卷 2, 编号 1 (2023)

The article examines the impact of scientific and technological progress, digital transformation, the emergence of robotics and artificial intelligence on the legal sphere of society. According to the author, in connection with the process of development of innovative technologies, the intensification of scientific and technological progress, the challenges of the information society, there is an urgent need to revise traditional ideas about the essence and purpose of law, objects and subjects of law, ways of regulating such fundamental objects of law enforcement as: freedoms and rights of citizens, order in society, public safety. The article notes that the growth of the general level of criminal activity within cyberspace dictates the need to modernize (adapt) the methodological apparatus of modern criminal law, the formation of new principles of countering cybercrime.

Introduction. The article is connected with the importance of financial and legal analysis of the level of expediency and effectiveness of the use of external regulatory standards in the financial legislation of Russia as “global initiatives” in order to achieve standardization of monetary and financial regulation. It is noted that the process of introducing legislative initiatives into the financial law of the Russian Federation is subject to external influence through lobbying by self-regulatory and international financial organizations of global financial market standards. It is shown that external lobbying has not only positive, but also negative aspects that threaten the monetary and financial sovereignty of the state. Materials and methods. The most significant global codes of norms and principles of international financial organizations, the provisions of which are lobbied at the level of legislative initiative, are analyzed. Regulatory and analytical materials were used to assess the need for external influence of global financial standards on the legal norms of the Russian Federation in the field of monetary and financial regulation. The synergetic method in law, used by international organizations for the legal regulation of financial markets, is critically evaluated. Results. The lack of clear criteria for the responsible behavior of systemically important and other participants in financial markets in global standards was noted. There is abstract content of legally significant concepts of obligations and responsibilities in the global codes of the IMF, the Bank for International Settlements, the Council for Financial Stability on the principles of transparency of financial markets, on the set of principles of good faith behavior of participants in foreign exchange transactions, on the transparency of balances of payments, etc. Discussion and conclusions. The danger of external lobbying for “soft law” of financial markets lies in the fact that these norms are adopted without discussion at the UN level and without taking into account the interests of UN member states. Global financial standards threaten the monetary and financial sovereignty of states, creating a supranational monetary and financial structure of global regulation, bypassing the applicable law of national states. Not all global financial standards contribute to the development of the Russian financial sector in the context of a national economic growth strategy.

The article deals with the problem associated with the development of bilateral relations between countries on the issues of ensuring the rights of labor migrants, analyzes the possibilities of mutual assimilation of labor law norms of the Russian Federation and the UAE in the context of increased migration flows. This topic is relevant in the light of the fact that the existing conventional mechanism of labor law is not able to provide the principle of universality in the regulation of labor relations, and therefore other approaches are needed to solve the problems of international labor law, which is especially important in the context of expanding migration flows. The problem that has arisen is due to the fact that modern international law is based on a system of international conventions, which demonstrates its inability to create universal legal norms suitable for effective interaction between countries in the field of labor migration. The lack of universality forces countries to look for other mechanisms of legal interaction in the field of labor relations, using, in particular, the possibilities of bilateral legal cooperation, one of which is the mutual assimilation of labor law norms. The article determines that the modern civilizational situation leads to the collapse of the system of international law, to an understanding of the need to form legal systems that meet the needs of each individual state. On these grounds, conditions arise for the development of two polar legal paradigms, where one of the lines of the “split” is the labor law issue, which becomes one of the elements in creating a political consensus between Russia and the UAE. The article shows the unity of the positions of Russia and the UAE on this issue, points out the need to assimilate the labor law norms of the Russian Federation and the UAE, considering the increase in the flow of labor migrants.

The article discusses the ambiguously evaluated by process scientists the possibility of using the probable conclusion of an expert in proving a criminal case. This discussion arose quite a long time ago, continues at the present time and, apparently, will continue in the foreseeable future. There are indeed grounds for this, since the expert’s probable conclusion can also be interpreted in favor of the person against whom criminal prosecution is being carried out, since it does not contain a categorical conclusion about the reliable establishment of the investigated circumstance of the subject of proof or the fact constituting it. Scientists in this regard express diametrically opposed opinions, but in the overwhelming majority they are blamed for the fact that the probable expert opinion is subject to evaluation along with other evidence and, under certain conditions, can be combined with other evidence to form the basis of procedural decisions, including those made by the court. It should be noted that currently neither the Criminal Procedure Law nor Federal Law No. 73-FZ of 31.05.2001 “On State Expert Activity in the Russian Federation” provides for the division of expert opinions into categorical and probable, although such a classification exists and is recognized by the legal community. There is no explanation about this in the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 28 dated December 21, 2010 “On forensic examination in criminal cases”. At the same time, the said resolution does not prohibit the use of probable expert opinions in criminal proceedings, unlike the previously valid resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the USSR of 16.03.1971 with the same name. The author shares the position of scientists who believe that it is possible to use the expert opinions under consideration in proving a criminal case, including when maintaining state charges in court. In turn, the validity of this position is confirmed by the materials of the study of prosecutorial and judicial practice. examples of which are given in this article. At the same time, the lack of specificity of the conclusions contained in the probable expert opinions should force prosecutors to take a particularly careful approach to their research and evaluation before deciding on the validity of references to them in indictments and using them in proving the validity of the prosecution’s position in court. The nature of this decision is largely influenced by the degree (level) of probability of the expert’s conclusion, as well as the absence of contradictions between it and other evidence. According to the author, in order to eliminate disagreements regarding the use of probable expert opinions in criminal proceedings, it is advisable to include provisions establishing their legal status in the Federal Law on State Forensic Expert Activity and in the Criminal Procedure Law.

The article is devoted to the prospects of using artificial intelligence in the implementation of legal proceedings. The author reveals the reasons for turning to the study of the use of artificial intelligence in court proceedings, among which the main place is occupied by the quantitative pressure of cases under the production of judges; the need to study not only such prospects, but the dangers and risks that may arise when using artificial intelligence in court proceedings is justified. The author concludes that it is necessary to form principles-priorities for the use of artificial intelligence in legal proceedings, among which he highlighted the priority of human values; the priority of reviewing court decisions made by artificial intelligence, man; the priority of the opinion of participants in the proceedings regarding the form of legal proceedings used.