Vol 29, No 2 (2025)

The article characterizes and schematizes the central legal category of the “mechanism of legal regulation” (MLR), as originally formulated by S.S. Alekseev in 1966. Despite its established presence in legal science, the MPR continues to be interpreted in diverse ways. The author argues that this stems from a confusion between the concepts of “legal regulation” and “legal influence”, which are not equivalent. Legal regulation aims to streamline social relations, whereas legal influence aims to orient individuals within the legal space. Legal influence is a relatively new category in legal science, representing an additional, though insignificant, impact of law on people’s consciousness, even without strict behavioral regulation. Legal influence comprises six components: informational, psychological, value-based, ideological, political, and international. The author concludes that while legal regulation is a “hard power”, actively managing and influencing society, legal influence is a form of law’s “soft power”. Together, these two forces ensure order in society.

The author explores the concept of “truth” in jurisprudence, positioning it both as the ultimate goal of legal research and as an autonomous entity with independent value due to its ability to reflect objective reality in scientific knowledge. While the classical correspondence theory (“truth is the adequation of things and intellect”, Latin: Veritas est adaequatio rei et intellectus) provides a foundation, its methodological tools are often insufficient for the general theory of law and legal dogmatics. To address this, the article proposes enhancing classical approaches with modern scientific advancements, specifically incorporating the concept of supervenience from contemporary analytic philosophy. Despite the formality, abstractness, and temporality associated with legal reality, these should be recognized as intelligible elements of the objective mental existence of participants in legal relations. The article posits and substantiates the independent ontological status of legal phenomena, emphasizing the priority of rational identification over sensory perception, characteristic of objective idealism. Legal reality objects are categorized as essential, torsion, and fictitious to reflect, distort, or deform the true essence. The article pays special attention to the algorithm for distinguishing between real and apparent phenomena of legal reality. Achieving these goals is feasible through the use of dialectical, systemic, logical, normative-value, structural-functional, historical-legal, formal-legal, and theoretical-prognostic methods of cognition. The research findings demonstrate the relevance of combining the correspondence theory of truth with the concept of supervenience of legal reality to establish the ontological prerequisites for the emergence of legal constructions.

The author examines the debate surrounding the understanding and possibility of normative conflicts within legal systems, focusing on theories of 20th-century key positivists, Kelsen and Hart. The primary aim is to reconstruct and evaluate Hart’s critique of Kelsen’s concept of the impossibility of norm conflicts, which is central to Kelsen’s doctrine of the unity of the system of law (both international and municipal) and its relationship with morality. The paper’s relevance stems from the controversial comparative assessment of Kelsen and Hart’s positions on norm conflicts, the relatively unexplored nature of Hart’s doctrine on this issue, and the need to clarify the foundations for conceptualizing norm conflicts at the intersection of foreign and domestic legal experiences. The main sources are Kelsen’s classical works and Hart’s 1960s essays analyzing them, studied using ideological-historical and rational reconstruction, exegesis, and philosophical analysis of language. The article analyzes the jurists’ general approaches, their accounts of the unity, consistency, and autonomy of law, and evaluates their methodological and practical potential. The main conclusion is that the possibility of norm conflicts in law depends on the “interpretative attitude” and the language of reasoning accepted within a community, and that theoretical statements about the possibility of such conflicts are contingent upon the chosen methodology.

The research aims to assess the role of tax rulings in ensuring legal certainty, protecting taxpayers’ rights, and reducing tax dispute risks, while balancing private and public interests. The paper analyzes the conceptual and practical aspects of advance tax rulings, including definitions, legal nature, types, objectives, and functions. Using comparative law, it investigates tax ruling practices in various jurisdictions, highlighting potential shortcomings and limitations. It compares rulings with the Russian practice of written tax law explanations from the Ministry of Finance and reasoned opinions from tax authorities, identifying the specifics of tax rulings as a tax and legal regulation instrument within tax administration. The research identifies the key characteristics of advance tax rulings, determines their legal nature, and analyzes the main types and functional purposes. It classifies tax rulings as private, public, and hybrid. The study reveals conceptual differences between tax rulings and reasoned opinions and written explanations of tax legislation in Russian tax law. Finally, it formulates proposals for modernizing Russian tax legislation, incorporating best international practices for advance tax ruling regulation.

