Vol 28, No 3 (2024): DIGITALIZATION AND LAW

The article aims to examine the peculiarities of the formation of legal culture in the virtual space from the standpoint of creating a safe and productive environment for internet communication. The relevance of the research is determined by the special attention given to the behavior of participants in onine interactions, the impact of cross-cultural aspects, technological innovations and the social consequences of technology on their activities. In the course of the study, the dialectical method of cognition was used. Cultural and legal characteristics are considered from the point of view of legal traditions, social innovations, freedom from legal restrictions, and the development of technologies that dictate certain behaviors. As a result, specific characteristics of legal culture manifested in the virtual space have been identified, reflecting its stable and dynamic features. It is emphasized that in the virtual space, there is so called struggle for legal culture, as various samples are adapted to the new socio-technological environment. The conclusion is drawn that legal culture and its individual manifestations become suplementary, sometimes substituting means of regulating internet relations in the absence of clear regulatory legal prescriptions. In this regard, the importance of legal culture increases, contributing to the search for approaches to legal regulation in the conditions of technology socialization.

The purpose of the work is to study the definition and content of the terms “digital personality”, “digital image of a person”, “digital profile”, “digital citizenship”, their interrelation, as well as legal problems related to these categories. The relevance of the topic is confirmed by the active discussion of regulatory legal acts in the areas of building a system of digital profiles, digital citizenship in different countries of the world. The method of research is the analysis of Russian and foreign literature and practice, identification of their fundamental provisions, study of interrelations with more “classical” legal categories, including classical human rights and personal data. The conclusion is drawn about the fundamental position of the category of “digital personality” for the study of the phenomenon of the modern digital person. It is primarily related to human rights in the modern digital world. Such a category directly affects other concepts under study, including information (data) about individuals, as well as the overall policy in the sphere of citizens' participation in state governance. In order to study the phenomenon of the digital person, it is necessary, first of all, to study the category of the digital person from the point of view of their rights in the digital world, i.e., from the point of view of human rights.

The artile examines the phenomenon of digital citizenship in legal science. Interest in digital citizenship is driven by the rapid development of digital society and technology, radical transformations of individuals’s identity and legal culture in this era, ambiguity between universal and national understanding of digitalization, interdisciplinary disagreement in scientific views on this phenomenon, and its varying sectoral legal interpretations. The purpose of the study is to identify the legal issues of digital citizenship as a direct subject of study for legal science. Methods applied include formal-legal, socio-legal, concrete sociological, comparative legal, statistical, modeling, forecasting, and cultural studies. Three of the most relevant legal issues of digital citizenship are examined as a legal construct, a comprehensive legal institution, and a distinct phenomenon of modern legal culture. The legal construct of digital citizenship allows for the generalization of typical elements of diverse phenomena and situations united by the attribute “digital” in a citizen’s life. Elements of the digital citizenship construct are proposed as follows: digital education, digital literacy competence, digital identity, digital thinking and digital behavior. A comprehensive legal institution of digital citizenship will ensure the unity of scientific, legislative and applied approaches in precise and effective legal regulation of all areas of public life where digital technologies are integrated. The comprehensive legal institution of digital citizenship may include institutions of e-democracy and e-voting, e-business, e-government, e-justice, and others. Digital citizenship as a phenomenon of legal culture can be measured using quantitative and qualitative methods, reflecting the level of a citizen’s digital maturity through established legal knowledge, skills, values, reflection, and practical experience in the digital environment.

The issue of abuse in regulating content moderation on internet platforms using artificial intelligence technologies is relatively new in legal science and practice. Regulatory frameworks in this area are still evolving, and enforcement practices have yet to be fully established. The author employs formal-legal, comparative-legal, historical methods and legal modeling to analyze the negative consequences of using software systems with artificial intelligence elements for user content moderation. By examining various technological solutions utilized by internet platforms for data collection and processing, the article highlights a potential threat to citizens’ rights to access and share information if legal relations governing content moderation with artificial intelligence are not significantly enhanced. It explores evidence suggesting that in the absence of regulatory constrains transparency requirements, internet platforms may begin censorship by removing content, based on their own criteria, even if it does not violate laws or platform guidelines. The author argues that unchecked actions by internet platforms could restrict individuals and political entities from expressing their views, posing a significant threat to democratic principles. By examining Russian, EU and US laws alongside current trends in internet platforms operations, the article concludes that the existing legal frameworks are inadequate and calls for legislative oversight and control over technologies used for content moderation, algorithms, and artificial intelligence applications.

