Purpose: In article on the basis of the formal legal analysis of the national legal system and the international jurisprudence the key principles of state legal regulation of the confessional relations in the sphere of the general education are distinguished; the need of their addition and unification at the national level for the purpose of providing the balanced ratio of public and private interests in the context of providing the integrated rights and personal freedoms is demonstrated.

Methodology: In work, various general scientific methods, acceptances, and methods of logical knowledge are used: analysis and synthesis, system, formal and logical, formal legalistic.

Result: It should be emphasized that the process of legal regulation of the modern secular state is not enough to adhere to the principle of religious neutrality and minimize the amount of religious component in the public spheres of life of the individual and society, including the system of General education. Currently, such a state is designed to ensure a balance between public and private interests in this area.

Applications: This research can be used for universities, teachers, and students.

Novelty/Originality: In this research, the model of Legal Regulation of Interreligious Relations in the Field of General Education: The Ratio of Public and Private Interests is presented in a comprehensive and complete manner.


  1. Prikaz Minobrnauki Rossii ot 06 oktyabrya (2009). g. # 373 «Ob utverzhdenii i vvedenii v dejstvie federal'nogo gosudarstvennogo obrazovatel'nogo standarta nachal'nogo obshchego obrazovaniya» // Byulleten' normativnyh aktov federal'nyh organov ispolnitel'noj vlasti. 2010. # 12; http://www.consultant.ru (In Russian).
  2. Pylin, V. V. (2011). Gotovy li rossiyane osushhestvlyat' svoyu zhiznedeyatel'nost' na sovremennykh printsipakh demokratii? Konstitutsionnoe i munitsipal'noe parvo, 3, 16-20 (In Russian).
  3. Education Act (1996). July 24, 1996. Available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/56/part/V/chapte r/III/crossheading/agreed-syllabuses (accessed 19 March 2019).
  4. SchOG July 25, 1996 (1962). Available at: http://www.ris.bka.gv.at/GeltendeFassung.wxe?Abfrage=B undesnormen&Gesetzesnummer=10009265 (accessed 19 March 2019).
  5. School Standards and Framework Act (1998). July 24, 1998. Available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/u kpga/1998/31/introd uction (accessed 19 March 2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0920-5489(97)00005-6
  6. Education Act (2002). July 24, 2002. Available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/32/contents (accessed 19 March 2019).
  7. Religionsunterrichtsgesetz July 13, (1949). Available at: http://www.ris.bka.gv.at/GeltendeFassung.wxe?A bfrage=Bunde snormen&Gesetzesnummer=10009217 (accessed 19 March 2019).
  8. Lov om grunnskolen og den vidaregåande opplæringa (opplæringslova) LOV-1998-07-17-61. Available at: https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/1998-07-17-61?q=Utdanning loven#KAPITTEL_2 (accessed 19 March 2019).
  9. Decreto Del Presidente Della Repubblica 16 dicembre 1985 n. 751 Esecuzione dell'intesa tra l'autorità scolastica italiana e la Conferenza episcopale italiana per l'insegnamento della religione cattolica nelle scuole pubbliche. Available at: http://presidenza.governo.it/USRI/confessioni/norme/85DPR751.html (accessed 19 March 2019).
  10. Religionsunterrichtsgesetz of 13 july 1949. Available at: http://www.ris.bka.gv.at/GeltendeFassung.wxe? Abfrage= Bundesnormen&Gesetzesnummer=10009217 (accessed 19 March 2019).
  11. Education Act 2002 от 24 july 2002. Available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/32/contents (accessed 19 March 2019).
  12. School Standards and Framework Act 1998 of 24 july 1998. Available at: http://www.legislation.g ov.uk/ukpga/1998/31/introduction (accessed 19 March 2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0920-5489(97)00005-6
  13. Education Act 1996 of 24 july 1996. Available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/56/part/V /chapter/III /crossheading/agreed-syllabuses (accessed 19 March 2019).
  14. CASE OF FERNÁNDEZ MARTÍNEZ v. SPAIN (Application no. 56030/07). Available at: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng ?i=001-145068 (accessed 19 March 2019).
  15. Accordo tra la Repubblica Italiana e la Santa Sede. Available at: https://w2.vatican.va/roman _curia/secretariat_state /archivio/documents/rc_segst_19850603_santa-sede-italia_it.html (accessed 19 March 2019).
  16. Decreto Del Presidente Della Repubblica 12 febbraio 1985 n. 104 Approvazione dei nuovi programmi didattici per la scuola primaria. Available at: https://www.normattiva.it (accessed 19 March 2019).
  17. CASE OF FOLGERØ AND OTHERS v. NORWAY (Application no. 15472/02). Available at: http://hudoc.echr.coe.in t/eng?i= 001-81356 (accessed 19 March 2019).
  18. Federal'nyj zakon Rossijskoj Federacii ot 26 sentyabrya 1997 g. # 125-FZ «O svobode sovesti i o religioznyh ob"edineniyah» // SZ RF. 1997. # 39. St. 4465; http://www.consultant.ru (in Russian)
