New technologies in law as a highly effective means of implementing the constitutional principle of equality in conditions of multi-level legal regulation

Full Text

Introduction The changes taking place in modern Russian society, requiring further formation of law focused on the implementation of the constitutional principle of equality, are in urgent need of new means of legal regulation, or, as noted in the literature, in “consistent transformation of law” (Trofimov, 2015); this is becoming a key and urgent task of legal science. According to the apt expression of K. Marx, “the law is a universal and genuine expression of the legal nature of things”. And further Marx focuses on the fact that “the legal nature of things cannot be regulated according to the law; on the contrary, the law must be regulated according to the legal nature of things” (Marx, 1955:22). Such a conclusion of a well-known analyst, on the one hand, confirms the natural nature of the development of legal phenomena and processes, which does not lose its relevance regarding the transformation of modern law. On the other hand, the above-mentioned inference shows that the lack of reasonable ideas concerning the patterns and peculiarities of the formation at the present stage of such an important attribute of society and the state as law may be the main reason for unfulfilled expectations, primarily in the field of implementation of constitutional principle of equality (Article 19) (hereinafter referred to as the principle of legal equality). In this case, we are speaking about law formation, which is based on a dual (general social and planned-rational) process of creating legal norms that consolidate and use high technologies in law-making, regulatory and other types of legal activities to ensure the improvement of public relations and translation of principle of legal equality into practice at various levels of legal regulation. Meanwhile, practice shows that whenever new technologies are applied in the legal sphere, scientific and practical activities are significantly intensified, both at the general theoretical and at the sectoral level of jurisprudence. It happened at the turn of the late XX - early XXI centuries. Organically incorporated into many spheres of public life, new technologies show the inevitability of the fourth industrial revolution as a logical continuation of modern computerization and informatization of all spheres of society (Bertovsky, 2021:739). This is confirmed by the results of the development of high technologies in China and South Korea[66]. In the Russian Federation, new technologies have penetrated the sphere of law, first in the form of computerization, and then digitalization. Having “adapted” to them, law is becoming more and more “high-tech”, “digital”, “machine-readable”, etc. It declares itself as a new qualitative phenomenon of public life (Bertovsky, 2021:735). Agreeing with this position, it can be emphasized that high technologies have begun to reduce or completely eliminate errors in all types of legal, managerial, entrepreneurial, personnel and other activities (for example, reducing the time to study information about the level of knowledge, professional skills and experience of an employee, searching for jobs in employment centers, conducting tests for appointment to vacant positions, electronic document flow between employees and employers, etc.). Consolidation of the concept of “digital rights” in the Civil Code of the Russian Federation (Article 141.1) may serve as a convincing penetration of high technologies into law. Corresponding changes have been made to other laws of sectoral and complex legal regulation. As noted in literature, new technologies are rapidly changing modern Russian law. The rate of change is increasing almost daily. Legal regulation is becoming more and more dynamic because new acts are appearing faster and faster. At the same time, the system of regulations becomes “overcomplicated” and “poorly managed”. The number of “contradictions and incomplete logical chains” is growing[67]. “Digitalization covers all types of communications” (Bertovsky, 2021), and “improves the quality of regulatory legal acts” (Pashentsev & Alimova, 2019; Sokolov, Soldatkina, 2022). We believe that high technologies in legal sphere contribute to activating activities of federal, regional and municipal law-making bodies, urge legal practitioners to develop and implement new approaches to achieving real equality in specific legal relations[68]. From this point of view, an attempt is made to substantiate the role of high technologies in the formation of modern law and its focus on the implementation of the principle of legal equality in specific legal relations. Achieving this goal involves solving the following tasks: 1) based on the achieved technological level of modern law and taking into account the degree of research of this phenomenon in the works of scientists, to show the ability of law to use high technologies in various spheres, branches of law and levels of legal regulation; 2) to reveal the meaning of the constitutional principle of equality in the conditions of digitalization as a goal and promising direction of the development of public relations; 3) to analyze the spheres, branches of law and levels of legal regulation where high technologies are used; 4) to formulate conclusions. Digitalization in law as a new specially organized means of implementing the constitutional principle of equality Modern changes in Russian law, which differ from the previous stages by the rapidity and inconsistency of integrating legal means of primary regulation with new technologies in the legal sphere, unify the main types of legal activity and, first of all, primary legal regulation, which in a democratic state acquires a multi-level character. In this context, the meaning of digitalization in the legal sphere is to transfer knowledge about law and its functions to a computer. Thus, performing a special role in primary regulation, digital technologies contribute to the implementation of universal and fundamental principles of equality, justice, equivalence, etc. in various spheres of public life including