Law

Introduction. During the constitutional reform of 2020, part 1 of Article 67 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation was supplemented with a provision on the possibility of creating federal territories. In this regard, questions need to be resolved about how the constitutional novel should relate to the principles of federalism established by the Constitution of the Russian Federation, and what the principles for the creation of federal territories in Russia are. Theoretical analysis. The creation of federal territories in the Russian Federation should take place subject to strict compliance with the principle of state integrity, the principle of equality and self-determination of the peoples of Russia; the principle of unity of the public power system; the principle of priority of individual rights and freedoms, their recognition, observance and protection by the state; the principle of compliance with the goals of the formation of federal territories with the strategic interests of the Russian Federation. Empirical analysis. It is revealed that the current version of Part 1 of Article 67 of the Constitution, firstly, establishes the possibility of creating federal territories as a new type of public legal territory, secondly, provides for a special organization of public power in these territories, different from the generally accepted organization operating on the territory of the subjects of the Russian Federation, and, thirdly, defines the constitutional and legal mechanism for their creation: the adoption of a federal law. This norm does not specify the types of federal territories and the possible goals of their creation. These issues are fully attributed to the discretionary powers of the Russian Parliament. Results. Based on the analysis of the scientific literature devoted to the problems of federal territories in Russia and abroad, and the legislation of the Russian Federation, the definition can be formulated: federal territory is a public legal entity that has a special constitutional and legal status determined by national strategic significance, created in accordance with a regulatory act providing for direct or indirect management of it by the federal government, defining the specifics of the exercise of public power in accordance with the goals of creation, additional guarantees and restrictions on the rights and freedoms of citizens.

Introduction. The problems of realizing the right to life are relevant to varying degrees in all countries of the world. Their importance can hardly be overestimated, since the preservation of a full-fledged family, society and the state as a whole depends on their solution. The article examines the problems associated with abortion, surrogacy, the development of biotechnology, death penalty, and analyzes the legislative experience of various states and Russia in these areas. The purpose of the study is to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the problems arising in connection with the realization of the right to life and its possible restrictions. In the course of studying the problems, both general scientific and special legal methods were used: historical and dialectical methods, methods of analysis and synthesis, as well as the comparative legal method. Theoretical analysis. Russia (RSFSR) was the first country in the world to legislate in 1920 to allow abortion. According to the author, artificial termination of pregnancy solely at the request of a woman (without taking into account medical and social factors) causes irreparable harm to society, especially given the difficult demographic situation in modern Russia. In addition, this does not correspond to the guiding thesis of responsibility to future generations, enshrined in the preamble to the Constitution of the Russian Federation. In the context of realizing the right to life, each state faces a problem related to death penalty. Can a state, where the right to life is guaranteed, take the life of criminals? Apparently, each state should decide this issue based on the extent to which a particular crime poses a threat to society, a threat to life and health of people. Results. In our opinion, in countries with liberal legislation in relation to abortion, such as Russia, it is necessary to prohibit abortion at the request of a woman, since in this case the woman’s desire violates the right to life of an unborn child. The state should protect the right to life from the moment of conception, not birth, but this is a long process that should lead to an extensive interpretation of Part 2 of Art. 17 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation by the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation. In addition, Russia needs to pay attention to the legislative experience of Germany and France in relation to surrogacy. In these countries, the legislator has clearly substantiated why surrogacy is in fact a crime against the family. In these countries, surrogacy is criminalized. Also, with the development of biotechnology all over the world, the problems of IVF and cryopreservation of human embryos are acute. This problem can also be solved at the level of legislation by allowing IVF only to married couples (man and woman) who cannot give birth to a child, and by limiting the number of fertilized eggs to a minimum, so that later the issue of destroying unclaimed embryos is not resolved. In general, it seems that in a mature society that wants to develop and tries to prevent the destruction of its state, it is necessary to protect the right to life by all possible legislative methods.

Introduction. In modern Russian society with high rates of development of market relations, digitalization of the main spheres of life, popularization of the ideas of self-organization and self-regulation, legal uncertainty acts as a bipolar phenomenon, which is not only a consequence of law-making errors, but an effective technical and legal way of presenting regulations. Theoretical analysis. The historical analysis of the formation and development of ideas of certainty and uncertainty in jurisprudence showed that these categories are considered as universal phenomena characteristic of any matter. It was established that absolute certainty is unattainable and not always in demand, while legal uncertainty is inherent in the very nature of law. Еmpirical analysis. It was revealed that the need to ensure mobility and flexibility of legal regulation imposes the task of a reasonable use of legal uncertainty as a technical and legal way of presenting law on the law-making subject, which is reflected in the current legislation. Results. Legal uncertainty is an objective and inevitable phenomenon, and the total regulation of social relations is not always justified. The law is being improved on the basis of the principle of transition from the casuistic to the abstract, which proves its universality.

Introduction. The article is devoted to the use of digital technologies in the field of public administration using the example of state and municipal information systems. Currently, two types of such systems can be distinguished in the Russian Federation: 1) allowing direct enforcement activities; 2) used to capture certain information. Theoretical analysis. Information systems of the first type acquire the properties of an object of complex legal relations, in which suppliers and consumers of information, government bodies, as well as other persons become participants. This entails the fact that in the implementation of public administration, the source of regulation of public relations to a certain extent becomes the program code of these information systems. Accordingly, any failures and errors in the public information system become facts of legal importance. Empirical analysis. The main risks of using information systems of the second type in public administration relate to the illegal access (or use) of information stored in their databases. The consolidation of databases containing different types of information is a serious threat. In this regard, the creation of the Unified Federal Information Register containing information about the population of the Russian Federation, provided for by the Federal Law No. 168-FZ of 08.06.2020, may lead to a large number of socially negative consequences and comes into obvious conflict with the legislation on personal data. Results. State and municipal information systems themselves can improve public administration, including reducing corruption in the country. At the same time, their reduced discretion in management decisions is not always appropriate. Accordingly, their implementation should be preceded by the analysis of the characteristics of a specific area of management, as well as the proposed use of digital technologies.