Vol 29, No 4 (2025)

The concept of anthropocene, which refers to a new geological epoch characterized by significant human impact of Earth’s ecosystems, represents much more than a new understanding of the environment as a complex, dynamic set of Earth's ecosystems. It calls for a fundamental change in how legal science and practice conceptualize the relationship between humans and nature. The antropoce demands a shift in the category of man and their relationship with living and inanimate natural elements, which have been little studied in modern legal science. As a result, the concept of anthropocene acts as a catalyst for legal transformation, pushing it beyond traditional approaches towards the development of a global legal system adequate to the planetary scale of current evological challenges. For environmental law, anthropocene imposes a scientifically grounded imperative: legislation must acknowledge that human activity can destroy the foundations of life on Earth. Principles like harm prevention and sustainability should become central norms at municipal, national, and international levels. It also stimulates innovation in legal categories such as ecocide, nature rights, climate refugees and fosters hybrid legal regimes, for instance, integrating environmental law with energy law to decarbonize the economy. Recognizing antropocene enables countries like Russia to participate actively in shaping international ecological rules and to contribute scientifically and practically. An internal policy informed by anthropocene factors can also shift from reactive responses to proactive prevention of systemic climate and socio-ecological crises.

The language of law functions as a natural, independent regulator and representative of elements within the legal system and state-legal realities. Its lexical apparatus is structured not only by words with direct meanings but also by linguistic products of secondary semiosis, particularly metaphor. The use of metaphor in legal language remains understudied, largely because its admissibility in legal science is a pressing isssue generally resolved against recognizing metaphor as a full-fledged unit of the legal lexical system. This study aims to analyze the pragmatic potential of metaphor in legal language as a tool of legal technique focusing on the neutralization of its expressive connotations and its acquisition of stereotypical status through the activation of its epistemological function. Methodologically, the research employs linguo-legal, logical-linguistic methods, and historical, systemic, and contextual analysis. It is argued that metaphor is among the leading logical-linguistic devices in law and legal science. By activating its pragmatic and epistemological potential under strict contextual conditions, metaphor ensures the semantic accessibility of abstract legal concepts, appeals to a priori legal principles, and enhances the comprehensibility of normative texts. Firmly embedded in the conceptual-linguistic system of law, metaphors, due to their frequent use, acquire a “life” of their own. Without certain metaphors, understanding legal reality and achieving scientific-legal knowledge would be impossible; expressions such as “legal space” and “legal matter” exemplify this. In law, metaphors are typically reproduced as idiomatic lexical units at the terminological level, influencing the formation of legal concepts by orienting understanding toward known experiences and endowing regulated objects with specific characteristics for adequate interpretation. It is concluded that the pragmatic potential of metaphor, particularly epistemological function is one of the leading criteria for the use of this lexical phenomenon, is among the primary critera justifying its use as a logical-linguistic means of legal text modeling.

The objective of this work is to characterize the scientific, pedagogical, and advocacy activities of Alexander Vladimirovich Lokhvitsky, one of the most renowned Russian lawyers of the second half of the 19th century. The sources for this biographical essay include personal documents of. Lokhvitsky’s contemporaries (K.N. Bestuzhev-Ryumin, E.I. Kozlinina, V.I. Nemirovich-Danchenko, A.V. Nikitenko), obituaries, articles from pre-revolutionary dictionaries, Lokhvitsky’s scientific works, his published court speeches, and materials from discussions on advocacy ethics at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries. The study concludes that although Lokhvitsky’s pedagogical achievements were somewhat localized, several of his ideas found practical application and remain relevant today. He attained noble success in the scientific realm, with a number of his works continuing to interest specialists. In advocacy, A.V. Lokhvitsky left a significant legacy through his published speeches, many of which serve as exemplary models for court oratory. Among his key contributions was sparking a discourse in Russia on attorney ethics, raising issues that continue to resonate in contemporary legal practice.

The paper presents ideas on resolving conflicts between special legal rules. Such norm conflicts occur when several special norms originate from a single general norm vased on different criteria. These are partial norm conflicts, which cannot be resolved directly through the legal maxim of lex specialis. The purpose of this article is to establish an optimal approach for resolving conflicts between special legal rules by analyzing current methodologies addressing such conflicts. The author employs various methods for investigating legal reality, including the systemic approach, conceptual analysis, legal-dogmatic method, comparative approach, and juridical hermeneutic. Five methods for addressing these conflicts are identified. (1) The ‘ostrich’ approach. This method avoids legal conflicts by narrowly interpreting one special rule as part of general rule, enabling direct application of lex specialis. (2) The ‘integrative’ approach: This method eliminates legal conflict by harmonizing the content of special rules through interpretation that aligns them with a common purpose. (3) The ‘essential’ approach: This approach resolves conflicts by identifying a parameter that determines the degree of specialty of colliding norms, then applying the lex specialis maxim accordingly. (4) The ‘meaningful’ approach: This involves describing a universal or localized meta-legal criterion to overcome conflicts, for example, applying the humanistic criterion that famous the norm most beneficial to its addressee (in favorem) in cases of a conflict. (5) The ‘dogmatic” criterion: This criterion resolves conflicts based on other general principles, such as the lex posterior maxim. Due to its neutrality and simplicity, this approach is recommended as the primary methor for resolving conflicts between special norms. If special rules are adopted simulteneously, the ‘essential’ criterion is the preferred method, with the ‘integrative’ approach as a possible alternative.