  19. Prikaz Minobrnauki Rossii ot 06 oktyabrya 2009 g. # 373 «Ob utverzhdenii i vvedenii v dejstvie federal'nogo gosudarstvennogo obrazovatel'nogo standarta nachal'nogo obshchego obrazovaniya» // Byulleten' normativnyh aktov federal'nyh organov ispolnitel'noj vlasti. 2010. # 12; http://www.consultant.ru (in Russian)
  20. CASE OF HASAN AND EYLEM ZENGIN v. TURKEY (Application no. 1448/04). Available at: http://hudoc.echr. coe.int/eng?i=001-82580 (accessed 19 March 2019).
  21. CASE OF MANSUR YALCIN AND OTHERS v. TURKEY (Application no. 21163/11). Available at: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-146487 (accessed 19 March 2019).
  22. CASE OF LAUTSI AND OTHERS v. ITALY (Application no. 30814/06). Available at: http://hudoc.echr. coe.int/eng?i =001-104040 (accessed 19 March 2019).
  23. CASE OF LEYLA ŞAHIN v. TURKEY (Application no. 44774/98). Available at: http://hudoc.echr.coe. int/eng?i=001-70956 (accessed 19 March 2019).
  24. CASE OF DOGRU v. FRANCE (Application no. 27058/05). Available at: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-90039 (accessed 19 March 2019).
  25. CASE OF OSMANOGLU AND KOCABAS v. SWITZERLAND (Application no. 29086/12). Available at: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-178808 (accessed 19 March 2019).
  26. CASE OF MANOUSSAKIS AND OTHERS v. GREECE (Application no. 18748/91). Available at: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-58071 (accessed 19 March 2019).
  27. Haufler, V. (2013). A public role for the private sector: Industry self-regulation in a global economy. Carnegie Endowment.
  28. Bartley, T. (2003). Certifying forests and factories: States, social movements, and the rise of private regulation in the apparel and forest products fields. Politics & Society, 31(3), 433-464. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032329203254863
  29. Reid, E. M., & Toffel, M. W. (2009). Responding to public and private politics: Corporate disclosure of climate change strategies. Strategic Management Journal, 30(11), 1157-1178. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.796
  30. Harriss-White, B. (2004). India’s socially regulated economy. Indian Journal of Labour Economics, 47(1), 49-68.
  31. Accounting, A. C. C., Education, A. A., Art, A. R. T., Business, B. U. S., Justice, C. C., Education, E. E. C. E., ... & Finance, F. I. N. INTERPRETING COURSE DESCRIPTIONS.
  32. Bader, V. (2003). Democratic institutional pluralism and cultural diversity. The social construction of diversity, 131-67.
  33. Iskakova, I. E. (2015). The concept of freedom of conscience and its constitutional and legal basis.
  34. Rivers, J. (2004). In pursuit of pluralism: the ecclesiastical policy of the European Union. Ecclesiastical Law Journal, 7(34), 267-291. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0956618X00005378
  35. Edge, P. W. (2017). Religion and law: An introduction. Routledge.
  36. Jusic, A. (2007). Economic Analysis of the Legal Regulation of Religion in the USA and Germany. University Library of Munich, Germany.
  37. Therborn, G. (1987). Welfare states and capitalist markets. Acta Sociologica, 30(3-4), 237-254. https://doi.org/10.1177/000169938703000302
  38. Wilkinson, D. (2005). Environment and law. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203994443
  39. Smith, J. G. (1977). Special behavioral studies, foundations, and corporations (Vol. 3). Department of the Treasury, Commission on Private Philanthropy and Public Needs.
  40. Ward, P. M. (2010). Colonias and public policy in Texas and Mexico: Urbanization by stealth. University of Texas Press.Volume II, P. N. DOCUMENT FEMME.
  41. Hartley, R. C. (2001). Non-Legislative Labor Law Reform and Pre-Recognition Labor Neutrality Agreements: The Newest Civil Rights Movement. Berkeley J. Emp. & Lab. L., 22, 369.
  42. Zilfi, M. (2010). Women and slavery in the late Ottoman Empire: The design of difference. Cambridge University Press. Edwards, M. (2009). Civil society. Polity.
  43. Agai, B. (2007). Islam and education in secular Turkey: state policies and the emergence of the Fethullah Gülen Group. Schooling Islam: The culture and politics of modern Muslim Education, 149-171.
  44. Haddad, Y. Y., & Fischbach, R. (2015). Interfaith dialogue in Lebanon: Between a power balancing act and theological encounters. Islam and Christian–Muslim Relations, 26(4), 423-442. https://doi.org/10.1 080/09596410.2015.1070468
  45. Ramady, M. A. (2010). The Saudi Arabian economy: Policies, achievements, and challenges. Springer Science & Business Media.
  46. Prainsack, B. (2006). ‘Negotiating Life’ The Regulation of Human Cloning and Embryonic Stem Cell Research in Israel. Social Studies of Science, 36(2), 173-205. Needs, P. (1977). RESEARCH PAPERS. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312706053348
  47. Hemphill, T. A. (1999). Corporate governance, strategic philanthropy, and public policy. Business Horizons, 42(3), 57-63. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0007-6813(99)80022-6
  48. Heineman Jr, B. W., & Davis, S. (2011). Are institutional investors part of the problem or part of the solution. Millstein Center for Corporate Governance and Performance. Washington.