The subject of this study is the analysis of the nature of the interrelationship between the individual, society, and the state, as shaped by various legal frameworks and the characteristics of political regimes. The objective of the paper is to determine the significance of human capital and law as resources of state and social development, and to define the role of state coercion and violence in the regulation of social relations. The study employs historical, axiological, systemic-structural, sociological, and comparative legal methods, which allow for the comparison of diverse approaches to the understanding of law and provide justification for the Author's conclusions on the issue of state coercion, particularly in the area of combating crime through criminal law. A comprehensive and critical examination of human history – from antiquity to the present – reveals an unbroken sequence of social conflicts, civil strife, revolutions, and both world and local wars. The central resource in civilizational and state development has always been the human being. From its inception, the state has subordinated society and for millennia has employed violence to address both internal challenges (through law enforcement) and external ones (via the military). This subjugation has served both the rational public interest (as in the social contract theory, which seeks to prevent a “war of all against all”) and the private interests of economically dominant classes and groups (as posited in the theory of violence and the materialist theory of economic determinism). Throughout the history of human coexistence – up to the modern era, when the principles of the rule of law, the welfare state, civil society, and popular sovereignty have been enshrined in political practice – ruling elites have articulated the interests of individuals, social groups, and strata as national priorities. This quality of statehood has necessitated specific methods for regulating social relations, among which legal state coercion has held a significant position. Such coercion has often manifested in violent forms, and people have been treated as a renewable resource for the fulfillment of state functions. In the modern state – one that rejects destructive approaches in its relations with individuals and society – people are no longer seen as mere resources for task execution. Rather, they are regarded as capital, the quantitative and qualitative attributes of which – including health, education, intelligence, skills, and social well-being – serve as indicators of the state’s progressiveness. Under these conditions, the primary resource of the contemporary state is law itself: a force that safeguards fundamental values, the individual, and their rights from the harmful and destructive effects of narrowly defined economic, political, and ideological interests.

The legal system possesses a distinctive language through which the essence of law is articulated. This pertains primarily to legal language, which legal scholars explore in three dimensions: within legal science; as a practical component of jurisprudence; and as a medium of expressing law itself. This paper proposes to examine the features of legal language through a focused case study – namely, the concept of the subject of law. The relevance of the study lies in identifying a doctrinal approach to the concept of the subject of law, which is essential for a clear understanding of its nature in the context of the information society, where distinctions between the subject and object of legal relations have increasingly blurred. The aim of this research is to explore the phenomenon of the subject of law and to analyze approaches taken by foreign legal scholars. The study seeks to develop a general understanding of this concept within foreign legal systems, to identify the lexical forms in which it is expressed, and to outline the terminological diversity associated with it. The Author employs comparative legal, historical, dialectical, formallegal, and logical methods, along with legal analysis. The study finds that foreign legal literature reflects an ambiguous understanding of the subject of law; it frequently equates the subject with legal personality. Notably, transformations in societal life are accompanied not only by the expansion of communication and information flows but also by the introduction of digital technologies. The absence of a unified theoretical framework for subjectivity (the theory of the subject) has devalued this category, adversely affecting the development of legal theory as well as legislative and law enforcement practices. Continued research into this category appears both necessary and promising, particularly with the aim of formulating recommendations for legislators on the development of legal norms governing legal subjects. The study concludes that the subject of law is characterized by a dual nature: on the one hand, it is a person; on the other, it is a legal construct formalized in normative legal texts. This duality has not previously been sufficiently addressed in legal doctrine.

Objective. This study aims to demonstrate that the rejection of a normative understanding of law poses a primary threat to the rule of law. It further proposes a method for identifying the actual meaning attributed to legal provisions through established law enforcement practice – an approach that enables the development of strategies for protecting legitimate rights and interests. The research employs several methods/ Formal-dogmatic method: limiting the analysis to the legal texts under examination. Logical construction: deriving legal norms from statutory texts. Judicial analysis: examining court decisions to detect the presence or absence of statutorily prescribed facts. Synthesis: extracting the factual grounds for tax liability from judicial acts. Logical definition: applying formal logic to correlate case-specific circumstances described in judgments with legal facts defined in legislation. A case study of judicial practice in tax disputes illustrates the arbitrariness of legal enforcement, beginning with the disregard for establishing and proving formally defined elements of tax violations. The abandonment of a strict normative legal framework leads to a shift: lawful taxation degenerates into a mechanism for the state to extract unlawful revenues and suppress economic activity. This situation becomes particularly pressing in light of the Presidential Address to the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation on February 29, 2024, where President Vladimir Putin emphasized the inadmissibility of violating the law in relation to entrepreneurs, stating: “They create jobs, employ people, and pay salaries.” Scientific Contribution. The study emphasizes the tangible harm caused by critiques of legal normativism. It offers a method for detecting jurisprudential distortions of statutory law, thereby facilitating the identification of strategies to defend legal rights Practical Significance: The research demonstrates how legal enforcement aligned with statutory norms can be supported through the use of the “LASER-IP-CPC-2020” computer program, when adapted to arbitral disputes. Given the lack of effective judicial protection for taxpayers during appeals against decisions by tax authorities, the study proposes mechanisms for protection through litigation in civil proceedings.