managerial, personnel, entrepreneurial, educational, medical, banking, environmental, pension, and others. At the same time, new technologies, together with other legal means, ensure strengthening of the constitutional system, protection of the sovereignty and integrity of the Russian statehood as the main and necessary conditions for implementing the principle of legal equality. If from these positions we characterize the role of high technologies in the implementation of the principle of legal equality in close-up, then there is a tendency for the emergence of new high-tech and effective legal models that contribute to the removal of contradictions in the legal space, reducing social inequality in Russian society, advancing it along the path of comprehensive modernization in social, technological and other spheres. It is no coincidence that Russian and foreign legal scholars agree that “technological law” is increasingly being formed as a separate and new area of law. Thus, M. Guihot conducted a study to determine if it is possible to harmonize the norms and principles of current law in the field of health and ecology and justified the need to unify legislation in these areas based on digital technologies. As a result, the author managed to formulate the requirements for classification of legislation. M. Guihot called the consensual and classified norms and principles of laws using digital technologies “a separate, new technological area of law” (Guihot, 2019). The author’s scientific conclusions significantly supplemented the recommendations on testing disparate legislative acts and forming technological law contained in the Oxford Handbook of Law, Regulation and Technology. As for the scientific developments of technological law in the Russian Federation, L.V. Bertovsky became one of the first Russian legal scientists who developed the concept of “high-tech law”. The most significant thing in his works is that the author has identified and revealed the characteristic features of high-tech law: 1) feasibility; 2) logistics; 3) research intensity. At the same time, the author emphasizes that the rapid development of high technologies has led to an increase in the research intensity of law and required new knowledge and a higher level of professional competencies in lawmaking, law enforcement and other kinds of legal activity (Bertovsky, 2021:740). The technological, research-intensive and logistical aspects of Russian law are confirmed by the fact that the actual use of high-tech information and communication systems contributes to a significant rise in the effectiveness of law-making and regulatory activities at the federal, regional, municipal and other levels of legal regulation. For example, technological and logistical nature of law provides the norms of primary legal regulation with more grounds to specify and detail the operation of the principle of equality in law including the employment of the principle of equivalence in labor relations more objectively, stimulate labor activity of employees of commercial and non-profit organizations, regulate wages, etc. So, the general characteristic of new technologies in the legal sphere shows that, on the one hand, high-tech law is being formed, and on the other hand, due to high technologies, the principle of legal equality is expanding, its organic connection with the moral principles in the norms of primary regulation is ensured. Plunging into the consideration of the most important aspects of the content of the principle of legal equality, which is a major theoretical and practical issue, it is essential to focus on the fact that the basis of such a phenomenon is the organic nature of systemic structure of law as a complex and integral formation. Proceeding from this, in the Russian legal literature (as well as in international law), legal equality is recognized as a universal fundamental principle that actually works; it reflects the deepest, essential qualities of law, plays the role of the primary basis for such universal principles as interdependence, equivalence, justice and some others; it acts as a form of manifestation of the freedom of an individual and other subjects; it is not associated with encroachment on the rights of other persons. The Preamble of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that recognition of equal and inalienable rights of the individual is the basis of freedom, justice and universal peace[69]. In this context, N.V. Vitruk rightly noted that the formal legal application of the principle of equality before the court and the law leads to violation of principles of justice, mercy, humanism (Vitruk, 2010:15). The leading role of the principle of equality in the system of Russian law is by no means accidental. A free individual voluntarily enters into a specific legal relationship, and independently, by agreement with another participant, determines the content of this legal relationship. As V.S. Nersesyants rightly notes, “people are free to the extent of their equality and equal to the extent of their freedom” (Nersesyants, 2005:25). Among the numerous features and properties possessed by the principle of legal equality, V.M. Syrykh highlights its integrative properties that permeate all branches of the Russian legal system, covering all levels of legal regulation and being in systemic relations with them (Syrykh, 2004:212). Due to its integrative properties equality acts as a universal fundamental principle of law, embraces all elements of the intra-national system of Russian law and is in organic unity with them. The lack of equality in law negates its rights and/or value properties. As it is rightly noted in the literature, where there is no equality, there is no right. V.N. Kudryavtsev (Kudryavtsev, 2017), N.V. Vitruk, N.A. Vlasenko, G.V. Maltsev, V.D. Zorkin (Zorkin, 2015), V.V. Luneev (Luneev, 2013) and other authors pointed out the inadmissibility of deviation from the principle of legal equality. At the same time, despite recognition of legal equality as a fundamental, leading principle of the Russian legal system, at least two issues remain contentious: 1) whether the principle of legal equality really works in the Russian Federation, in other countries of the world, i.e., whether it manifests