The increasing importance of immaterial values necessitates further legal investigation into their significance and protection. This article addresses two theoretical problems identified by the author, aiming to resolve them. First, it considers the role of personal non-property rights in legal transactions, focusing on their growing involvement and the need to clarify the concept of “non-property”. Using a deduction approach, the author proposes a return to the established term “personal rights”, which relates to values inherent to personality and belonging to individuals as such. The distinction is made between the level of protection afforded to two categories of rights: rights of personality and rights of a person as an ordinary citizen. The author addresses this distinction further in the second part of the article, which discussed questions of liability. The key findings are that three avenues exist for recovering damages: First, when explicitly provided for in cases of personal rights violations related to honor, dignity and reputation. Second, when the values in question relate to individuality, such as life, health, and personal immunity, protected under Chapter 59 of Civil Code of the Russian Federation and Article 1082, which authorizes courts to impose losses on tortfeasors instead of harm compensation in kind. Third, a damages claim can be filed for any breache of personal rights as subsidiary remedy (Article 15 of CC of RF). This framework is favorable for immaterial asserts, which, in accordance with international standards, are subject to the strictest protection (Busnelli et al., 2005).

The rigid adversarial model of criminal justice, often characterized as a “zero-sum game” where one side’s victory necessitates the other’s defeat, is facing growing dissatisfaction from lawyers and the public alike. The relentless pressure to win can contribute to negative emotional consequences for lawyers, including demoralization, anxiety, anger and sadness, potentially leading to marital issues, mental health problems, and substance abuse. Moreover, both the accused and the victim frequesntly express dissatisfaction with case outcome, especially when cases are resolved through plea bargain. Recognizing the need for a holistic and interdisciplinary approach to solving legal problems, a trend is emerging away from adversarialism and toward problem-oriented methods for resolving criminal cases. Drawing on the experience of Victoria, Australia, this article explores the potential of restorative and therapeutic justice techniques, which are rooted in the practices of tribal courts of indigenous Australians. It examines the evolving role of the lawyer as a mediator and conciliator within the framework of alternative dispute resolution.

The problem of establishing the temporal characteristics of a crime event has been a subject of study in expert practice for over thirty years. Despite this, law enforcement and researchers have yet to reach a consensus on the relationship between various categories used to describe the time course of a crime. Experts employ terms such as “remoteness”, “duration”, “chronology”, “period”, “age”, and “length” to characterize crime events in terms of time. However, these concepts are used inconsistently: some researchers treat them as equivalent, others differentiate them by their content, and still others use mutually exclusive terms. This inconsistency stems from the lack of a unified conceptual and categorical framework in this field. Therefore, developing modern approaches, and refining existing ones, for understanding the temporal characteristics of crime events used in establishing temporary information is both justified and necessary. This research examines various concepts of time and analyzes theoretical approaches to understanding the nature of time in law enforcement. Particular attention is given to the consideration and correlation of similar categories used in expert practice to establish temporal characteristics. The results were obtained using a range of research methods, including historical analysis, comparative legal analysis, synthesis, and deduction. These methods contribute to the study’s primary goal: to systematize and develop a system of categories that reflects various temporal characteristics of a crime event. The findings of this study may determine the development of a unified approach to using categories that describe the temporal characteristics of crime events in court proceedings.

Master agreements produced by trade associations - standardized framework contracts used in international markets - have largely replaced tailor-made documentation in the contemporary financial world. These agreements provide a reliable foundation for structuring obligations across a broad range of financial instruments, including forwards, options, swaps, repurchase agreements (repos), and securities lending transactions. Despite being developed in diverse regions, standard contracts for cross-border financial products exhibit several common features. A key feature is the “single agreement” concept, and its corresponding contractual clause. The article provides an overview of “single agreement” clauses found in international master agreements and examines two critical implications of this fundamental aspect of standard documentation. First, it explores the enforceability of close-out netting, a mechanism vital for managing counterparty risk in the event of default. Second, it discusses the application of a unified governing law to all elements of the standard documentation, which might otherwise be subject to various laws determined by conflict-of-laws rules. Beyond these legal applications, the single agreement also serves a technical function by uniting numerous schedules, annexes, confirmations, protocols, and other components of standard documentation withing a single legal framework.

