissory” compositions of crime, which were called to protect the interests of Russian clergy – ban on mockery of Christian faith; destruction, damage, or seizure of church property, as well as religious books and manuscripts as objects that possessed cultural and spiritual importance, and undoubtedly extended well beyond the property of the Russian Orthodox Church. But the Russian clergy represented by the metropolitan bishops was also forbidden to violate the precepts of jarligs, as well as the servants of the Khan.

Abstract: The institution of incomplete attempt of crime in the criminal law of the ancient Russian state is hardly well studied and quite topical. The surviving legal texts of that time do not include references or definitions of the stages of crime, which was natural for the legal techniques of that time. Various fragments of stages of completion of crime are provided for on case by case basis in accordance with the legal practice, and sometimes they lack clear formulae. The opinions of the scholars on the presence/absence of the legislatively provided stages of crime (mostly on attempt) in the ancient Russian criminal law are divided and both sides have their own arguments. The scholars’ supporting the position of presence of provisions on attempt of crime in the ancient Russian law insist that it should be interpreted literally and refer to the terminology. Those in opposition of this view point out that the institution of incomplete attempt of crime could not have existed in the ancient Russian law, due to the lack of development of the subjective elements of  crime. Probably the truth lies in between these two points. The ancient Russian law did not fully reflect the institution of incomplete attempt of crime, which in fact existed in legal practice. This position of the author is based upon the comparative analysis of some similar norms of legislation of other Slavic states and the Western European states of the same historical period.
 

Abstract: The institution of incomplete attempt of crime in the criminal law of the ancient Russian state is hardly well studied and quite topical. The surviving legal texts of that time do not include references or definitions of the stages of crime, which was natural for the legal techniques of that time. Various fragments of stages of completion of crime are provided for on case by case basis in accordance with the legal practice, and sometimes they lack clear formulae. The opinions of the scholars on the presence/absence of the legislatively provided stages of crime (mostly on attempt) in the ancient Russian criminal law are divided and both sides have their own arguments. The scholars’ supporting the position of presence of provisions on attempt of crime in the ancient Russian law insist that it should be interpreted literally and refer to the terminology. Those in opposition of this view point out that the institution of incomplete attempt of crime could not have existed in the ancient Russian law, due to the lack of development of the subjective elements of  crime. Probably the truth lies in between these two points. The ancient Russian law did not fully reflect the institution of incomplete attempt of crime, which in fact existed in legal practice. This position of the author is based upon the comparative analysis of some similar norms of legislation of other Slavic states and the Western European states of the same historical period.