This study examines one of the universal and key categories of administrative law: the institution of administrative law. The aims of the study are to identify scholarly approaches to the study of institutions of administrative law, to determine their distinctive features and criteria for classification, to identify problems arising in the study of such institutions, and to propose ways of addressing those problems. The Author employs methods of systems analysis and classification, comparative and historical legal analysis, as well as formal legal and problem-oriented methods. On the basis of a review of the evolution of scholarly approaches and the contemporary understanding of the institution of administrative law, the article substantiates the concept of institutions of administrative law and the existing variants of their classification. It identifies the features of an institution of administrative law that make it possible to distinguish it from institutions of other branches of law, as well as current problems relating to their scholarly substantiation. The article concludes that, in legal scholarship, a legal institution may be positioned as a component of a branch of law, as a method of legal regulation, and as a means of assessing the state of legal regulation of a particular group of social relations at a specific historical stage. Within the scholarly understanding of the institution of administrative law, the article identifies approaches associated with the development of comparative-law methods in understanding and substantiating administrative-law scholarship and administrative law as a branch of law; approaches concerned with substantiating the internal organizational structure of administrative law as both a branch of law and a field of scholarship; approaches through which the evolution of the scope and depth of administrative-law regulation is substantiated; and approaches aimed at establishing inter-branch linkages. The specific nature of institutions of administrative law is reflected in their plurality and diversity, as well as in their inseparable connection with institutions of governance. The problems involved in the scholarly substantiation of institutions of administrative law include ensuring the connection between system-wide legal institutions and branch-specific institutions; the conflation of categories and institutions, as well as of sub-institutions and sub-branches, within the structure of administrative law as a branch of law and within the subject matter of administrative-law scholarship; the creation of new institutions without sufficient grounds; differing levels of doctrinal substantiation and legal recognition of institutions; and the mutual influence of processes transforming institutions of administrative law.

This study is devoted to the state’s digital sovereignty, which is currently the subject of interdisciplinary scholarly debate. The article argues that no unified approach to the understanding of digital sovereignty has yet emerged in legal scholarship. In this regard, the Author advances the idea that Russian legal literature on digital sovereignty has developed primarily under the influence of technological and software-related challenges, in the context of the principle of technological conditioning. As follows from the ideas of I. L. Bachilo, V. A. Kopylov, P. U. Kuznetsov, and A. B. Vengerov, this principle served as one of the prerequisites for the formation of Russian information law. The article analyzes various Russian approaches to the understanding of digital sovereignty, including those of P. V. Stepanov, V. A. Nikonov, A. A. Streltsov, and others, and identifies their key aspects and advantages. On the basis of this analysis, the study offers a critical reconsideration of the theory of state digital sovereignty. An examination of current legislation reveals gaps in the legal regulation of digital sovereignty, including the absence of its statutory definition. In addition, the article considers the concepts of “digital networks,” “software,” and “digital technologies” in the context of Russian legal reality and identifies, within their content, categories directly related to digital sovereignty under current Russian legislation. The article states that state digital sovereignty has not previously been the subject of public-law dissertation research and that Russian legal scholars have not attempted to model state digital sovereignty through a categorical framework comprising technological sovereignty, digital sovereignty, and state sovereignty. In conclusion, the Author formulates a definition of digital sovereignty and states that this understanding, grounded in public-law aspects, may serve as a basis for the future legal regulation of the concept of “digital sovereignty,” as well as for the construction of a theoretical model of state digital sovereignty.