The problem of social protection for employees of digital labor platforms is actively discussed worldwide, yet balanced solutions that harmoniously reconcile the interests of the state, business entities, consumers, and platform workers have not been found. The effectiveness of these efforts largely depends on accurately classifying persons performing platform work as either employees or independent contractors (self-employed, implementing partners), since their status determines the scope of their social protection. Individuals under employment contracts typically receive more extensive and stable social guarantees than those engaged through civil law contracts. However, platform employment is diverse, and digital labor platforms that act as active intermediaries in local labor markets (for example, taxi services, delivery services, home and home services) blur the boundaries between labor and civil law relations by transforming the status of workers. Legally independent contractors may, in practice, be subject to direct control by the platform through algorithmic management. This blurring makes distinguishing self-employment from disguised employment a pressing scientific and practical challenge, and a prerequisite for developing appropriate social protections regardless of employment form. This article explores possible approaches to solving this problem: judicial reclassification of employment status, establishing presumption of employment relationships, and introducing hybrid employment models into legislation. Examples from various jurisdictions regulating platform work (USA, European Union, Ireland, Spain) illustrate these methods. The study’s relevance is understood by recent Russian federal legislation adopting a civil law model for organizing work on digital platforms. International experience broadens the perspective, highlights advantages and challenges of differing approaches, and guides future efforts to find balanced regulation of platform employment.

This article studies the mechanism of formation of the legal culture of digital citizens, a concept that reflects the genesis, development, semantic content, and role of this phenomenon amid digital social transformations. The study aims to analyze the mechanism by which the legal culture of digital citizens forms, detailing its stages and components. The research employs methods including systemic, logical, modeling and generalization, forecasting, formal-legal, comparative-legal, and cultural analysis. The concept of legal culture of digital citizens emerges from synthesizing three scientific phenomena: legal culture, citizenship, and digital culture, each contributing distinctive features and attributes. To understand the complex dynamics and consistent functional interaction between traditional elements of legal culture and new elements of citizens’ digital culture, a mechanism design is proposed. This mechanism includes the following stages: acquiring digital competencies; awareness, consolidation and development of digital identity; mastering and reinforcing core digital values and standards of digital thinking; and forming socially active and responsible digital behavior. The mechanism’s components specify the objectives for each stage: digital knowledge, skills, and abilities; digital identity; values and standards of digital thinking; and motivational attitudes fostering lawful and socially active digital behavior. The significance of this mechanism for legal science and practice lies in preserving and advancing humanistic and axiological approaches to defining the individual’s role within the digital society’s legal systen, recognizing the cultural value of digital principles in a citizen’s legal status, and optimizing legal regulation of relations among digital citizens, digital society, and public authorities.

This article examines various interpretations of the term “state environmental policy” as presented in legal literature. Based on this analysis, the author concludes that the concept encompasses a range of activities carried out by state bodies aimed at protecting natural resources. The article also analyzes the implementation practices of strategic documents regulating hunting and fishing activities. The author finds that certain provisions in these documents are largely declarative and highlights the lack of an effective mechanism for implementing environmental and social indicators used to evaluate public management performance in this domain. Drawing on positive examples from foreign countries in managing conservation and utilization through strategic documents, the author emphasizes the need for an integrated approach to conserving all biological species of wild animals. The paper outlines proposals for implementing the Concept of Sustainable Use of Wildlife, which could serve as a basis for legislative improvements. In the Russian Federation, current state policy in ecology focuses on preserving fauna species that are resources for hunting and fishing, as well as those categorized as rare and endangered.

The absence of an effective solution of ownership of movable property in cross-border transactions underscores the relevance of this article. The traditional lex rei sitae connecting factor fails to address issues in cases of mobile conflicts. Party autonomy presents a potential tool to overcome this challenge. However, the primary obstacle to its widespread acceptance is the possible adverse impact of parties’ agreements on the rights of third parties. This article aims to assess the potential application of party autonomy as a means to harmonize and unify the regulation of the transfer of ownership of movables, and to justify the effect of the parties’ chosen legal order on the third-party right. The research employs general scientific methods, including analysis, synthesis, deduction, induction, and dialectics, alongside specific legal methods such as dogmatic and comparative analysis. The study concludes that the party autonomy can serve as an effective instrument for harmonizing and unifying regulations governing the transfer of ownership of movables while adequately protecting third-party rights. Third parties are provided with special mechanisms to safeguard their interests. Within the framework of unification, for certain categories of movables, registration systems may offer a means to ensure protection of third-party rights. Consequently, both harmonization and unification prove to be effective regulatory tools for the transfer of ownership of movables. Finally, the article proposes directions for further research, focusing on determining the optimal balance between harmonization and unification in regulating the transfer of ownership through party autonomy, taking into account the advantages and disadvantages of each approach.

-