Архив

The historical prerequisites for the emergence of the regulation of labor rights through the prism of the concept of “self-defense of subjective right” are considered. The basis of the work was the legal sources of ancient and medieval Rus', documents of modern times – the 18th and 19th centuries: decree rule-making, the Charter of the Conscientious Arbitration Court, etc. The paper is an update of a number of published author's studies on the history of labor protection and regulation in Russia during various periods in the history of the formation of the theory and practice of labor relations.

The paper presents an overview and features of criminal acts against family rights provided for in the Criminal Code of the Russian Empire of 1903. A classification of these acts is proposed. The conceptual differences between Western European and Russian approaches to the definition of torts in the field of family relations in the 18th and 19th centuries are noted. The conclusion is made about a significant narrowing of the range of criminal acts defined in the Criminal Code of 1903, compared with the Code on Punishments of Criminal and Correctional in the wording that was in force at the time of the adoption of the Criminal Code of 1903. The immediate causes of this narrowing are shown and systematized. The general object of criminal encroachment in the view of the developers of the Criminal Code of 1903 and the generic object in cases of encroachments on family rights are disclosed. The conclusion is substantiated that in the considered encroachments, religious and moral principles in some cases acted as an additional object of protection in the Criminal Code of 1903 and in many cases they were such an object in the previous Code. In addition, it is indicated that the differences in the responsibility of Orthodox and non-Orthodox have been erased in this Criminal Code and the differences in the responsibility of Christians and persons of other faith have been smoothed out.

The article contains the author's reflections on modern ways of influencing foreign states: official / legal and unofficial. The author states that in the modern world, when most conflicts and issues of an international nature are increasingly trying to be resolved peacefully and at the negotiating table, this is a manifestation of constraining factors for hegemonic countries and guaranteeing factors for the existence of minor countries (have little influence on the international arena). At the same time, hegemonic countries or countries dominating in many industries are trying to both expand their spheres of influence and satisfy their growing appetite, which pushes these countries to look for new ways to exert influence, both legally and contrary to international norms and treaties.

The article is devoted to systematization of problematic aspects of the processes of introducing digital services into judicial activities. The relevance of the study is due to the presence of an extensive regulatory framework that underlies the digitalization of the judiciary and their activities: Federal Law-262 “On ensuring access to information about the activities of courts in the Russian Federation” and a number of conceptual strategic state and corporate regulations. The widespread activity and success of digitalization of a number of areas of judicial activity at the moment give reason to highlight its costs, which can lead to a distortion of the implementation of judicial human rights.

This article analyzes the problems of the practice of applying the new version of Article 20.3 of the Code of Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation. The author reveals the direct connection between the use of legally vague formulations and internally contradictory constructions by the legislator with the collapse of the practice of bringing to responsibility and punishing citizens and legal entities for propaganda and public demonstration of Nazi attributes and symbols, the application of the law in obvious contradiction with the previously stated goals of its adoption. Using concrete examples, the necessity of changing the current version of the norms under consideration is justified and their possible variants are determined.

The article deals with problematic issues of differentiation of criminal liability for environmental crimes. It is noted that the differentiation of criminal liability is a method of criminal policy closely related to criminalization and penalization. The author proposes to systematize the qualifying signs of environmental crimes into such groups as: a) signs characterizing the subject of the crime; b) signs characterizing the victim; c) signs characterizing a socially dangerous act; d) signs characterizing socially dangerous consequences; e) signs characterizing the place, time, method, tools, means or the situation of the commission of a crime; f) signs characterizing the person who committed the crime; g) signs characterizing the subjective side. The paper concludes that the differentiation of criminal liability for environmental crimes should be understood as the differentiation of the regime of legal regulation of criminal liability depending on the nature and degree of public danger of the crime, as well as the typical public danger of the person who committed the crime, carried out taking into account the principles of criminal law, the functions of criminal punishment and other measures of criminal legal impact.

This paper reveals the concept of a crime victim and its role in the mechanism of criminal behavior. Victim is a unique concept that reflects suffering from the actions of a criminal or is the object of a criminal attack. It can act as both a physical and psychological side. The concept of victim is a fundamental element in the legal system as a whole; it can clarify the understanding of the consequences of crimes and determine the degree of its impact on social relations. The mechanism of criminal behavior reflects not only the fact of committing a criminal act, but also many stages that are connected with the victim. The behavior of a crime victim is always different and unpredictable, and can be influenced by feelings such as fear, helplessness, and a sense of defenselessness. But ultimately, there is a need for reparations and justice.

The article deals with issues related to the prevention of juvenile crimes. This issue is extremely relevant due to the special importance of the younger generation for the national security of the Russian Federation. In the process of research, the author analyzes individual examples of law enforcement practice, identifying the causes of juvenile delinquency. As a result, he comes to the conclusion that much of this issue is directly dependent on the immediate environment of the young offender. This is not only about a particular family and its values, but also about the significant influence of the street. The author of the article has formulated individual proposals for combating juvenile delinquency, directly related to the development of artificial intelligence, which should simplify and make more effective the work of law enforcement agencies in the relevant direction. According to the author, only artificial intelligence, due to its performance, is capable of demonstrating developed skills from various professional fields, which ultimately predetermines the objective need for its further development and application in practical activities.

The exercise of the right to cause harm in the context of suppressing criminal activity and detaining a criminal is an important element of the fight against crime and constitutes a significant aspect in the professional activities of law enforcement officers. The purpose of the article is to determine the content of the normatively established conditions for causing harm during the detention of a person who has committed a socially dangerous act. The research uses a historical, formal-logical, comparative method based on the dialectical-materialistic paradigm. The study resulted in obtaining new knowledge regarding the determination of the legality of causing harm during the detention of a person who committed a socially dangerous act. The following conclusions have been drawn. The content of the lawforming legal fact of the emergence of a criminal law relationship, on the implementation of the norm contained in Article 38 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, is determined. The right to detention arises only when a person commits an act containing elements of a crime or another act that is the basis for criminal liability. The normatively established goals of detaining a person who has committed a socially dangerous act are determined: stopping evasion of prosecution; delivery to authorities competent to conduct investigations and bring criminal charges; depriving detainees of the opportunity to continue criminal activities. Criteria for exceeding the necessary detention measures have been established.

This article examines the problems related to the concept, composition, purpose and legal status of reserve lands. The author draws attention to a number of controversial issues, including the analysis of the grounds and conditions for transferring lands and land plots of various categories to reserve lands; the problems associated with determining the location of the boundaries of reserve lands and the need to enter this information into the Unified State Register of Taxpayers; the issues of the expediency of assigning privately owned plots to reserve lands are examined. The paper also analyzes the conditions for the use of land plots of the reserve without transferring to another category of land.