itself as actual legal equality or remains nothing more than formal legal equality in specific legal relations; 2) in what areas of law and at what levels of legal regulation the principle of legal equality can really work. Referring to Aristotle’s teaching about the state, N.A. Vlasenko argues that the great philosopher draws the fundamental thoughts about the state as a “virtue for man”; he speaks about relationship between virtue and the state, happiness and the state (Vlasenko, 2021:485). According to Aristotle, the state, as a virtue and as a social formation, ensures equality for all. At the same time, acting as the main goal of the state, virtue is valued above all. If the domination of wealth is valued above virtue, then the state becomes mercenary (Aristotle, 1984:439). As we can see, the central link in Aristotle’s legacy is the idea of “state virtue”, whose implementation is unthinkable without “equality for all”. The ideas of the thinker expressed more than two thousand years ago, have not lost their relevance in our time. The problem of ensuring de facto equality in society remains acute and debatable. According to V.S. Nersesyants, actual equality is an “irrational value” that is “far from equality” and contradicts the very concept of equality (Nersesyants, 2005:18). V.M. Syrykh reasonably objects to interpretation of equality in law only as formal legal equality (Syrykh, 2007:140). In his opinion, legal equality in form and content may simultaneously be not only formal, but also factual (Syrykh, 2011:447). The latter existed in the time of Aristotle and exists to this day, although in rather limited spheres. Thus, in modern developed countries, equal rights exist at the level of minimum standards. According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, each State undertakes to provide a minimum standard of material and spiritual benefits to everyone, regardless of gender, race, nationality, level of well-being, etc. In the Russian Federation, in accordance with paragraph 2 of Article 19 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, equality of human and civil rights and freedoms is guaranteed, regardless of the features established in the above article. As for ensuring equality de facto, in accordance with the Constitution of the Russian Federation (Part 2 of Article 7) and based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, de facto legal equality exists in the Russian Federation, as well as in developed countries, firstly, at the level of minimum state standards: minimum wage, minimum social pensions, benefits for large families, disabled people, social insurance, provision of medical care in state and municipal healthcare institutions, equal access to public service, guaranteed accessibility and free basic general education, etc. At the same time, the author of this study substantiates that minimum state standards may be supplemented and exceeded by decisions taken on their own initiative by law-making bodies of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, local self-government, legalized non-state entities, and other social communities, subject to their budgets. However, there is still an opinion in the Russian and foreign scientific literature that modern states, formally endowing all members of society with equal rights, cannot guarantee equal vital material and spiritual benefits to them but suggest being guided by the principle of “self-sufficiency”. Similar problems exist in the Russian Federation. As N.A. Vlasenko notes, “in fact, paid education and medicine in conditions of low wages and minimum pensions are painfully protracted factors of modernity” (Vlasenko, 2021:481). Sharing the author’s opinion, we may assert that formal equality cannot keep up with modern realities and prospects for the development of law. As practice shows, society is following the path of expanding not only the scope of real equality, but also the means by which it is possible to achieve actual legal equality and reduce social inequality in general. Today, new technologies in the legal sphere are a highly effective tool, which can determine with mathematical accuracy the possibility of boosting efficiency of the norms of primary legal regulation, which contributes to implementation of the principle of legal equality in all branches of the Russian legal system and at all levels of legal regulation. As already noted, having integrative properties and fulfilling the mission of the first principle in the system of Russian law, the principle of legal equality cannot act as a “formal determinant of equal measure” or as “absolute equality”, where common and personal interests merge into “indiscriminative unity”. It is convincingly proved by legislative consolidation of minimum state standards for material and spiritual goods and the possibility of their substantial extension at the regional, municipal and other levels of law-making, refuting the premise of legal equality as formal legal equality. From this point of view, new technologies significantly expand the principle of legal equality and its application. Thus, within the framework of Information Society State Program, the Federal project Digital Public Administration is being implemented. The project initiated by the Ministry of Digital Development, Communications and Mass Media of the Russian Federation is focused on achieving the national goal of Digital Transformation. The latter is defined by the Decree of the President of the Russian Federation No. 474 of July 21, 2020 On the National Development Goals of the Russian Federation for the period up to 2030. The federal project provides for measures of digital transformation of the public administration system aimed at achieving “a new level of provision of services necessary to improve the quality of life of citizens” and increasing the share of mass socially significant services available in electronic form to 95%[70]. The practical significance of the analyzed project is that it allows to provide public services through a “registry model”, characterized in the literature as a “systematized list of data generated in accordance with the tasks” (Tereshchenko, 2021). The model of systematization and unification of the “data