This article examines the theoretical and legal construction of the category of a “threat to public security” in the context of current legislation. A threat to public security cannot be understood in isolation: it constitutes an institutional synthesis, or organic unity, of three fundamental categories — challenge, as a signaling form; danger, as an objective basis; and risk, as a behavioral and probabilistic factor. Only within this synthetic unity does it acquire its full legal nature, enabling the effective management of public security within the strategic planning system. The article substantiates the argument that existing legislative acts and strategic planning documents — Federal Law No. 390-FZ of 28 December 2010 “On Security,” the current National Security Strategy of the Russian Federation, and the Concept of Public Security in the Russian Federation, which has de facto ceased to have effect — do not provide a clear system for distinguishing between the concepts of “challenge,” “danger,” “risk,” and “threat.” This leads to their unjustified conflation in law-enforcement practice and strategic planning documents. The aim of the study is to develop an integrative model of a threat to public security by examining it in dynamic interrelation with the concepts of “challenge,” “danger,” and “risk” as stages of a single destructive process, with a view to its subsequent legislative enshrinement. The methodological basis of the study is an interdisciplinary approach that integrates systems analysis, which makes it possible to consider a threat within the hierarchy of related concepts; theoretical and legal analysis of normative sources; and elements of risk theory. This approach makes it possible to trace the transformation of quantitative risk parameters and qualitative characteristics of challenges into the legal reality of a threat, as recorded in legislation and strategic planning documents. Particular attention is paid to the evolution of the conceptual apparatus from the 2013 Concept of Public Security in the Russian Federation, which has ceased to have effect, to current strategic planning documents. On the basis of the findings obtained, the Authors propose a four-stage model — “challenge – danger – risk – threat” — which reveals the logic of escalation of destructive processes in the sphere of public security. For each stage, the Authors formulate definitions and describe the corresponding measures: monitoring, planning of preventive measures, calculation of resources, and introduction of special regimes. The theoretical significance of the study lies in the institutional synthesis of previously fragmented concepts into a unified theoretical and legal construct. Its practical significance consists in the possibility of using the proposed model in the development of a new strategic planning document in the field of public security, thereby ensuring continuity with earlier documents and legal certainty for law-enforcement authorities.

The study of the principal issues of the constitutional development of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is an important task of both theoretical and practical significance. The modern legal system of the DPRK, including its Constitution and legislation, has been shaped by specific political and historical factors, including the legacy of customary law, Confucian norms, socialist ideology, Juche ideas, and the unique conditions in which this state functions. The development of constitutional law in the DPRK has passed through several key stages since the adoption of its first Constitution in 1948. Each new version of the Constitution has reflected changing socio-economic, cultural, and political realities, as well as the ideological positions of the country’s leadership, including the adoption of the 1972 Constitution and its subsequent amendments. In the context of international relations, the study of this subject is particularly relevant for states seeking to establish contacts with the DPRK. The legal framework and mechanisms of legal regulation developed under the conditions of the DPRK’s unique socio-economic and political development must be taken into account in the course of diplomatic negotiations and economic cooperation. The study of the constitutional development of the DPRK not only deepens our understanding of the specific features of this state, but also contributes to the formation of a more balanced approach to engagement with it in the international arena. Understanding the legal foundations on which DPRK statehood is built makes it possible to identify potential avenues for further rapprochement and cooperation, which undoubtedly makes a thorough and careful analysis necessary. The study of constitutional rhetoric provides a key to understanding ideological shifts, such as the transition from Juche and Songun ideology to the ideas of Kimilsungism-Kimjongilism. No less significant is the question of how constitutional norms adapt to the challenges of globalization and international pressure. The analysis conducted makes it possible to critically assess the thesis that the Basic Law is merely declaratory and to identify its actual functions in legitimizing the regime. Consideration of these aspects is necessary for forming a comprehensive picture of the political and legal system of the DPRK, one that goes beyond superficial interpretations.

The temporary or permanent need to perform a particular labour function for which no position is provided in the staffing structure of a state institution has become a widespread trend. At the same time, legislation regulates the procedure for assigning additional, non-staff duties to personnel differently depending on their legal status: employee, state civil servant, or military serviceman. The methodological basis of the study consists of general scientific and special methods of cognition, primarily the dialectical, formal legal, and formal logical methods, as well as the method of legal interpretation. The use of universal principles of scientific inquiry made it possible to identify defects in the legislation governing the assignment of additional duties to personnel with different legal statuses. The article compares the contractual nature of labour relations, which is based on equality and the free will of the parties, with the more authoritative nature of service relations in the public service, identifying their common and distinctive features. In examining the legal relationship between an employer, or the employer’s representative, and an employee, particular emphasis is placed on relations of subordination in the military environment as a type of relationship arising in the course of public service. The article identifies the procedures for assigning to employees, state civil servants, and military personnel additional duties not provided for by their position. Law-enforcement practice treats such assignment of duties as unlawful in relation to employees and state civil servants; as lawful under strictly defined legal regimes in relation to police officers; and as lawful by default in relation to military personnel. The article concludes that service law contains elements of a contractual nature concerning the professional activity of personnel in any type of public service, particularly with regard to determining the specific features of their work and the time devoted to professional activity. The Author proposes amendments to legislation governing military service in order to eliminate the arbitrary possibility of expanding the scope and nature of the duties performed by military personnel.