This article addresses the legitimacy of the principle of federalism within the institution of administrative liability. This principle is reflected in the distribution of powers and jurisdictions between the Russian Federation and its constituent entities concerning the establishment and enforcement of administrative liability measures. At the same time, the field of administrative legal science has raised legitimate concerns regarding the constitutional validity of this principle. The article presents various legal positions expressed by the highest courts of the Russian Federation, courts of general jurisdiction, and leading Russian scholars in administrative law on the matter. Several arguments are put forward in support of the constitutional legitimacy of federalism in the sphere of administrative liability. In particular, the article justifies the need to distinguish between the principles of federalism in the substantive and procedural aspects of administrative regulation. This distinction is necessary not only due to the fundamentally different content of each, but also because of the differing constitutional and legal foundations for their legitimacy. It is argued that the principle of federalism enjoys its most stable constitutional and legal footing in the procedural regulation of administrative liability – at least in the context of initiating administrative offense proceedings by officials of jurisdictional bodies in the constituent entities of the Russian Federation. The article further identifies certain inconsistencies in federal legislation, judicial practice, and administrative legal scholarship in the interpretation of the Constitutional Court's positions regarding the legitimacy of federalist principles in both the substantive and procedural domains of administrative liability. Conclusions are drawn regarding the recognition by the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of the legitimacy of the broad, competing competence shared by the Russian Federation and its constituent entities in the field of administrative regulation. Furthermore, the article points to the likely existence of matters of joint jurisdiction in this domain – even if not explicitly named in the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation. Elements of such joint competence can be inferred through interpretation of Articles 1.3 and 1.3.1 of the Code.

This article highlights the widespread use of listing as a tool in environmental protection, drawing attention to various types of lists established under international legal instruments. It provides statistical data on properties inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger and analyzes the historical context of its emergence. Particular attention is given to the pivotal role of the international campaign to rescue the Temple of Ramses II at Abu Simbel and the Sanctuary of Isis on Philae Island, which significantly contributed to the establishment of the global system for the protection of World Heritage. The legal foundations for inclusion on the List, as set out in the Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, are examined. The article underscores the critical importance of the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the Convention, offering a retrospective analysis of their provisions regarding the inscription of properties on the List of World Heritage in Danger. Special emphasis is placed on the decisions of a general nature adopted by the World Heritage Committee, which play a key role in shaping policy in this area, as well as on the technical and methodological documents developed by its advisory bodies. The evolution of the principle of state consent in the inscription process is explored, along with the circumstances that prompted a shift in approach. The article discusses instances where individual states strongly opposed the designation of sites on their territory as “in danger.” It also analyzes the practice of inscription based on the occurrence of specific conditions outlined by the World Heritage Committee, identifying the criteria used to assess the expected state of conservation of a property and the development of corrective action plans. Additionally, the article highlights the potential for financial institutions, including those in the banking sector, to suspend funding for high-risk projects that could lead to a site being placed on the List of World Heritage in Danger. Ultimately, the Author concludes that a realistic assessment of the List's potential is required, one that takes into account the actual state of the international regulatory framework governing World Heritage conservation.