The increasing variety of legal relationships in the climate sphere, as well as the specific nature of legal regulation in this area, inevitably leads to disputes between the parties involved - climate disputes. The significant variability of climate disputes across different jurisdictions, on the one hand, makes this type of judicial disputes complex and multifaceted, and on the other hand, demonstrates the practical significance of their legal analysis. In Russia, climate justice has not yet gained widespread recognition, but there are objective prerequisites for an increase in the number of climate-related cases in our country. Furthemore, decisions of international judicial bodies on climate cases affecting Russia’s interests are of high interest. In this regard, one of the basic issues in conducting a legal analysis of climate disputes is their classification, i.e., their distribution into certain groups (classes/types) based on distinctive characteristics. Systematizing various types of climate disputes and classifying them makes it possible not only to more clearly define the specifics of this category of legal disputes, but also to identify certain patterns and problematic issues in such court cases, and to find the most effective solutions. The article examines the concept of a climate dispute (claim) and provides data on the intensive growth in the number of climate cases in judicial practice worldwide in recent years (to carry out the classification, it is necessary to first define the subject of analysis). The significance of the international legal basis of climate disputes is separately substantiated, and a brief review of approaches to classification in foreign and Russian literature is presented. The main part of the article reveals the classification criteria proposed by the author, with an emphasis on international legal aspects. In conclusion, the results of the research are summarized, and it is concluded that within the framework of accounting for and classifying climate disputes, the effictiveness of legal analysis (and, as a consequence, law enforcement practice) increases significantly. Modern practice of climate justice is largely formed through the evolutionary interpretation of international legal norms. By analysing climate disputes according to various criteria, stakeholders better understand the prospects for resolving a newly emerged dispute.

The application of artificial intelligence (AI) holds the potential for revolutionary advancements in civil nuclear energy. However, this necessitates establishing a framework to ensure the safe and reliable use of AI technologies within the nuclear sector. Law plays a crucial role in adapting existing regulation and developing innovative approaches, concepts and legal structures. This study aims to identify potential threats from the use of AI in nuclear energy and the associated legal challenges, including those related to the nuclear non-proliferation regime and the IAEA safeguards system. It also examines the liability regime for nuclear damage caused by AI at nuclear power plants, insurance considerations, and the activities of the IAEA and other international organizations in exploring AI’s potential to accelerate technological development in nuclear energy and to establish a suitable international regulatory environment. The study further characterizes the current state of international cooperation in this area. The research methodology incorporates formal-legal, comparative-legal, and historical methods, as well as forecasting techniques. The study concludes that the development of principles and standards for the safe use of AI in nuclear energy will initially occur through cooperation among individual states, where the formation of a political space is already underway. Therefore, it is crucial for Russia to leverage this experience and create opportunities for collective cooperation (for example, within BRICS and BRICS+) to regulate AI in the nuclear energy sector.

The article examines the primary risks associated with the application of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies and legal measures to minimize these risks. It establishes that the use of AI technologies in the political sphere presents both potential for improved efficiency in governance and significant risks. The absence of human morality in artificial intelligence is emphasized, leading to ethical concerns regarding AI application, data privacy issues, the creation and spread of misinformation (for example, deepfakes), AI-driven discrimination, and unequal access to AI technologies. While a “strong AI” with cognitive abilities closely matching humans does not currently exist, recent trends suggest that society, governments, and even developers may not always foresee the negative consequences of emerging technologies. Therefore, proactive regulation is crucial to address key risks associated with the implementation of AI technologies. Proposed legal measures to minimize these risks include creating and enforcing new legal norms, establishing governmental and independent expert bodies to oversee AI and AI ethics, educating citizens (especially officials working with AI) on necessary skills and ethical considertations, and prioritizing transparency and openness in the application of these technologies. The article also emphasizes the need to consider international experience and develop international ethical and legal norms to reduce the risks associated with the proliferation AI technologies.

Telemedicine is a rapidly evolving form of healthcare that necessitates balanced legal regulation. The implementation of experimental legal regimes (regulatory sandboxes) in Russian legislation, particularly concerning the adoption of telemedicine technologies, further underscores the relevance of this issue. This study aims to analyze the historical and current state of telemedicine’s legal regulation in Russia, define the scope of the concept, and identify existing regulatory challenges. The research draws upon national and international scholarly works in law and medicine, as well as current and superseded regulatory legal acts governing medical services and experimental legal regimes. Formal legal, historical, and forecasting methods were employed. The analysis examines “broad” and “narrow” definitions of telemedicine, differentiating it from related phenomena within healthcare digitalization. The study identifies three stages in the evolution of telemedicine’s legal framework in Russia, analyzes both basic and experimental legal regulations, and highlights contemporary regulatory issues pertaining to the use of telemedicine technologies.

On December 7, 2024, the annual interuniversity scientific and practical conference with international participation ‘Jurisprudence 2.0: Key Insights on Law’ addressed current challenges in legal regulation arising from digitalization and technological change. The conference gathered over 150 participants, including students, early career researchers, subject-matter experts and legal professionals. The event, held in person, features a plenary session, interactive elements, exhibition displays, and six foresight sessions.