This article examines the concept of militant democracy (démocratie militante, wehrhafte Demokratie) in the context of its application in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. Despite Russia’s withdrawal from the Council of Europe and the cessation of the European Court of Human Rights’ jurisdiction in respect of the Russian Federation in 2022, the study of this concept remains relevant for Russian constitutional-law scholarship. It makes it possible to gain a deeper understanding of universal mechanisms for protecting the constitutional order, provides comparative material for the development of national legal doctrines, and offers insight into approaches that may prove valuable in improving Russian legal instruments for countering extremism and the abuse of rights. The doctrine of militant democracy, developed by the German scholar Karl Loewenstein in the 1930s, provides for legal mechanisms for the preventive protection of democratic regimes against anti-democratic political forces. The article analyzes the normative embodiment of this concept in Article 17 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which prohibits the abuse of rights, and identifies its principal instruments: a “hard” instrument, involving the complete denial of legal protection, and “soft” instruments, operating within the framework of proportionality review. The article offers a detailed analysis of cases concerning racist speech, Holocaust denial, or negationism, the justification of Nazi crimes, and the dissolution of political parties pursuing anti-democratic objectives. In addition to specific cases, the study draws on the works of European constitutional scholars and on Council of Europe documents relating to the travaux préparatoires of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The article concludes that the European Court of Human Rights has developed specific criteria for assessing the lawfulness of restrictive measures: the compatibility of the political regime being promoted with democratic principles; the legality of the means employed; the existence of a real and immediate threat; and the actual capacity to abolish democratic institutions. The conceptual framework and criteria developed by the European Court of Human Rights constitute a valuable resource that extends beyond jurisdictional boundaries and is capable of enriching the development of balanced approaches to protecting the foundations of statehood while respecting individual rights in any legal system.

Contemporary constitutional orders increasingly function under conditions of persistent structural emergency caused by pandemics, armed conflicts, terrorist threats, and climate disasters. Unlike the classical model of a temporary departure from the normal legal order, emergency measures today are becoming institutionalized and are being transformed into an element of everyday governance, thereby threatening the very core of constitutional legitimacy. Under these conditions, a fundamental contradiction arises: on the one hand, the state must possess the capacity to respond to crises flexibly and promptly; on the other hand, any adaptation must not undermine the principles of the rule of law, the separation of powers, and respect for inalienable human rights. The aim of this study is to identify the constitutional and legal conditions under which adaptation to permanent emergency remains legitimate and does not turn into systemic erosion of the constitutional order. To achieve this aim, the study employs a set of methods: comparative legal analysis of judicial practice in Colombia, South Korea, India, the European Court of Human Rights, and the United States; a normative and doctrinal approach; and institutional and functional analysis. The study identifies three key components of the normative core of the constitution that may not be legitimately restricted even under an officially declared state of emergency: absolute human rights, including the right to life, the prohibition of torture, and the protection of human dignity; institutional guarantees of democratic constitutionalism, including judicial independence, separation of powers, and electoral legitimacy; and the principle of the rule of law, including the predictability of legal regulation, equality before the law, and mandatory judicial review. On the basis of these components, the article formulates operationalizable criteria for distinguishing legitimate adaptation from constitutional erosion. As a constructive result, it proposes a model of constitutional resilience through institutionalized flexibility. This model does not imply a rejection of adaptation; rather, it requires that adaptation be placed within a strict procedural framework: the automatic expiration of emergency measures after a specified period, or sunset clauses; mandatory reasoned renewal of emergency powers by parliament; public assessment of the impact on human rights; and an enhanced proactive role for constitutional courts. Particular importance is attached to the international legal standards of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which establish insurmountable limits on any derogations from rights.

