卷 4, 编号 3 (2025)

Justice in law has been interpreted in various ways by prominent legal scholars who have argued within the framework of their respective schools of legal thought. Positivists either ignored the concept of justice in law altogether (Kelsen) or believed that it was inherent in law (Nersesyants). In either case, researchers have sought to define what could be considered justice. This search continues to this day, although it is important to recognize that justice is ultimately a conventional concept. The principle of the Council of Augsburg or the crusaders’ credo – whose power is also his faith – is unquestioned. Perhaps we should abandon this term and replace it with justice?

The article analyzes the main provisions of the dissertation researches of P.V. Poshelov and K.V. Sheveleva devoted to the criminal law analysis of the rehabilitation of Nazism as a crime against the peace and security of mankind. It is concluded that, despite the existing minor shortcomings, the dissertation works of these authors are an indisputable positive of the Russian science of criminal law.

The article is devoted to a comprehensive analysis of the strategy of the United States of America in the field of artificial intelligence (AI) development and regulation, focusing on the key policy document – “America’s AI Action Plan” (July 2025), issued under President D. Trump’s Executive Order 14179. The main provisions of the plan are structured around three pillars: 1) accelerating innovation through deregulation, support for Open-Source AI, integration of technologies into the public sector and various economic industries, investments in fundamental science, and AI safety measures; 2) building infrastructure by streamlining permitting procedures, modernizing power grids, revitalizing semiconductor manufacturing, and enhancing cybersecurity; 3) asserting global leadership through the export expansion of American technologies to allies, countering China’s influence, and tightening export controls against adversary nations. Other documents are also analyzed (e.g., the Presidential Executive Order of July 23, 2025, “Preventing Woke AI in the Federal Government” among others). Proceeding from the concept of an objectively-subjectively determined world and assuming the emergence of AI as part of objective reality and the objective process of humanity’s development, the author concludes that despite the declared commitment to safety, US policy is distinctly protectionist in nature and aims at technological dominance and containment of competitors, primarily the PRC. The AI Development Plan represents a combination of measures to accelerate domestic development and promote it on the global arena.

The article systematizes contemporary legal approaches to digital sovereignty and distinguishes three institutional models: China’s model of “full cyber-sovereignty” prioritizing content and infrastructure control; the EU’s “sovereignty through rules” (GDPR, DSA/DMA, NIS2, 5G Toolbox, European Chips Act); and the U.S. “externally projective” model that combines limited domestic platform regulation (Section 230 CDA) with extraterritorial data claims and techno-containment (CLOUD Act, CHIPS and Science Act, export controls). Using comparative-legal and institutional analysis, the paper shows how Russia develops a framework of “managed connectivity” (Federal Law No. 90-FZ, national routing, DPI/national DNS, import-independence policies) and builds an autonomous service ecosystem. Theoretical contributions include the concepts of “sovereign openness” and a “digital Westphalian compromise,” reconciling security imperatives with global interoperability. Policy recommendations cover algorithmic sovereignty (national data contours and high-risk AI certification), development of national clouds and app stores, stronger procedural safeguards for users’ rights (transparent content moderation, judicial and parliamentary oversight, public reporting), and deeper inter-state cooperation (EAEU/BRICS/SCO) while borrowing the EU’s best enforcement practices.

The article analyzes the legal nature and content of exclusive rights to the results of intellectual activity and the means of individualization equated to them on the basis of the signs. Based on the results of the study, taking into account the legislative norms and positions presented in the doctrine regarding controversial issues, the author suggests two groups of features of exclusive rights: conceptual, underlying the legal idea of exclusive rights, and optional, which predetermine the legal regime of exclusive rights. It is emphasized that the conceptual and optional features are presumed by the legislator, and the exceptions to the conceptual and optional features of exclusive rights established in the law in relation to certain intellectual property objects should be considered as an exception to the general legal regime of exclusive rights. The article notes that there is no unity in the doctrine in the list of powers of the holder of the exclusive right. The most common position is that the content of the right in question is limited by two powers: the rights of use and disposal. At the same time, scientists to one degree or another deny these powers as elements of the content of the exclusive right. The author supports the point of view according to which the content of exclusive rights consists of the powers of possession, use and disposal, the essence of which is different from the similar triad of powers of the owner.