list” created with the help of digital technologies ensures automated processing and storage of information of any volume. Thus, the continuously created information resource allows to increase the efficiency of forecasting and strategic planning in these areas, eliminate unnecessary links and stages of managerial activity, shorten the time for making managerial decisions and, thereby, create favorable conditions for implementing the principle of legal equality. Our arguments are as follows. Firstly, with the digital registry model, systematized and unified legal information, its accuracy and reliability, high socio-legal and practical significance allows for more substantive control by federal executive authorities over implementation of law that enshrine mandatory minimum state standards and guarantee that various categories of citizens receive established material and spiritual benefits. At the same time, the volume of documents submitted for the protection and restoration of violated rights is reduced in cases where the officially established receipt of material and spiritual benefits remains unfulfilled. Secondly, the digital registry model enhances guarantees for implementation of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, federal laws, norms of international law, constitutions, charters, laws of the constituents of the Russian Federation and regulations of local self-government in cases where the minimum state standards are supplemented and exceeded by the primary norms of the constituents of the Federation, local self-government and regulations of legalized non-state lawmaking. In this case, the registry model prevents various kinds of abuse, fraud and corruption in assigning additional material and spiritual benefits for various social groups, as well as personal payments in regions, municipalities, commercial and non-profit organizations with the status of self-regulating entities, and other social communities. As for self-regulating organizations, in accordance with Part 1 of Article 2 of the Federal Law On Self-Regulating Organizations No. 315-FZ dated 01.12.2007, they are understood as non-profit organizations created in accordance with the Civil Code and the Federal Law On Non-Profit Organizations. The Law on Self-Regulating Organizations has consolidated the concept of “self-regulation”, which means independent and initiative activities carried out by business or professional entities; it focuses on the development and establishment of standards and rules for such activity. At the same time, self-regulation is carried out on the terms of unification of the subjects of these types of activities into self-regulating organizations (Part 2 of Article 2). The law also establishes the status of a self-regulating organization and its legal status, defines the governing bodies, secure the authority to independent law-making activities, adoption of regulatory legal acts based on the purpose of self-regulation. Thirdly, the advantage of the digital registry model is that the unification of law-making, law enforcement, legal protection, application of legal responsibility, enforcement of sanctions, which are components of the mechanism that ensures their unity and general obligation, creates favorable conditions for implementing the principle when it is transferred from a formal legal status to actual equality in specific legal relations. An additional and very effective tool used within the framework of the Information Society state program, contributing to realization of the principle of equality, is digital transformation in the form of a “machine-readable law”. Its application is explained by the constant increase in the array of legal acts that differ in structure, content and form of their expression, which significantly complicates preparation of incoming documents for their automated processing. At the same time, as already noted, the sphere of law has a great potential for applying digital technologies in the entire legal system. Based on the above, on September 15, 2021, a Concept developed by the government commission of the Russian Federation was adopted; it focused on the use of “machine-readable law” technology, i.e., on translation of legal norms into a programming language and their automated application. As practice shows, such measures can significantly improve the automated processing of incoming regulatory texts, reduce the search time for documents contained in the necessary registers, and eliminate the risk of their duplication. At the same time, it is noteworthy that a number of authors speak of the inexpediency of converting existing laws into a machine-readable form, since they should initially be developed for digital use. This also refers to the so called “upper- level” laws including the Constitution of the Russian Federation, which forms basic concepts and relations[71]. It seems to us, that this makes sense. The upper-level acts should also include constitutions and charters of the constituents of the Russian Federation, and charters of municipal and self-regulating entities. It appears that machine-readable law has a limited scope of application. The idea of automatic creation of legal norms based on the use of artificial intelligence systems is widely discussed in modern Russian and foreign literature and deserves special attention concerning the role of high technologies in the implementation of the principle of equality. Its definition as a complex of technological solutions based on a technical device capable of receiving and transmitting information is given in Federal Law No. 123-FZ of April 24, 2020[72]. Among the features of artificial intelligence established in law we can distinguish two characteristic, which are directly related to the implementation of the principle of equality: firstly, the ability of such a phenomenon to search for legal information without human intelligence and a set algorithm, to subject it to deep processing and on this basis to obtain results that, according to their goals and content, do not differ from the results of human thinking (intellect); secondly, independently, automatically form the norms of primary regulation or legally significant decisions that may have binding