This discussion has two main parts: theoretical and empirical. The task of the first part is to determine the notion of the region as such (the problem not sufficiently cleared up so far). Namely, it is necessary to delimit the region both from the notion of local self-administration and from the notion of state. The region differs from local self-administration in possessing a qualitatively higher degree of authority, authority for the original regulation of legal relations, legislation in the material sense. The region differs from the state in the fact that the authority of the subject with statal (constitutional) authority in principle has above it only the social legal norm as the content of the joint (collective) legal act of a stronger part of the nation in a state. On the contrary, the region has to be subjugated to the constitutional authority of the state in whose borders it is located. There are two basic types of regions: the region as a state fragment and region as a public service. The former is similar to the state, because it has its own state organs (organs with their own authority of coercion), while the latter does not have such organs. Furthermore, regions could be comprehensively divided into non-incorporated autonomous territories, separate original parts of a state and the regions included into the regional state. This discussion accepts as politically most, relevant the division of regions into the regions within monarchies and the regions within republics. (Due to the spatial limitations the third category, regions under the regime of international law, could not have been included into the discussion). Naturally, this discussion could not have been comprehensive when it comes to regions, so it discussed only the most interesting examples. Thus as examples of the regions in monarchies, it presented dominions within the British Empire and Finland within the Russian Empire, and of the regions in republics, the regions in Italy.