The modern approaches to the evolution of the concepts of state and state power in a globalizing world is a subject of the paper. State power as the state evolves because of the need to address the systemic problems of society, requiring the development of new quality management resources. State power, like the political system, formulates and implements the collective goals of society or groups existing in it. The authors focus on the use of system-structural, functional methods of analysis of the state and state power, which makes it possible not only to explain state and political changes, but also to predict them. The authors substantiate the relevance of the methodological approaches of prominent economists and sociologists Schumpeter and Hayek to analyze contemporary problems of democracy, when the adaptive capacity of a state is aimed at reducing and reducing its role in the life of modern global society.

The doctrine of the burden of proof must face, as the pole of its argument, its connection with the Constitution and that it must assume that the doctrine of onus probandi projects a formulation that goes beyond its strict procedural conceptualization of the "ordinary" to access the sphere of constitutional guarantee, because a jurisdictional declaration of right cannot be refused when a party's burden of proof is aided by both the preemption of defenselessness and the right to use appropriate means of proof to substantiate - prove - its claim. It must be declared essential that recognition of the constitutional right to the burden of proof is correlated with the constitutional right to effective judicial protection. The Constitution, in addition, places this recognition in the procedural part without the possibility to recognize the relative recognition of the constitutional right as the burden of proof in the judge and which can justify the ex officio evidence of the part of the judge (in part). In the European model, the constitutional right to the burden of proof is correlated with the constitutional right to effective judicial protection, which is not characterized by its uncertainty or casuism - that is, when the burden of proof should apply in a civil process - but, on the contrary, by the constitutional recognition of a specific and specific constitutional right and the guarantee provided by the Constitution. Without constitutional recognition of the right to the burden of proof, it would be impossible to achieve effective judicial protection, since the use of "evidence for their protection" is essential for the party to have access to it - to effective judicial protection. Burden of proof rules have a double dimension. On the one hand, they affect the parties because they indicate the need to prove their claims and the scope of the right to prove what they have in the process. On the other hand, they are the only way out of the crossroads in which the court may find itself when it doubts the authenticity of the facts proved, either because they have not been proved, or because the evidence was insufficient or unsatisfactory. This decision consists in ruling against the party who has failed to prove the facts in question, constituting a factual presumption of the supremacy of the law sought to be enforced.

Background: The Constitutional Court of Ukraine and courts of general jurisdiction play one of the main roles in the application of the rule of law. The article is devoted to the study of the constitutionalisation of the principle of the rule of law, as well as its constituent elements, in particular, the principle of legal certainty, proportionality, and direct action of the Constitution of Ukraine. The article analyses the legal positions of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine on the content of the above elements of the rule of law. It is emphasised that the principle of proportionality is fundamental to defining the limits of human rights. The content of this fundamental principle is manifested in the proportionally reasonable relation between the purpose of restricting a certain human right and the means used by the state to limit it. In addition, it is noted that the principle of direct action of the Constitution as an element of the rule of law has limited effect and relates mainly to provisions on human and civil rights and freedoms, as well as the provisions of new procedural codes introducing a novelty, which are generally perceived positively. Methods: The paper used the following methods of analysis and synthesis to examine the main approaches to the definition of the rule of law and its individual elements: the system-structural method, which allowed us to give a structural description of the principle of the rule of law, as well as to analyse the content of its elements, and the logical-legal method, which provided an opportunity to clarify the content of the legal positions of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine on the interpretation of the rule of law. Results and Conclusions: Theoretical and practical approaches to substantiating the nature of the rule of law and the content of its structural elements in the legal positions of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine were developed and analysed.

Background: Genetically, constitutional control appeared in connection with the need to check the constitutionality of ordinary laws adopted by the parliament. A significant practice of the bodies of constitutional jurisdiction regarding preliminary or subsequent control overdraft laws/laws on amendments to the constitution was also gradually formed. This approach has both positive and negative sides. In Ukraine, a significant practice of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine has already been formed regarding the provision of conclusions on the compliance of draft laws on amendments to the Constitution of Ukraine to comply with its Arts. 157-158 (preliminary control). An assessment of the relevant national experience is impossible without a comparative approach and study of the experience of foreign countries. Methods: The present paper used the following methods of analysis and synthesis to examine the main approaches to the nature of the preliminary judicial constitutional control of amendments to the constitution and its variation (explicit and implicit): the system-structural method, which allowed us to give a structural description of the preliminary judicial constitutional control of amendments to the constitution, as well as to analyse the content of its variations (explicit and implicit), and the logical-legal method, which provided an opportunity to clarify the content of the legal positions of constitutional courts and supreme courts of foreign countries on the implementation of the preliminary judicial constitutional control of amendments to the constitution. Results and Conclusions: Theoretical and practical approaches to substantiating the nature of the preliminary judicial constitutional control of amendments to the constitution in foreign countries were developed and analysed.

Reflections on «possible constitutions of Europe» can have two directions. On the one hand, one can wonder about the legal form of the European Union: the fact that it is no longer a confederation of states, but not yet a federal state, requires a legal classification, for which a new concept of Verfassungsverbund was created in Germany, that is, a constitutional union. On the other hand, the question arises as to which national constitutions, or which parts of these constitutions, or which individual norms of these constitutions are best used to build a constitutional order in Europe. Solving this issue is not only a classic mission of comparative jurisprudence, but also of the current law of the European Community, since Article 6 of the Treaty onthe European Union declares certain principles of the Western constitutional state «common to all member states» and orders to consider fundamental rights «arising from common constitutional traditions of member countries, as general principles of Community law». Within the framework of the second way of formulating the question, the following description refers to the experience gained during the use of elements of the German Constitution to build other European constitutions. In this article, we will conduct a comparative legal analysis of the powers of the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany and the Constitutional Court of Ukraine. The possibility of legal review guarantees the supremacy of the constitution by sanctioning theviolation of the law of the constitution by repealing the law. According to the experience accumulated so far, an autonomous and independent constitutional court with the possibility of a constitutional appeal is a good way to protect human rights. Constitutional courts have a part of each existing state monopoly, namely the power of parliament to make laws and the power of the supreme court to interpret and apply laws passed by parliament.