The international community remains deeply concerned about the effects of the Internet – and certain types of online content – on the mental and physical health of minors. This concern is reflected in statements by government officials, academic institutions, school communities, psychologists, parents, and business representatives working to create safe digital environments for children. Across national and international platforms, both official and unofficial voices consistently acknowledge the universal threat posed by the Internet to children, regardless of their country of residence. The ongoing expansion of digitalization, driven by rapidly evolving technologies, has necessitated the development of legal frameworks and mechanisms to protect minors online. This evolution has also encouraged closer cooperation among countries and fostered trends toward the integration of national legal approaches, spurred by shared concern about the impact of digital technologies on children and a common search for effective legal safeguards. Comparative legal analysis enables scholars and policymakers to identify both commonalities and distinctions in administrative and legal approaches to safeguarding minors online. It also allows for the consideration of potential legal transplants and the identification of global and national trends in this area. This article explores the experience of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in protecting the rights of minors in the digital environment, focusing in particular on measures adopted within the administrative and legal regulation of cyberspace. China’s executive authorities have actively pursued administrative regulatory mechanisms to limit, among other things, the amount of time minors spend on digital devices – especially online games. Nonetheless, the key question remains: How effective are these regulatory measures in practice? Drawing on recent developments in the PRC’s administrative and legal strategies for protecting minors’ rights online, and informed by the views of several experts, the Author concludes that a comprehensive and scientifically grounded, interdisciplinary approach is essential to address the challenges posed by digital exposure and to ensure the effective protection of children’s rights in cyberspace.

This article examines the constitutional foundations of social security, relevant provisions of Russian legislation, and their practical application, taking into account the constitutional amendments of 2020. The objective is to define the concept of decent social security and to develop a system of criteria for its evaluation. The study employs a systematic, historical-legal, and formal-legal methodology. The starting point for establishing criteria is the constitutional principle of the welfare state, which has been interpreted by the Constitutional Court in connection with various forms of social benefits. The constitutional right to social security is closely intertwined with the right to human dignity. Accordingly, social security may be considered “decent” if it provides individuals with payments and services that uphold their dignity, help maintain their health, support a socially active lifestyle, and ensure the exercise of their right to benefits under legally established terms and through effective administrative procedures. To assess whether social security meets the threshold of decency, a system of criteria must be developed, grounded in the specific nature of the right to social security and the legal and organizational mechanisms of its implementation. The scope and content of the subjective right to social security form its direct (immediate) criteria. Indirect (structural and institutional) criteria assess the efficiency of the national social security system in terms of its comprehensiveness in mitigating social risks. The principal direct criterion is the socially acceptable level of social security. In Russia, this is currently expressed through the concept of the subsistence minimum, which has an economic dimension and reflects the lowest acceptable level of basic needs satisfaction. For certain categories of beneficiaries, the economic criterion is further supplemented by legal considerations – such as special needs, legal status, or the specific conditions for acquiring entitlements within the mandatory social insurance system. In addition, decent social security is subject to legal criteria, which play an important role in determining, for example, compensation for moral harm in disputes arising from social security relationships – particularly where citizens’ rights to receive benefits and services are exercised in accordance with the law and proper procedures.

This article continues the scholarly discussion initiated by Professors Yu. P. Solovey, P. P. Serkov, and S. A. Starostin on the issue of administra-tive discretion. Drawing on the theoretical framework proposed by Yu. P. Solovey, the Author compares administrative and judicial discretion in the context of Russian administrative jurisdiction, analyzing their respec-tive functions, goals, subjects, and legal nature. As a result, the article proposes scientifically grounded definitions of both legal phenomena. The law does not, as a rule, provide enforcement authorities with a fully developed set of options for resolving a case. Consequently, a jurisdic-tional authority often cannot exercise discretion simply by choosing the “correct” option from a predefined list. Instead, the decision-making process is frequently complex, requiring not only analytical but also syn-thetic and creative approaches. In this context, the Author suggests using the broader term “decision-making” rather than simply “choice,” even while acknowledging the validity of defining discretion as a form of se-lection. Administrative discretion is understood as an instrument for achieving the goals of state policy and the execution of public authority. It focuses on implementing law in its narrow normative sense and in-volves compensating for legislative gaps by interpreting and applying the “spirit” of the law. By contrast, judicial discretion is oriented toward re-alizing universally recognized norms and societal values that express the broader priorities of the state. It represents law in its integrative sense – as a synthesis of fundamental social values and norms that reflect a soci-etal consensus. Accordingly, the Author defines administrative discretion in administrative jurisdiction as the act of decision-making by an official in a case concerning an administrative offense, guided by their under-standing of legal norms and values that correspond to the strategic priori-ties of public governance. Judicial discretion is defined as the act of a judge making a procedural decision based on their own understanding of widely accepted social norms within which the law is to be applied.

