Budget law is based on a system of ethical, moral, political, social, economic and other ideas about the “due”, meaningfully concentrated in the relevant categories and concepts, which are not in a chaotic state in relation to each other, but form a hierarchically ordered system of interconnected notions, on the basis of which legal norms are built and budgetary legal relations arise. The research focuses on posing the scientific question of identifying the structure of the categorical and conceptual system of budget law. The author does not limit himself to studying purely budgetary and legal categories and concepts, since the latter form only the “lower” layer of the entire categorical and conceptual system, but, on the contrary, is based on the thesis of the relationship between “own” categories and concepts of budgetary law, categories of other branches of law and scientific and legal categories, as well as economic, political, social, managerial, ethical and philosophical categories. The article schematically proposes a multicomponent categorical network of budget law: the upper level is represented by categories of philosophy, the middle one by categories of politics, economics, theory of state and law and legal branches, the lower one by “own” categories of budget law. It is consistently proved that the categorical and conceptual system of positive budget law includes two subsystems: the categorical one, which forms the appearance and provides the substantive focus of budget law, and the conceptual one, which meaningfully fills budget law. The mechanism of the genesis of concepts and their linguistic forms — terms, subordinated to hyper‑hyponymic relations, is given: the new concept originates from the category. The conclusion is formulated that in budget law there is a competition of the categories “budget”, “finance”, “treasury” as hyperonyms with the dominance of the category “budget”, which is system‑ and law‑forming for budget law.
Elena Ryabova (Wed,) studied this question.