significance at the federal, regional, municipal and self-regulatory levels of law-making and legal regulation. However, a number of issues in this aspect are debatable, and first of all, whether artificial intelligence is an object of law, since it possesses the same characteristics as the object of law in its traditional meaning, i.e., as a variety of tangible and intangible phenomena or benefits capable of satisfying the interests of the authorized person. Many authors note that artificial intelligence is difficult to attribute to the “classical” object of law on the grounds that an “object that makes independent decisions, does not bear any legal responsibility for them” (Sokolov, Soldatkina, 2022). No less controversial is the issue of endowing artificial intelligence with legal personality. Proponents of the idea that artificial intelligence can act as a subject of law justify their position by the fact that such a phenomenon is created in the image of a person and therefore, it may have rights and obligations. (Yastrebov, 2017; Morkhat, 2018). At the same time, other authors very cautiously propose in the future to endow artificial intelligence with a special status of an “electronic person” or consider it as a “quasi-subject of law” (Vasiliev & Pechatnova, 2020). From the point of view of legal grounds, many authors believe that endowing an artificial intelligence system with legal personality is a premature issue. They have doubts about the uncertainty of the status and legal force of the decisions to be formed. Most of the questions concern the ethical problems of using artificial intelligence technologies. According to scholars, with the automatic formation of legal norms, it is difficult to implement their moral component. In our opinion, the discussion on ethical issues does not take into account the fact that artificial intelligence, demonstrating indisputable high-tech advantages, actively participates in the formation and implementation of the moral foundations of the norms of primary regulation through: 1) high speed of acceptance, processing and transmission of legal information, ensuring its reliability and accuracy; 2) significant reduction of unjustified risks and errors during the period of primary regulation at all its levels; 3) obstacles to all kinds of abuses and interference in the process of forming managerial and other decisions; 4) prompt detection of violation of citizens’ rights and freedoms and their guaranteed restoration. In other words, this issue may be interpreted in such a way that when the norms of primary regulation are adopted by the legislative body, their moral principles, organically related to the principle of equality, are laid down in the process of legislative activity. If the norms of primary regulation are formed exclusively on the basis of high technologies in an automatic mode, i.e., artificial intelligence, then the above phenomenon quite objectively has both a direct and indirect all-encompassing high-tech impact on the moral aspects of primary norms by the fact that, firstly, it creates favorable conditions for the implementation of the principle of equality of law in specific legal relations; secondly, by impeccability and reliability of the decisions formed. In this context, since the subjects of normative and social ethics are moral ideals, moral values, specific requirements for a way of life in society, public opinion, etc., ethical principles are an indispensable condition for the implementation of principles of equality and justice in specific legal relations. And, as already noted, high-tech intelligence may play a positive role in this. However, there are unequal conditions in business (small and medium-sized enterprises) caused by the monopoly of large corporations that cause dangerous social stratification in society and some other factors. In such cases, the due and the actual do not always coincide and moral sanctions (approval, praise, condemnation, indignation) are not used to the necessary extent. At the same time, the moral assessment of practical actions and their motives in law-making, regulatory and other activities (intentions, motives, etc.) may be incomplete or different for the same social groups and individuals and therefore unfair. Consequently, this approach gives grounds to assert that one of the main advantages of artificial intelligence technologies is its orientation and organic connection with the principle of equality based on moral principles. Artificial intelligence offers more opportunities to implement de facto equality in specific legal relations. Concerning this aspect, Chinese experts assure that the ethical problems of artificial intelligence are far-fetched. In their opinion, digital assistants in the form of artificial intelligence significantly speed up consideration of cases in courts and administrative bodies, eliminate delays in justice, bring more clarity and feasibility in resolving disputes[73]. Implementation of the principle of equality with high technologies in conditions of multi-level legal regulation New technologies used in the Russian legal system significantly correct the basic theoretical principles of primary legal regulation, its paradigms and practical orientation; they develop the idea of a multi-level and integrative nature of legal regulation, its goals, objectives, means, structure, mechanisms for the implementation of legal equality. In this context, the author substantiates that primary legal regulation in Russia is carried out at four levels: 1) federal legislation; 2) legislation of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation; 3) municipal law-making; 4) law-making of commercial, as well as non-profit organizations with the status of self-regulating entities, and other social communities. In the author's interpretation, the existence of these levels of legal regulation is explained by the fact that in the conditions of a democratic state, the range of subjects entitled to adopt the norms of primary legal regulation is expanding. The following are involved in law-making and regulatory activities: 1) broad strata of the population; 2) constituents of the Russian Federation on the matters of “joint” with the Russian Federation