This article examines the quality characteristics of video games as goods and considers the possibility of applying legal rules to the video-game sector, including in cases where defects in video games are identified. The article identifies and analyzes the quality characteristics of a video game that a consumer expects to receive when purchasing it. The development of civil circulation requires a reconsideration and expansion of the range of relations to which rules on the quality of goods and remedies may apply, particularly in the field of video games. The aim of this study is to develop an understanding of the quality characteristics and defects of video games in consumer relations, as well as of consumer protection, on the basis of an analysis of doctrinal approaches and the formulation of the Author’s own position. The article examines the current state of scholarly debate concerning the legal nature of video games. Relying on structural-functional and formal legal methods, as well as on the methods of systemic analysis, the Author concludes that a video game constitutes goods in the broad sense, since it has economic value and satisfies consumers’ non-property interests. Such goods possess specific quality characteristics. The quality characteristics of a video game include interactivity, ease of use of the interface, digital form, external circumstances affecting the quality characteristics of the video game, including access to the video game, audiovisual representation, immersiveness, and narrative structure. Where defects are identified in these characteristics, the consumer is generally entitled to rely on remedies, the application of which is determined by the specific nature of video games. The article proposes a new approach to the legal qualification of the quality characteristics of a video game as goods, based, among other things, on Russian legal doctrine. It should also be taken into account that relations concerning video games are shaped by interaction between consumers and video-game rights holders through the functionality of a specialized online platform. The article further demonstrates the need to regulate issues relating to the status and degree of participation of such a specialized online platform in relations between consumers and video-game rights holders.

This article attempts to examine the possibilities of cooperation in establishing the identity of an offender on the Internet during the investigation of computer crimes. In view of the growing number of unsolved crimes in the field of computer information, caused by offenders’ use of anonymization tools, as well as by the insufficient level of specialized knowledge in information technology among law-enforcement officers, it is necessary to consider the possibility of detecting and solving such crimes through the coordination of actions with other structural units and organizations. The subject of this study is the patterns involved in obtaining and collecting identification data concerning an offender’s identity through cooperation with mobile network operators, Internet service providers, operational officers, specialists, and other relevant actors. The aim of the study is to identify and address the problems involved in establishing the identity of an offender who anonymizes his or her identity, and to examine particular forms of cooperation that may help resolve this problem. The study is based on an interdisciplinary approach and general scientific methods of cognition, including analysis, synthesis, the systemic-structural method, and description. The article concludes that, given the emerging negative practice in the investigation of this category of crimes, these forms of counteraction can be overcome through comprehensive cooperation with the structural units and bodies discussed in the article, with a view to effectively detecting the offender and establishing his or her identity. The division of functions — mobile network operators collecting basic subscriber and geolocation data; Internet service providers logging traffic; social networks providing access to metadata and content; operational officers continuously monitoring open sources and interacting with other units; and specialists analyzing traces, participating in investigative actions, and providing advice — minimizes time losses, reduces the likelihood of errors, and lowers tactical risks. Where the above-mentioned participants interact in a coordinated and lawful manner, the probability of correctly identifying an offender on the Internet increases significantly. This approach ensures not only the detention of the offender and the blocking of the information resources used by him or her, but also the collection of a reliable evidentiary basis, while minimizing the risk of violating citizens’ rights.