The article delves into the comparative legal analysis of the doctrines of force majeure and frustration in Indian legislation, which are the most relevant in contemporary scenarios. The objective is to examine the legal essence of these concepts, identify similarities and differences, and outline the characteristics of circumstances leading to contract impossibility and constituting force majeure events. Through a review of Indian legislation and judicial precedents, the article seeks to explore the application scope of these doctrines, including in the context of digitalization and the rise of electronic document management. The employed methods include theoretical approaches such as formal and dialectical logic, comparative-legal logic, interpretation, and description. Specific scientific methods comprise juridical-dogmatic analysis and the interpretation of legal norms. The results highlight that in Indian law, the doctrine of force majeure is invoked in the presence of a specified «force majeure event» outlined in the contract, while «impossibility» encompasses other unforeseen circumstances not covered by the force majeure clause. Notably, in Indian practice, «impossibility» is construed as «impracticability» not solely as literal physical «impossibility». In conclusion, a key distinction between frustration and force majeure lies in the event’s impact on the contract. Nevertheless, despite these distinctions, both legal institutions share a common objective of mitigating potential losses for contractual parties when unforeseen circumstances impede the fulfillment of obligation.

Thе rеsеarch rеlеvancе liеs in thе intеrsеction of thе classical civil problеm of thе lеgal naturе of propеrty rights and thе еvolving landscapе of digital tеchnologiеs, which has givеn risе to propеrty rights taking on a digital form (digital rights). This has lеd to thе nееd to еstablish thе lеgal framеwork for such digital rights, including utilitarian digital rights and digital financial assеts, within thе broadеr contеxt of propеrty rights. Thе issuе of thе lеgal framеwork for digital currеncy rеmains unrеsolvеd sincе it posеs challеngеs in classification within thе rеalm of propеrty rights. Furthеmorе, in ordеr to qualify propеrty law as falling undеr civil rights, thе focus must bе on thе prеsеncе of an absolutе right that dеfinеs thе opposition and ownеrship of this propеrty by a cеrtain еntity. Thе objеctivе is to dеvеlop sciеntific and thеorеtical principlеs for qualifying propеrty rights as objеcts of civil rights within thе contеxt of еconomic digitalization. This objеctivе is pursuеd through thе application of a systеmatic approach and a group of formal logical mеthods (dеduction, induction, analogy, еtc.), as wеll as spеcial lеgal mеthods (formal lеgal, comparativе lеgal, lеgal modеling mеthod). Thе rеsеarch has rеsultеd in a two-tiеrеd approach to thе study of propеrty rights. Thе first lеvеl involvеs еxamining thе contеnt of thе propеrty right within thе contеxt of rеlativе lеgal rеlationships, whilе thе sеcond lеvеl involvеs considеring a spеcific absolutе right to such propеrty rights. Thе rеsеarch concludеs that non-cash monеy (including thе digital rublе) and digital currеncy do not fall undеr thе rеalm of propеrty rights; thеy arе indеpеndеnt objеcts of civil rights. Additionally, it assеrts that absolutе and rеlativе rights pеrtaining to propеrty rights can bе manifеstеd in thе form of tokеns.

The spread and use of cryptocurrencies (digital currency) in Russia and globally is increasing significantly every year. As the cryptocurrency market has grown, its criminal component has also grown at the same time. The number and degree of public danger of crimes where cryptocurrency acts as an object, aim or means of crime is steadily increasing. Civil and arbitration disputes over cryptocurrencies are also on the rise. Consequently, there is an objective need to effectively protect the interests of victims from criminal offenses, investigate relevant crimes and resolve disputes. Addressing these issues is impossible without the assistance of cryptocurrency specialists. The article formulates a definition of cryptocurrency crime, analyzes the challenges of using cryptocurrencies, ranging from the incomplete regulatory framework of its circulation to the lack of expertise among most practicing lawyers. It investigates and summarizes the conflicting practices in terms of requirements for cryptocurrency specialists, their conditions and procedure of their involvement in various legal proceedings. The prevalence of incompetence and dishonesty among individuals and companies offering services in the crypto market is noted, and appropriate warnings are put forth. The study systematizes and describes typical criminal, investigative and judicial scenarios where the expertise of a cryptocurrency specialist is necessary. It also provides conclusions and recommendations on organizing and strategizing interaction with cryptocurrency specialists in the interests of victims (including organizations), investigative authorities and/or the court. The conclusion summarizes the roles of cryptocurrency research specialists in various stages and legal proceedings (criminal, civil and arbitration) from oral and written consultations, preparation of specialist opinions to participation in investigative actions, court hearings and negotiations between conflicting parties. The research incorporates both general and specific scientific methodologies such as system-structural analysis, formal-logical extrapolation, document analysis, statistical analysis, prognostic and interviewing techniques.

-