The article examines the issues of the relationship between successive standards that allow for stable legal regulation and new standards that drive dynamics in labor law. The article examines the relationship and interdependence of standards on the duration of working hours and standards on their distribution. As a result of a comparative analysis of successive and new standards on the duration and mode of working hours, the prospects for their development are shown. Individual elements of inconsistency in the content and design of standards on types and modes of working hours are identified, as well as legal inaccuracies made during the last codification, in order to eliminate which it is proposed to introduce new articles into Section IV “Working Hours” of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation.

The purpose of the research. The article reveals the legal problems of using AI in creating trademarks. The next chapter of the technological revolution is unfolding before our eyes, with AI already testing its mettle in a field traditionally considered a purely human one – creativity. The questions to be answered are “What happens when an algorithm ‘gives birth’ to a trademark?” and “Who is its creator?”. The answer is to delve deeper into the tangle of legal and ethical dilemmas that arise between digital intelligence and intellectual property. The article examines the challenges associated with the creation, and state registration of AI-generated means of individualization. Results. When creating a trademark without using GenAI, the author has property and non-property rights. In the case of AI, registration of a trademark is possible, but the copyright protection does not arise due to the violation of the creativity criterion: only property rights appear, which leads to a decrease in the possibilities of protecting the rights of the creator. The use of protected data to train AI, coupled with the potential for AI-generated output to infringe on existing works, creates risks for third-party rights.

The subject of the article is a set of problems related to violations in the field of transport security at railway transport facilities of the Russian Federation. Railway infrastructure is a strategically important element of the country’s transport system. Obviously, ensuring its security is entrusted to special entities. The relevance of the study is due to the need to determine the place of the acts under consideration in the structure of crimes against traffic safety and transport operation. The purpose of the article is to identify key trends characterizing the current state of violations of transport security requirements at railway transport facilities. The conclusions of the work are aimed at substantiating the importance of the activities of law enforcement agencies to prevent these offenses.

The purpose of the research. The protection of the sexual integrity of minors is the most important task of criminal legislation, which should be continuous, since the earlier onset of sexual activity of the latter is a direct threat to their moral, mental and physical development. Unfortunately, there is currently an increase in the number of attacks on the sexual integrity of minors, which is becoming most favorable, in particular, in the context of their commission in the digital space, which also increases their latency. Online grooming of minors, which once seemed far away and impossible, is a reality of today, a negative, socially dangerous phenomenon that requires an adequate response from the state. For the first time, criminal liability for grooming is provided for in the new Criminal Code of the Republic of Armenia dated 05.05.2021 (entered into force on 07.01.2022). At the same time, this norm presents significant difficulties in law enforcement practice in connection with establishing the content of the objective side, as well as proving the subjective side of the crime under investigation. Conclusions. As a result of the conducted research, the author comes to the conclusion that it is necessary to review the grooming sanction, believing that the current approach of the Armenian legislator is excessively liberal and does not fully allow achieving proportionality between the degree of public danger of the act and its punishability. At the same time, in order to facilitate the task of the law enforcement officer and ensure uniformity of law enforcement practice, it is proposed to specify the range of acts that form the objective side of the analyzed corpus delicti.

In the context of rapid global transformations driven by the digitalization of the economy, politics, and the social sphere, rethinking approaches to constitutional and legal regulation becomes especially relevant. This article examines the challenges faced by modern constitutions due to the spread of digital technologies and analyzes emerging legal gaps in the regulation of new social relations. The author explores the theoretical foundations of the need to adapt constitutional norms to the conditions of digital reality, including virtual spaces, artificial intelligence technologies, distributed ledgers, and other elements of the digital environment. Special attention is given to the correlation between digital innovation and the foundations of constitutional order, the principles of the rule of law, and the protection of human rights under new conditions. In this context, the role of lobbying is analyzed as a mechanism for the legitimate representation of the interests of digital actors – technology corporations, civil society, and the expert community – in the process of legal transformation. Based on an analysis of legal literature and constitutional texts from various countries, the article concludes that targeted amendments to provisions concerning fundamental rights and freedoms, constitutional order, and the organization of public authority are inevitable. The article proposes a range of practical solutions, including the development of conceptual approaches to the legal recognition of digital rights, mechanisms for their implementation, and the institutionalization of lobbying activities as a tool for shaping a sustainable digital legal agenda. Thus, in modern conditions, lobbying acquires new significance as an element of constitutional architecture, reflecting the need for dialogue between the state and digital society—an element that requires constructive analysis and doctrinal study.