STATE AND LEGAL SYSTEMS IN THE TERRITORY OF KAZAKHSTAN IN THE XIII-XV CENTURIES: CONTINUITY AND TRANSFORMATION

Abstract

The article examines the formation, functioning, and transformation of the state and legal institutions of political entities that existed in the territory of Kazakhstan and the adjacent regions of Central Asia in the XIII-XV centuries. Particular attention is paid to the Golden Horde, the Chagatai Ulus, Moghulistan, and the Timur's state as interconnected stages in the development of post-Mongol political organization. The study analyzes supreme authority, the ulus and military-administrative systems, territorial organization, taxation, legal regulation, and mechanisms for legitimizing rulers’ authority. The source base and historiographical framework of the study comprise Eastern written sources, archaeological evidence, and scholarly works on the history of state and law. Comparative, historical-genetic, problem-chronological, and systemic methods are employed. The study demonstrates that political fragmentation did not eliminate the institutional foundations established during the Mongol period. The decimal military organization, dynastic legitimacy, qurultays, seals, khans’ decrees, taxation mechanisms, and ulus administration continued to function while simultaneously adapting to diverse regional conditions. The reforms of Kebek Khan indicate an effort to strengthen the territorial and fiscal administration of the Chagatai Ulus, whereas the political system of Moghulistan demonstrates a combination of Chagatai dynastic legitimacy and the influence of powerful tribal emirs. In Timur’s state, Mongol political and legal traditions coexisted with an increasingly influential Islamic normative order. The article concludes that the continuity and adaptation of these institutions created important historical preconditions for subsequent processes of state and legal development in the Kazakh steppe. Particular attention is devoted to the relationship between military organization and territorial administration, as well as to the role of urban centers, coinage, seals, and officials in the practical exercise of authority. A comparison of these elements reveals not only the common features of the states under consideration but also regional differences in approaches to centralization, interaction with the tribal nobility, and the administration and regulation of the tax-paying population.