The law defines examination as a specific form of inspection – namely, the inspection of a living per-son’s body. This investigative measure is a crucial evidentiary tool employed both during the prelimi-nary investigation and at the stage of initiating a criminal case. A key feature of the verification of a crime report is the limited range of investigative actions permitted by law at this early stage of criminal proceedings. As a result, each permissible action assumes heightened importance due to its unique and often irreplaceable function. Examination belongs to the category of investigative measures legal-ly allowed during the initiation stage, and this article explores its tactical and forensic-specific aspects within that context. The Authors examine current challenges in conducting examinations, the proce-dural framework governing this investigative action, and identify the range of participants involved. Particular attention is given to participants whose procedural status has not yet been determined – i.e., individuals examined before a formal decision to initiate criminal proceedings has been made. The article analyzes how the rights and lawful interests of these individuals can be protected during such procedures. Drawing on law enforcement practice, the article outlines scenarios in which examinations are conducted at the initiation stage for offenses such as: Illicit trafficking of narcotic drugs and psycho-tropic substances, Causing minor bodily harm, or Offenses in the field of road traffic safety and transport operation. In view of the examination’s goals and objectives, the article identifies tactical and criminalistic considerations at each stage of its execution: preparatory, operational, and concluding phases. Based on an analysis of judicial and investigative practice, along with applicable legislation, the Authors formulate a practical algorithm for investigative actions related to conducting examinations during the crime report verification stage. The research, along with the proposed evidence-based rec-ommendations on tactics, expands the understanding of this procedural tool and encourages its wider application in law enforcement practice.

This study aims to identify and analyze the challenges associated with imposing and enforcing criminal penalties in the form of fines. Like any form of punishment, the fine must serve the core objectives of the penal system: restoring social justice, preventing future offenses, and rehabilitating the offender. The effectiveness of these objectives is directly linked to the fairness of the sentence imposed. The research reveals that fines occupy fourth place in frequency among all types of imposed criminal penalties. However, their application does not always succeed in achieving the intended penal objectives. A central thesis of the article is that the amount of a fine must be proportionate to the severity of the offense committed. Yet, current Russian criminal law contains provisions where multi-million-ruble fines are imposed even for minor and mid-level offenses, which, in practice, undermines the feasibility and fairness of enforcement. The Author critically reviews diverse scholarly and practitioner perspectives found in legal literature, and conducts an in-depth analysis of judicial practice related to fines as a primary form of criminal punishment. This analysis confirms that the amount of the fine specified in the sanctions of the Special Part of the Russian Criminal Code should directly correspond to the gravity of the criminal act. The study applies general scientific methods such as analysis, synthesis, and a systematic approach to exploring socio-legal phenomena. In addition, content analysis of scholarly publications and online resources dedicated to the application of fines as criminal sanctions was employed. The scientific relevance of the article lies in its argument for establishing legally binding maximum fine thresholds based on the category of the offense. The Author proposes both theoretical and practical legal reforms aimed at improving the structure and proportionality of financial penalties. The practical value of the research is in its contribution to enhancing the preventive and rehabilitative effectiveness of fines within the broader system of criminal penalties.

This paper investigates embezzlement in the public (budgetary) sector, a widespread phenomenon that causes significant harm to the national budget system, society, and individual citizens. To justify the relevance and scale of the issue, the Author cites statistical data from authoritative sources such as the Accounts Chamber of the Russian Federation and the Ministry of Internal Affairs. The analysis incorporates key provisions of the National Security Strategy of the Russian Federation relevant to the topic, including the Strategy’s prioritization of combating the misappropriation and misuse of state budget funds. The study presents the Author’s perspective on urgent issues in countering budget-related embezzlement and underscores the need for advanced forensic methodology to ensure effective detection, investigation, and prevention of such crimes. The concept of “budgetary funds” is examined in both current legislation and scholarly discourse. The paper outlines key features of crimes involving public-sector embezzlement, including: a specific object and subject of criminal encroachment; the specialized nature of the affected domain (e.g., public procurement); offenders, such as public officials, employees, and executives; self-serving motives and organized criminal methods; additional features characteristic of complex economic crimes. The Author offers a refined definition of this criminal phenomenon, emphasizing its potential as a methodological foundation for developing forensic profiles and investigation techniques. Based on a review of investigative and judicial practices and a broad spectrum of academic literature in forensic science, criminal law, and criminology, the paper concludes that embezzlement in the budgetary sphere is often intertwined with other offenses, such as: economic and official misconduct, corruption crimes, forgery and use of fraudulent documents and, in rare cases, even serious offenses such as murder.