Vol 22, No 4 (2018)

The article observes public interests, firstly, as a social regulative system in the Russian law, and secondly, as a scientific conception of law in legal science. It also researches possibilities of building legal constructions based on public interests with an aim to improve the legal regulation. Basing on the general theory of law and administrative law, the authors analyze: 1) the essence and grounds of public interests; 2) transformation of the Russian historical-theoretical conceptions of public interests; 3) modern interpretations of the phenomenon of public interests in the Russian legal doctrine, legislation and judicial practice; 4) some differences in the Western and Russian conceptions of public interests; 5) separate legal mechanics based on public interests. I.e. the authors talk about objectivating public interests, defining its forms of appearance and possibilities of implementation in the Russian society, law and state. Nowadays categories «public interest», «state interest», «social interest», «general public interests» as well as similar ones are widely used in the Russian legal science, law-making and law enforcement. The problem of its defining as well as identifying public and state interests is still not solved. The article emphasizes the absence of legal definition of public interests in the Russian legislation what causes its use as an evaluation category in the law enforcement practice. This follows by uncertainty in the legal regulation. From other side the term remains flexible and movable, helps coordinate moral and legal content, allows take into account specificity of public interests in each and every case. The article observes position of the Constitutional Court of Russia which defines correlation between public interests and similar categories, e.g. general interest. According to the authors’ opinion, public interests form legal mechanics uniting legal principles, institutes and rules. Examples of such mechanics are corporate-public regulation and public-private partnership.

The article is devoted to the development of the institute of the head of state in Spain in 1939-1975. The importance of the analysis is determined by the increased role of the heads of state in domestic and international affairs and the popularity of the term. The Spanish experience seems to be useful for research of this phenomenon. Franco's main post was named "head of state" (Jefe del Estado) legally, and the officially recognized institution with the same name (Jefatura del Estado) formalized his status. In comparison with the "head of state" in the doctrine of Constant, he did not function in the system of separation of powers, but named a ruler with a personal absolute lifelong power. The legal term "head of state" became a synonym for the political term "dictator". Franco’s experience demonstrated the non-democratic nature of the institute of head of state. It was also emphasized by the title "caudillo", indicating its leadership and its mission to restore the former "greatness" of Spain. Franco’s government was to be characterized by the features of "sovereign dictatorship", described by C. Schmitt. By analyzing features of the institution of the post, formation of the same institute and their development, the author notices the potential of the institute of head of state during Franco's authoritarian regime. Two periods are distinguished in the history of the institute. During the first, after the Civil War (1939) and before the adoption of the law "On Succession" (1947), Franco's constitutional activity was aimed to create a "new" nationalist state, struggling against internal and external enemies. Unlimited power in a militarized state became the basis for the domination of “decessionism”, and the state itself was identified with its head personally. In the course of the second period, 1947-1975, the constitutional power of the caudillo began the "institutionalization" of a "social and representative" state which was proclaimed as a monarchy again. Franco’s "fundamental" laws not only created a quasi-constitutional facade of the regime, but consolidated the head of state's self-limited powers and its status in the system of established state bodies, a mechanism to transfer his power to the future king. Spanish state was no longer identified with the head of state. He was declared a representative of the nation and ensured the unity of state power. Franco remained an extraordinary head of state till the end of his life. The mechanism he introduced "worked" after his death in Spain and created the opportunity for a transition from an authoritarian regime to a democratic one, from "institutionalization" to constitutionalism.

The article reveals the essential characteristics of justice as a specific type of state activity; identifies the main features of justice that distinguish it, on the one hand, from other types of state activity, and on the other - from other types of judicial activity. The purpose of this article is to identify and analyze the features of justice in its modern sense. The versatility of this legal category as an ambivalent definition is reflected in its various characteristics, through the consideration of which the most general definition of justice is formulated in the work. The methodological basis of the article is the modern achievements of the theory of knowledge. In the course of research theoretical, General philosophical (dialectics, system method, analysis, synthesis, deduction), traditional legal methods (formal-logical) were applied. Turning to the question of the characteristics of justice, the author touches upon the problem of its broad and narrow understanding due to the increasing role of mediation, conciliation and arbitration as alternative forms of resolution of legal conflicts, as well as in connection with the empowerment of certain state bodies of jurisdictional powers, and concludes that, unlike a number of foreign countries, justice in Russia can be carried out only by state courts. Of considerable interest is also the study of the subject area of justice, which is related to the situation of legal conflict. In this context, the author's analysis of the concept of "legal conflict" and his proposed differentiation of such conflicts into types with subsequent consideration of each of them is quite legitimate. In the context of the formation of the new Russian statehood, the arbitration sign of justice acquired a different sound, which is considered in the work from the standpoint of the special jurisdictional procedural activity of the court and the situational nature of justice. Since the beginning of the modern judicial reform, objective changes in the activities of the courts associated with the emergence of simplified and writ proceedings that have simplified the procedure for the consideration and resolution of certain categories of administrative and civil cases, as well as the allocation of jurisdictional powers to other state bodies that are not part of the judiciary, but use quasi-judicial procedures, i.e. almost judicial procedures as close as possible to them, have significantly changed the attitude to the procedural form of justice, which has lost its former importance. In this regard, the author substantiates the point of view that nowadays in order to determine the qualitative nature of the jurisdictional bodies, it is necessary to identify, in particular, the distinctive features in each of the procedural forms. Revealing in more detail the content of methods and means of justice, the author touches upon the problem of correlation of this legal category with justice and on the basis of the analysis of different points of view comes to the conclusion that these concepts can not be considered as legal phenomena that coincide in whole or in part. Justice is rather an intrinsic property of justice, contributing to its perception as a social and legal value. As one of the most important signs of justice in the work is considered the state-power nature and reliability of judicial decisions, the execution of which involves the suppression of the will (freedom) or material deprivation of one of the parties with the use in certain cases of power and force of the state. In this regard, some attention is paid to the characterization of the binding nature of the judgment as one of its essential properties. Examining justice as categories which help to reveal the contents and legal merits of this form of state activity, in the definition of the given concept into a single, unified definition.

The article examines the existing practice of using blockchain technology in law, politics and public administration, as well as the prospects of its further use in these areas. The authors approach the problem from the point of view of a systematic approach, which allows to justify the applicability of this technology to solving the problems facing modern law, politics and public administration in a dynamically developing information society. Considering the features of blockchain technology application in each of the three selected areas, the authors establish a pattern according to which the introduction of this technology into the sphere of policy is usually preceded by its introduction into legal and bureaucratic practice. Based on the identified features and patterns of the process of introduction of blockchain technology in law, politics and public administration, the authors analyze the prospects of expanding the scope of this technology in these areas, compare Russian practice with foreign experience.

In the article we give a description of the main areas of work of the XX Congress of the International Academy of Comparative Law, which is the largest organization of the legal comparativistics in the world.