The article is devoted to the development of a theoretical concept and normative model of auxiliary informing as a legal institution intended to enhance the effectiveness of operational-search activities. The Author substantiates the need to expand the perimeter of early detection of criminal risks not by creating an all-encompassing network of informants, but by institutionalizing verifiable channels for reporting by persons who encounter offences by virtue of their profession or civic position. The article presents a comprehensive analysis of Russian legislation governing confidential assistance in operational-search activities, as well as criminal-procedure filters applicable to anonymous reports. On the basis of a comparative legal study, the Author identifies three foreign models of reporting: a general obligation to report serious crimes; professional and sector-specific duties in the fields of counter-terrorism and anti-money laundering; and a system of protected voluntary reporting with safeguards against persecution. The key result of the study is the Author’s two-tier normative model. The first tier provides for the establishment of a strictly limited professional obligation, imposed on a narrow circle of persons, to report specific facts and indicators of crimes, with clearly defined exceptions relating to professional secrecy. The second tier establishes the universal right of citizens to provide information confidentially and anonymously, supported by safeguards against retaliation, safe-harbour mechanisms, and the creation of secure communication channels. Particular attention is paid to a systemic analysis of the risks of mass denunciation, including the erosion of social trust, the fabrication of false reports, and the overburdening of the law-enforcement system. The article proposes a set of legal safeguards: replacing the obligation to collect information about individuals with an obligation to report facts; mandatory verification of information; a prohibition on discriminatory criteria; and liability of officials for disclosing information about an informant. The article advances specific proposals for improving legislation aimed at creating a balanced legal mechanism that combines the needs of law enforcement with the imperatives of protecting human rights and preserving social trust.

The subject of this study is criminal policy as a complex system of public administration in the sphere of countering crime. The aim of the article is to provide a systemic analysis of its structural elements, to identify their interrelations and functional purpose, and to develop an integrated theoretical model. The methodological basis of the study is formed by the systems-structural and dialectical approaches, criminal-law analysis, and a comparative examination of doctrinal positions. As a result of the study, the Author substantiates the concept of criminal policy as an integral system comprising six interrelated elements: the criminal-law element, which guarantees fair procedure; the criminal-procedural element, which ensures the implementation of substantive law; the criminal-investigative element, which ensures the detection and solving of crimes; the crime-prevention element, which is aimed at eliminating the causes of crime; the penal-enforcement element, which regulates the execution of punishments; and the organizational element, which coordinates the system as a whole. Particular attention is paid to the dialectical interaction between the substantive and procedural components: the former determines the content, while the latter provides the form through which that content is implemented, serving at the same time as the sword of justice and the shield of individual rights. Criminal policy cannot be confined solely to the operational and preventive function of combating crime. Its subject matter encompasses a broader range of tasks relating to the scholarly and methodological support of processes aimed at improving criminal legislation, optimizing the criminal justice system, and refining penitentiary practice. The sphere of criminal policy naturally includes such fundamental issues as the development of criteria for the criminalization and decriminalization of acts, the determination of the comparative social dangerousness of offences, the establishment of permissible limits of extrajudicial influence, and other matters. Such issues, which require thorough scholarly substantiation, directly affect significant public interests and determine the qualitative level of the administration of justice, even though they do not always fall within the immediate tasks of combating crime. The article concludes that the effectiveness of criminal policy is determined by the level of legal consciousness and legal culture. It substantiates the need for the further development of criminal policy in accordance with the principles of the rule-of-law state, the humanization of legislation, and the strengthening of guarantees of judicial protection. As a future line of development, the article considers deeper interdisciplinary integration within the criminal-law sciences and criminological studies, as well as the systematic involvement of scholarly expertise in the law-making process. This would make it possible to enhance the validity and effectiveness of state legal regulation in the sphere of countering crime.

The article examines problems of criminal-law policy in contemporary Russia. The subject of the study is state policy on countering crime at the present stage. The aim of the study is to reveal the essence of criminal-law policy, to emphasize the importance of a carefully considered approach to combating crime, and to determining which acts should be recognized as criminally punishable. The article is based on a set of research methods, including analysis and synthesis, induction and deduction, as well as the formal legal method. The Author points to a state of crisis characterizing the state’s response to contemporary challenges. This is substantiated by the following factors: excessive criminalization; the spread of moral panic in society with regard to certain phenomena and a disproportionate state response to them; an increase in the number of provisions of criminal legislation penalizing propaganda and calls for conduct or phenomena deemed dangerous by the state, together with the expanding practice of applying such provisions; the legislature’s tendency to act on first impulse, without considering the grounds for criminalization; an increase in the number of victimless offences; a legislative and law-enforcement bias toward harsher liability, including increased penalization; the adoption, almost without discussion and within extremely short timeframes, of highly complex bills establishing new elements of criminal offences; the courts’ failure to pay due attention to establishing the subjective element of an offence, which leads to the conviction of persons for acts that, in principle, should not entail any liability; the introduction of fundamental amendments to bills that are unrelated to the original proposals, with a view to circumventing the requirement to provide an explanatory note to the proposed amendments; and the insufficiency of state measures in crime-prevention activity, which is compensated for by imposing on citizens, under threat of criminal liability, a duty to assist in combating crime. The article concludes that the problems identified above require an immediate change in both the legislative and law-enforcement course, and it sets out specific directions for such changes. 