and law-making and legal regulation carried out by such constituents; 3) local self-government bodies; 4) legalized non-governmental organizations and other social communities. At the same time, it is important to emphasize that each of the above socio-legal entities is empowered to independently exercise primary legal regulation in order to consolidate the specific interests of regions, municipalities, commercial, as well as non-profit organizations with the status of self-regulating entities, other social communities and to assign binding significance to them. These factors determine that in the new conditions, legal regulation must acquire a multi-level character. At the same time, a controversial issue concerning legal regulation carried out by federal, regional and municipal executive authorities requires explanation. From the point of view of the author of this study, the law-making acts of executive bodies are not an independent level of legal regulation. The rationale for this position can be that, in accordance with the current laws on executive power and direct instructions of federal and regional laws, executive authorities are obliged to comply with the norms of primary legal regulation, and therefore, the normative acts adopted by them have the status of a secondary (auxiliary) level of legal regulation. This can explain the legality of the inclusion of such acts into the legislative level of legal regulation, and in municipalities and legalized non-governmental organizations into the law-making level as a sub-element. Related to the main (primary) element, regulatory acts of executive authorities do not have all of its essential features for the following reasons. Firstly, the current legislation grants the executive authorities the right to adopt norms “in compliance with the law”, meaning the specification of primary norms without changing their content. Secondly, auxiliary norms, unlike the main ones, are canceled administratively by higher executive authorities. Thirdly, in exercising executive power the Government of the Russian Federation is vested with the right of legislative initiative, prompting the State Duma to take measures to ensure: 1) qualitative perfection of federal laws in form and content, their organic interaction with the acts of executive authorities; 2) compliance of the norms in the acts of executive authorities with federal legislation; 3) compliance of the main and secondary elements with federal standards focused on the implementation of the principle of equality. Thus, being in conformity with the will of the legislator, each level of legal regulation, defined in this study as an independent social and legal entity, is entitled to integrate and individualize rights and obligations in specific legal relations on the basis of high technologies, to carry out direct and reverse integrative links, to accumulate domestic and international practice, to participate in resolving international conflicts and intra-national disputes. The legal basis in this case is the official consolidation of the concept of “digital rights” in the Civil Code (Article 141.1) and federal laws On Electronic Document Management, On Electronic Signature, etc. Going deeper into the subject of the study, we focus on the previously mentioned general social and systematic-rational types of legal activity in the field of implementing the principle of legal equality at various levels of legal regulation. In this aspect, the most important features of the general social and systematic rational process of ensuring the principle of legal equality should be attributed to the fact that the rapid development of “digital law” positively affect the highest forms of expression of the power of the people - a referendum and free elections (Article 3 of the Constitution). At the same time, there is a continuous process of developing new forms of citizens’ participation in law-making and management activities at the regional and municipal levels: public hearings of draft regulatory legal acts; people’s law-making initiatives; initiating a draft regulatory decision of local self-government on the Internet; attracting votes in favor of the initiated legal act or votes cast against the proposed law-making initiatives; adopting legal decisions with the help of “electronic democracy”, etc. As practice shows, these types of general social and systematic rational legal activities, based on new technologies in law, provide fast and reliable feedback from the social environment, which allows for a more substantive understanding of the possibilities for implementing legal equality in conditions of multi-level legal regulation. Thus, electronic voting is actively used in the electoral process and organizers ensure just and fair elections. However, distrust of electronic voting on the part of society stems from the possibility of unauthorized interference of subjective factor. It seems that such illegal actions, on the one hand, can undermine the idea of popular representation, and on the other hand, hinder the implementation of the constitutionally enshrined principle of equality, in the form of equal and free expression of the will of voters. In fact, back in the late XIX century, B.N. Chicherin wrote that a representative is not just a person who serves the state. In this service, he is looked at as the citizen who ensures the opinion of other citizens (Chicherin, 1899:5). As for the referendum, such an institution for implementation of the constitutional principle of equality was not used at the federal level in the post-Soviet period, except for the amendments to the Constitution of the Russian Federation of 14.03.2020. At the same time, we believe that a referendum and free elections, as the highest direct forms of expression of people’s power, organically complement each other in terms of new technologies in the legal sphere and may significantly contribute to implementation of the constitutional principle of equality in legal regulation. However, the Federal Constitutional Law On a Referendum in the Russian Federation does not contain norms that directly provide for the possibility of submitting draft regulatory legal acts or existing acts with the purpose of their