THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE CONCEPT OF SUBSTANTIVE EQUALITY IN DEMOCRATIC MODERNIZATION: PHILOSOPHICAL FOUNDATIONS OF THE PROPORTIONALITY OF LEGAL GUARANTEES, REAL OPPORTUNITIES, AND SOCIAL INTERESTS

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23381615

Keywords:

substantive equality, formal equality, democratic modernization, real opportunities, social interest, structural inequality, dignity

Abstract

The article examines the significance of substantive equality for democratic modernization from philosophical and normative perspectives. The study aims to identify the normative relations among the key categories of the problem and to define the limits of their institutional coordination. The methodology combines dialectical, conceptual, comparative, axiological, and reflective methods of analysis. The study develops a multidimensional conceptual framework that systematizes the relevant criteria and the limits within which the key contradictions can be resolved.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Mutalipova M. Aksiologik yondashuvning ilmiy-nazariy mohiyati // Actual Problems of Humanities and Social Sciences. 2025. Vol. 5, No. 12. p. 501–506. DOI: 10.47390/SPR1342V5I12Y2025N87.

Bekmuhammadova S. Gender zo‘ravonligiga qarshi kurash choralari // Actual Problems of Humanities and Social Sciences. 2025. Vol. 5, Special Issue 4. p. 135–139. DOI: 10.47390/SPR1342V5SI4Y2025N22.

Ibragimova Z.F., Frants M.V. Inequality of opportunities: the role of the spatial factor. 2020. T. 16, No 4. p. 44–67. DOI: 10.14530/se.2020.4.044-067.

Zotikov N.Z. Introduction of a progressive scale on the tax on income of individuals as a necessary condition for ensuring social justice. 2024. № 10. p. 167–179. DOI: 10.26425/1816-4277-2024-10-167-179.

Fredman S. Substantive Equality Revisited // International Journal of Constitutional Law. 2016. Vol. 14, No. 3. p. 712–738. DOI: 10.1093/icon/mow043.

Elford G. When Is Inequality Fair? // Ethical Theory and Moral Practice. 2018. Vol. 21, No. 5. p. 1205–1218. DOI: 10.1007/s10677-018-9963-x.

Zwarthoed D. Autonomy-Based Reasons for Limitarianism // Ethical Theory and Moral Practice. 2018. Vol. 21, No. 5. p. 1181–1204. DOI: 10.1007/s10677-018-9958-7.

Halldenius L. Why Limitarianism Fails on Its Own Premises – an Egalitarian Critique // Ethical Theory and Moral Practice. 2022. Vol. 25. p. 777–791.

DOI: 10.1007/s10677-022-10337-1.

Downloads

Published

2026-10-15

Issue

Vol. 6 No. 10 (2026): International Bulletin of Applied Science and Technology

Section

Articles

License

Copyright (c) 2026 Iqboljon Boltaboyev Tursunaliyevich

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Articles published in this journal are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC-BY 4.0). Under this license:

  • Share: Copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
  • Adapt: Remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, including commercially

Attribution required: You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made.

License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Authors retain copyright of their work while granting the journal first publication rights.

How to Cite

Boltaboyev Tursunaliyevich, I. (2026). THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE CONCEPT OF SUBSTANTIVE EQUALITY IN DEMOCRATIC MODERNIZATION: PHILOSOPHICAL FOUNDATIONS OF THE PROPORTIONALITY OF LEGAL GUARANTEES, REAL OPPORTUNITIES, AND SOCIAL INTERESTS. International Bulletin of Applied Science and Technology, 6(10), 309-316. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23381615