The aim of the study is to identify legal, regulatory, and practical problems that complicate the safeguarding of the rights, freedoms, and legitimate interests of minor participants in criminal proceedings, and to formulate proposals for eliminating those problems. The formal legal method made it possible to conduct a systemic analysis and interpretation of the provisions of current legislation. The empirical method facilitated the study of law-enforcement practice, including 26 inspection files and 44 criminal cases registered and initiated in St. Petersburg and the Leningrad Region. The statistical method enabled an analysis of official crime statistics for the country as a whole and for individual territorial entities of the state. The sociological method was used to survey 348 employees of prosecution authorities from 66 constituent entities of the Russian Federation. The Author examines the specific features of initiating criminal cases and investigating crimes committed by children, or adolescents, and against them, which give rise to additional guarantees for securing the rights, freedoms, and legitimate interests of minor participants in criminal proceedings. The article identifies typical violations committed by investigators and inquiry officers when initiating criminal cases and investigating the crimes under consideration. The Author formulates recommendations aimed at preventing such violations. On the basis of the study, the article concludes that cooperation between law-enforcement and supervisory authorities is of particular importance, especially prosecutorial supervision over compliance with the rights, freedoms, and legitimate interests of minor participants in criminal proceedings.

The aim of this study is to identify problems in the application of disciplinary measures to persons who violate the detention regime in correctional institutions. The legal basis for the disciplinary liability of convicted persons is the need to ensure the established procedure for serving a sentence of imprisonment through lawful methods of influence on offenders. The effectiveness of sanctions imposed on convicted persons should be understood as an adequate form of influence on the offender, capable of deterring him or her from further violations of the procedure and conditions for serving a sentence and of affecting the process of correction, which is the principal purpose of the execution of criminal punishment. The study establishes that disciplinary sanctions impose certain legal restrictions which, however, are not intended to cause physical suffering to the convicted person or to humiliate his or her human dignity, but serve solely as a deterrent preventing violations of the detention regime. The article emphasizes the need to adopt decisive measures, including legal regulation of the application of sanctions, in order to achieve an effective corrective impact on convicted offenders. The importance of the system of sanctions applied to persons sentenced to imprisonment is noted, since it serves as one of the means of encouraging law-abiding conduct among convicted persons, exerting corrective influence on persons sentenced to imprisonment, and preventing offences in places of deprivation of liberty. In the Author’s view, the current system of sanctions does not fully deter convicted persons from violating the procedure for serving a sentence of imprisonment. The article examines various views of scholars and practitioners expressed in legal literature on the issue under study and analyzes the penal-enforcement legislation of Russia and foreign states. On the basis of an analysis of specialized literature and normative legal acts, the Author proposes legislative innovations that would help optimize the procedure for applying sanctions to persons who have violated the requirements of the sentence being served. The study employs general scientific methods for the cognition of socio-legal phenomena, including analysis, generalization, and the systemic approach. Content analysis of scholarly publications and Internet resources devoted to the practice of applying sanctions to persons deprived of liberty is used as a special research method. The scholarly significance of the study is determined by the need to include additional types of sanctions in the statutory system of disciplinary measures. Its practical significance lies in the fact that the proposed amendments to penal-enforcement legislation would contribute to the effective application of disciplinary liability with a view to strengthening the preventive and corrective impact on offenders.