Manipulative technologies have become widespread in various fields and are used in the process of legal regulation of public relations. The fact that representatives the theory of law and branch legal sciences ignore this form of legal influence on social processes can lead not only to a biased understanding of certain stages of the mechanism of legal regulation, but also to an obvious leveling of the social conditionality of the legal technique used in law-making, law-realization and law interpretation processes. The paper gives the main focus to the concept and signs of manipulation as a generic concept that manifests itself in a specific way in the process of legal influence on public relations. The author proposes his definition of manipulation and technologies of manipulation of legal goals in legal regulation. The concept of technologies for manipulating legal goals is being formed. It includes six groups of key techniques and methods by which the subject of manipulative influence: a) formulates and objectifies legal goals; b) uses already existing legal goals, coordinating the behavior of participants in legal relations in their own interests; c) stimulates the management object to achieve the set goal through the use of appropriate legal means; d) restricts the activity of the management object that runs counter to the plans of the subject of manipulation. The paper argues the according to which manipulation of legal goals is legitimate behavior, a common way of exercising public power, socially conditioned practice of legal regulation and the legal reality, which is a natural stage in the development of public relations. It is proved that all technologies of manipulation of legal goals are based on legitimate aspirations of participants in legal relations, nevertheless leading to the realization of the interests of the subject of manipulative influence at the expense and to the detriment of the interests of the object of manipulation. Despite the legality of technologies for manipulating legal goals, they can significantly reduce the effectiveness of the mechanism of legal regulation by creating an imbalance in the coexistence of the interests of the individual, society and the state.

Введение: статья посвящена анализу результатов и последствий почти не исследованной формы правомерного поведения – манипулированию юридическими целями и средствами в правоинтерпретационном процессе. Основное внимание акцентируется на том, что манипулятивное воздействие на социальные процессы может осуществляться не только при помощи информационных, психологических, политических и иных технологий, но также и в процессе правового регулирования общественных отношений, в частности, посредством соответствующего использования юридических целей и средств в процессе толкования права. Материалы и методы: в работе использовалось официальное и доктринальное толкование различных нормативно-правовых и правоприменительных актов, анализировались программные документы и решения международных организаций, отдельные заявления высших должностных лиц Российской Федерации. Широко применялись общенаучные и частнонаучные методы научного поиска: диалектический, системный, структурно-функциональный, формально-юридический, сравнительно-правовой и другие методы. Результаты исследования: отстаивается позиция, согласно которой правоинтерпретационный процесс может являться формой манипулятивного воздействия на общественные отношения посредством соответствующего использования юридических целей и средств в ходе его осуществления. Предлагается авторское видение сущности манипулирования юридическими целями и средствами в правоинтерпретационном процессе, на конкретных примерах демонстрируются ключевые результаты, к которым может привести данная правовая активность. Обсуждение и заключение: манипулирование юридическими целями и средствами является такой формой правомерного поведения, которая имманентна правоинтерпретационному процессу. Наряду с порождением серьезных негативных последствий, исследуемое поведение является социально-обусловленной и востребованной активностью, обладая также и мнимыми плюсами (относительно-позитивными результатами), что также должно приниматься во внимание. Introduction: the article covers the analysis of the results and consequences of largely unexplored form of the legal manipulation of legal purposes and means in the law-interpretation process. The author pays special attention to the fact that manipulative effect on social processes is available not only through informational, psychological, political and other technologies but also in the process of legal regulation of social relations, in particular, through the appropriate use of legal purposes and means in the process of interpreting the law. Materials and Methods: the author used official and doctrinal interpretation of various regulatory acts and, analyzed program documents and decisions of international organizations, individual statements of senior officials of the Russian Federation. Dialectical, system, structural and functional, legal, comparativelegal and other methods were widely applied in the study. Results: the author upholds the position that law-interpretation process may be regarded as a form of manipulation process on social relations through the appropriate use of legal means and goals in its implementation. The author gives their own vision of the essence of the manipulation of legal purposes and means in the process of law interpretation is offered, with specific examples demonstrating the key results to which this legal activity can lead. Discussion and Conclusions: the author concludes that manipulation of legal purposes and means is a form of lawful behavior which is inherent, attributive to the legal interpretation process. Along with highly negative consequences the studied behavior is socially conditioned and demanded activity, having also imaginary pluses (relatively positive results), which should also be taken into account.

No abstract

Introduction. The article presents an analysis of the dialectics of goals and means as the most important philosophical categories that are actively used in the general theory of law and other legal sciences. The idea is substantiated that the effectiveness of the legal regulation of social relations, as well as the optimization of law-making, law-realization and law-interpretation processes, is based on a comprehensive analysis of such philosophical categories as "goal" and "means", which is explained by the very essence of legal regulation, which is traditionally understood as purposeful influence on public relations carried out with the help of legal means. Particular attention is focused on the nature and characteristics of goals and means, their relationship with the needs and interests of participants in public relations, as well as on those aspects of their interdependence that predetermine the specifics of legal regulation.Materials and methods. The methodological basis of the study was made up of both general scientific and particular scientific methods of cognition. The fundamental method was the dialectical method, which made it possible to analyze the nonlinear nature of the interaction of goals and means as interrelated categories, as well as to explore the contradictions of the coexisting interests of the individual, society and the state, which predetermine the legal influence on social relations. The research also actively used the formal-logical method, the method of system-structural analysis, the synthesis of social and legal phenomena, the comparative legal method, the functional-analytical and system oriented  approaches.Research results. As a result of the analysis, it was revealed that the issue of the interaction between goals and means is relevant for any of the spheres of public life, and the key issue in this regard is not so much the variant of the “goal-means” correlation that we think is right to prefer in particular situation, as much as the fact that the means is not only an "appendage" of the goal. Thus, the means used to achieve a particular goal can change the goal itself, just as a particular goal can be viewed as a means to achieve a goal of a higher level. In addition to the above, the means used to achieve the goal can lead to a result that the subject of social relations rejects.Discussion and conclusion. The conclusion is substantiated that the achievement of the goal is a certain result, however, it is also necessary to evaluate the result of achieving the goal itself, because it can be extremely unsatisfactory for the subject. It is argued that the dialectics of goals and means largely explains the nature of social relations as a dynamic, complex, self-developing and open system, which is distinguished by incompleteness, non-linearity and alternative  development.