cancellation at people’s initiative[74]. This entails not only a significant derogation of the right of citizens to participate in law-making activities, but also reduces the quality of legal regulation at all its levels. As N.A. Vlasenko correctly asserts, “a referendum as a form of lawmaking and/or institution of democracy, is not working” (Vlasenko, 2021:492). Meanwhile, there are ample opportunities to use high technologies in organizing and holding referendums at the federal, regional and municipal levels of legal regulation. In this case, we are speaking not only about the technical side: informing citizens about the time and place of the referendum, its goals, compiling lists for the survey of citizens’ opinions, announcing the results of the referendum, their formalization as a generally binding regulatory legal act, etc. The use of high technologies during referendums contributes to better understanding of problematic issues, to timely relieve social tension in the municipality, region and/or community. In this regard, the costs that exist at the federal level of legislative regulation are compensated by legal regulation at the regional and municipal levels. Thus, an important way to implement the principle of equality with the use of high technologies at the municipal level are “people’s law-making initiatives”; they allow a group of citizens to officially submit draft regulatory acts to the authorities in accordance with the procedure established by law. However, under the Federal Law on Local Self-Government, such a form of people’s law-making is envisaged only for the municipal level of legal regulation (Article 26). Decrees of the President of the Russian Federation No. 167 of February 09, 2011 On Public Discussion of Draft Federal Constitutional Laws and Presidential Decree No. 183 of March 04, 2013 On Consideration of Public Initiatives by the Citizens of the Russian Federation Using the Internet Resource “Russian Public Initiative” contributed to filling the gap in legislative regulation at the federal and regional levels”[75]. A significant role in addressing this issue was also assigned to the Federal Law On Public Control, adopted in July 2014[76]. The purpose of the law was to ensure that public opinion, proposals and recommendations of citizens, public associations, and other non-governmental non-profit organizations are taken into account by state authorities and local self-government bodies. This law may contribute to the realization of the principle of equality in the legal sphere. Unfortunately, this extremely important law that formalized the concept of “public control” did not work in practice, as evidenced by official analytical reports and public opinion. Today, hopes are pinned on the new Federal Law On State Control (Supervision) and Municipal Control in the Russian Federation[77]. In the implementation of the principle of equality with the use of high technologies in condition of multi-level legal regulation, the phenomenon of “electronic government”, which seems peculiar in its name and nature of activity, is actively involved. It refers to the activities of federal and regional executive authorities of the Russian Federation on the systematic and professional use of the Internet and new digital technologies aimed at providing individuals and legal entities with public information services on a wide range of issues. But this kind of activity has led to significant changes in the relationship between executive authorities and citizens. By comparison, in European countries, the activities of electronic governments are associated exclusively with the service functions of the executive bodies of the state, i.e., with the provision of purely informational services to citizens. The electronic government of the Russian Federation may be characterized as a new and rather complex component of the Russian legal system that performs socially significant functions at all levels of legal regulation: 1) providing access to informational services to citizens, individuals and legal entities in electronic form; 2) providing access to information on the activities of executive authorities; 3) implementing structural and other positive transformations in the system of executive authorities that have radically changed the nature of the relationship between state and municipal authorities and citizens; 4) advising interested parties on obtaining and using information in order to resolve legally significant issues; 5) creating favorable conditions for the implementation of the principle of equality in specific legal relations at various levels of legal regulation. Basically, we can speak not only about creation of a single all-Russian state information center, which for the first time allowed centralized implementation of a wide range of state and municipal services using high technologies[78] or about formation of a unified infrastructure for standardization and integration of electronic services rendered by various government organizations. We are speaking about a broad systematic and rational legal activity that allows to improve dramatically the quality of information, its reliability, efficiency and comfortable access. As an example, let us look at the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, which provides for the possibility of submitting a tax return electronically (Article 80), and formalizes the possibility of transmitting electronically a reconciliation act on taxes, fees, penalties, fines, interest, etc. via telecommunications channels (Article 32). In order to improve the quality of service to taxpayers and protect their rights, the Federal Tax Service has launched an online service “Be aware of complaint”. This service enables taxpayers to promptly receive information on the results of the consideration of complaints and applications received by the central office of the Federal Tax Service of the Russian Federation and the tax service departments in the Russian Federation constituents. This conclusion may be confirmed by: 1) the Federal Law On Electronic Document Management, which not only significantly expanded the list of services provided by the electronic government, but also prescribed to monitor their quality