Vol 25, No 3 (2021)

The substantive aspects of modern post-Soviet statehood are analyzed on the basis of the traditional methodological guideline, called the elemental approach (Aristotle, Jellinek), which presupposes the allocation of key state-forming features. The Aristotle concept of “rejected state” is actively applied. For the purpose of a deeper illustration of the so-called “deviating” moments in the post-Soviet states, metaphorical comparisons are used, such as “imitation state”, “alienated state”, “selective state” and others. Deviating patterns are described through weak systemic strategic planning and the lack of relevant scientific concepts, including in emergency situations, as well as insufficient supremacy of judiciary, plevalence of unitaty tendencies and others. The author's argumentation is supported by data published in various official sources (statistics, results of special sociological studies, current Russian legislation, reports, expert opinions, etc.). The article is intended for specialists in the field of the theory of state and law, political science, sociology, etc. It will be of interest to postgraduate students, state and municipal employees.

The relations of the Russia and Britain with the self-declared state of Yettishar was a striking example of different approaches of two empires to the states and peoples of the Central Asian regions within so called “Great Game’, i.e. Russo-English rivalry in the 19th c. The trade treaties of Yattishar with the Russian Empire of 1872 and with the British Empire in 1874 became a legal reflection of these approaches and are of great interest within the context of the historical experience of the legal status of unrecognized states and positions of the rival “world powers” towards such states. The purpose of the article is a historical-legal analysis of above-mentioned treaties and comparative-legal analysis of them with the similar treaties signed by Russia and England with other Central Asian states during the same period. Author attempts to clarify if treaties of 1872 and 1874 confirmed recognition by both empires of Yettishar as a subject of international relations and how these legal documents reflected confrontation of Russia and England in the region. The study is mainly based on the formal-legal, historical legal and comparative-legal methods. Also author used the methods of legal anthropology and general history. The results of the research to a certain extant correlate with modern approaches in the policy of Russian and western powers in Central Asia in terms of political situation in the region as well as political, legal and cultural traditions of Central Asian states and peoples.

The Soviet legal system did not know the division of law into private and public, because communist ideology did not recognize anything private. The end of communist experiment and transition to legal state, social market economy and respect for human rights naturally led to the need to revive private law and to further develop it; therefore in Russian jurisprudence the issue of dividing the law into private and public has become relevant. The subject is the French legal doctrine on this issue; the study is carried out on the unpublished in Russia sources. The historical roots of the basic division of law and its significance for the French legal system are in the focus. Despite the absence of rigid boundaries in this division, the theory describing it is based on the real legal reality of the Romano-Germanic family of legal systems. This theory is not abstract theorizing; it is useful for practice because it aims to maintain a balance between public law and private law regulation. The issue of basic division of law in the case law system is discussed. A comparative study of the issue in the Russian legal doctrine is conducted. The author comes to the conclusion that human rights are the common part that unites public and private law, and therefore their unity is inextricable: the abrogation of private law, as the experience of building communism in Russia showed, inevitably leads to the destruction of human rights, and then to the transformation of public law into a pseudo-legal system.

The level of realization of the right to a fair trial is one of the crucial indicators of democracy in any state. In order to ensure this right, all the minimum standards deriving from it must be clearly understood by law enforcement agencies and their practice must meet these standards. As ‘equality of arms’, the right to a fair trial, is not directly enshrined in the text of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (hereafter - the Convention) and is of implicit character; the issues like its essence, content and the way it should manifest in practice are open for discussion. For this reason, the focus on those issues is highly relevant. The aim of this article is, with reference to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (hereafter - ECHR) and the modern doctrine based on this right, to explain the role of this principle and the essence of its mutual relations with the other elements of the right to a fair trial. Selected case law of ECHR bears great interest compared with other decisions and is discussed in the form of empirical materials of the study. From the doctrinal materials, interpretation of Article 6 of the Convention and theoretical sources related to the European standards in the criminal procedure are also analyzed. The article exercises methods of dialectical comprehension; they are determinism, induction, deduction, case studies and methods of law interpretation. As a result of the study, a unique doctrinal commentary has been obtained in the context of adversariality and impartial and independent court principles of the concept of ‘equality of arms’, as well as, interaction of the minimum rights of persons subject to criminal prosecution, guaranteed by the Convention.

The article focuses on the general characteristics of the European Union legal framework pertaining to close-out netting; it offers analysis of standard documentation provisions used within European Union for netting. Close-out netting is the process of termination of financial transactions by the parties in case of violation of obligations under master agreements, often with participation of banks and other financial institutions. Currently, EU legislation on netting consists of two major parts (regulatory regimes): the prudential regime and the insolvency regime. The former addresses banks and financial institutions regulating requirements for financial ratios and capital adequacy of these organizations. The insolvency framework is the most complex of the said legal regimes as it is comprised of various directives and regulations affecting performance of netting in the course of bankruptcy procedures. In recent years, the insolvency regime has undergone immense change marking the transition from unconditional legislative support of netting without any exemptions to a more balanced approach aimed at limiting close-out netting possibilities with respect to systematically important financial organizations.

The article is devoted to the issue of artificial intelligence integration into the legal system. The human life is inextricably linked with digital technologies in the digital age. Legal regulation of developing and applying artificial intelligence has a complex influence on the legal system of Russian society. In this regard, the issue is characterized by high scientific and practical significance and meets the strategic needs of the legal policy of the Russian Federation. The purpose of the article is to formulate the main elements of the concept of integrating artificial intelligence into the legal system. Research methods contributing to reaching the aim are formal-legal, analogy, extrapolation, cultural-historical, modeling and forecasting. The results of the study can be outlined as follows. We think that humanistic approach to domestic legal system is the most optimal; within this approach artificial intelligence is naturally and imperceptibly integrated into the human environment as a “smart” intelligence that performs the functions of “smart” regulation. The legal regulation of embodied (robotic) and swarm (collective) artificial intelligence should be introduced with reasonable caution and predictability with regard to technical standards and controlled legal experiments after conducting the widest possible ethical expertise. When forming the concept of artificial intelligence integration into the legal system a number of fundamental factors must be taken into consideration: legal continuity of doctrinal legal knowledge, differentiation of legal regimes and consideration of the cultural and civilizational code and psychology and mentality of the society where such legal regulation is being developed and implemented.

Dedicated to 85th anniversary of the Doctor of Legal Sciences, Professor of the Theory of Law and State Department, Dead of the Scientific Direction “Social and Cultural Investigations of Law” Gennadiy Illarionovisch Muromtsev. The scientist’s contribution to legal science has been analyzed. The focus is on his investigations in the sphere of legal and political systems of the developing countries, general theory of law, and comparative law. G. I. Muromtsev looks at the specifics of legal systems of the developing countries in combination with different elements of legal cultures within the national legal systems; this makes their structure, the system of sources of law, the technique of its systematization and so on significantly inconsistent. Professor G. I. Muromtsev for the first time in the theory of law of this country revealed the specifics of the traditional law and law-governed nature of its origin. Also for the first time ever, he gives the universal definition to the notion source of law, which is acceptable not only to European but also to traditional law. He investigates law as an integral part of culture; through this prism he examines contemporary Russian law. He gives original interpretation to legal technique, the code of laws in reference to Russian conditions. He has developed fundamentaly new conceptions of genesis of the law, mononorm, historical typology of the law; for the first time from materialistic standpoint he revealed the law-governed nature of the origin, structure, and evolution of Muslim law.