at the sectoral and integrated levels of legal regulation; 2) amendments to the Code of Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation regarding the photofixation of traffic violations, which occurs automatically, without participation of officials exercising traffic control. This has become an effective way to implement the principle of legal equality in determining sanctions for administrative offenses; 3) the Family Code, which ensures legal equality by providing free medical examination to persons entering into marriage, consulting on medical and genetic issues, determining paternity in court using DNA testing, etc. The transition to digitalization has not bypassed criminal law and judicial proceedings. Currently, we are witnessing an increase in crime rates related to illegally obtained personal data including information on citizens, individuals and legal entities. Experts’ forecasts are also disappointing: according to a report by Cybersecurity Ventures, in the next few years, the global damage from cybercrime will grow by 15% annually and amount to 10.5 trillion US dollars by 2025[79]. In this context, we may assume that in the near future some categories of civil cases may be handled by artificial intelligence acting as a judge. If this issue is considered in terms of legal equality, then it will be guaranteed, since artificial intelligence is incorruptible. However, there are examples of a different nature as well. For example, O.H. Chinar, examining the right to privacy in the EU countries, which is one of the rights enshrined in international law, shows that in the digital era, the implementation of this right is undergoing certain changes. According to the author, growing digitalization contributes to challenges regarding protection of privacy. State and non-state organizations in many countries interfere in the private life of citizens on the grounds that legislative acts in violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights enshrine the possibility of such interference with the permission of the relevant authorities (ÇɪNar, 2021). In such cases, interference in private life always raises people’s concern, creates tension between citizens and state organizations, destabilizes public relations and does not contribute to the protection of human rights. Thus, Federal Law No. 152-FZ On the State Information System “Unified Information System of Personal Data providing processing, including collection and holding personal data, their verification and information transfer about the degree of their compliance to the provided biometric personal data of an individual”, adopted in December 2022, caused an ambiguous attitude. Some deputies (295 deputies voted in favor of this law) and numerous experts are of the opinion that the unified biometric system violates the right to privacy. Private life may fall under the control of officials and law enforcers, since children in maternity hospitals wear bracelets on their arms and have assigned barcodes; it is described as “convenience” and “security”. However, biometric data may end up in the hands of intruders. On this occasion, the articles entitled Electronic Traps, Digital Paradise, Total control over the Population, etc. often appear in mass media. It seems that high hopes for digital technologies that provide smooth and fast access to information, development of democracy, freedom of speech, and protection of equality at various levels of legal regulation in this case do not justify themselves. Conclusions 1. The study has shown that due to new high technologies, rapid and large-scale socially and legally significant transformations in the Russian legal system are taking place. The norms of primary legal regulation, obtaining new properties and additional features (knowledge intensity, logistics and technological efficiency), ensure the implementation of the principle of legal equality through the all-Russian state information center providing state and municipal services, a unified infrastructure for standardization and integration, e-government, as one of the most complex components of the system of Russian law performing socially and legally significant functions in municipalities, regions and society as a whole, “electronic democracy”, artificial intelligence, machine-readable law and some others. 2. Compared to the traditional norms of primary legal regulation, the norms of high-tech law are no less focused on the implementation of the constitutional principle of equality; they contribute to the disclosure of its deep meaning, strengthen integrative properties, provide additional grounds to judge equality not as a formal legal principle, but as a real phenomenon in specific legal relations and expand the possibilities of its operation in the Russian legal system. 3. New technologies, organically incorporated into the Russian legal system, rectify the theoretical attitudes of multi-level legal regulation, its goals, means and mechanisms, and the norms of primary regulation with the help of high technologies consolidate the subject-practical activities of authorized entities in various spheres of society, which streamlines the possibilities of realization of legal equality in specific legal relations. The greatest activity of new technologies is seen at the stage of transferring the rights and obligations of subjects into specific legal relations, ensuring their concretization and detailing as well as removing emerging contradictions. 4. New technologies in law, by means of high accuracy of calculations of budgetary funds available to Russian constituents, municipal and self-regulating entities, allow to determine spending priorities in order to boost material and spiritual benefits of individuals and other subjects of law against the standards established by federal legislation.

About the authors

Igor N. Isakov

Moscow Institute of Electronic Technology

Author for correspondence.
Email: isakov2009@yandex.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-6944-1048

Candidate of Legal Sciences, Associate Professor, Associate Professor of the Institute of High-Tech Law, Social Sciences and Humanities

1 Shokin Square, Zelenograd, Moscow,124498, Russian Federation

References