A thorough understanding of legal phenomena is impossible without understanding how they are created (constructed). This is especially important for such a fundamental element of law as legal norms. It is well known that the legal norm is the most important element of the mechanism of legal regulation, serves as the foundation for lawmaking and therefore indirectly performs the most important functions associated with the implementation of law in society. An analysis of legal doctrine shows that today scholars do not draw a clear line between the categories of “legal norm” and “legal norm” and use them as synonyms. A legal norm is the basis for legal relations and other legal phenomena, through which legal regulation is ensured in various social spheres. At the same time, the question arises as to what constitutes the construction of a legal norm as a legal phenomenon. The study of this question is the purpose of this study.

The article examines the process of legalization of separation of spouses without divorce among peasants in the last decades of the Russian Empire. Involving archival materials previously unexplored in science, the author demonstrates three contradictory lines of legal regulation of the separation of spouses: the legislative prohibition (with a small number of exceptions prescribed in the law) on the separation of husbands and wives; permission to issue separate residence permits to wives in the order of the monarch’s favour in the practice of the III Division of Her Majesty’s Own Chancellery, the Department of State Police, the Commission (Chancellery) of the Russian Empire. I. H. Chancellery, the State Police Department, the Commission (Chancellery) of Petitions to the Emperor; decrees of the Governing Senate, which in some cases allowed local authorities to issue separate residence permits to peasant women without the consent of their husbands. It is concluded that the formation of the institution of separate residence of spouses in the Russian Empire did not take place at once for all estates, but gradually. Specific legislation on peasants, which directly allowed the issuance of separate residence permits to members of the peasant yard without the consent of the householder, was the reason why the peasant class was the first to obtain the right to seek separation of spouses.

The article examines the problems of adoption of the Constitution of the Japanese Empire (late 19th century). It analyzes the grounds for choosing the Prussian Constitution of 1850 as a model for the Basic Law of Japan of the Meiji era and mentions the reasons why the constitutions of some other countries were rejected. It describes the circumstances that forced Japanese politicians to begin work on drafting the country’s fundamental law, the first drafts of the Constitution, the contribution of Ito Hirobumi, as an outstanding Japanese political figure, to the development and adoption of the Basic Law of Japan, and the influence of Japanese traditions and customs on determining the status of the Head of State. It shows the main points of the translated from Japanese Natsushima bill prepared by Ito, which served as a basis for the working group drafting the Constitution, and comments on it by the German lawyer Hermann Rosler, to whom Japanese politicians and lawyers often turned for advice in the field of constitutional law. It narrates in details what happened on February 11, 1889. This was the day of holding a ceremony of the adoption of the Constitution, which consisted of religious and secular parts. This day remained firmly in memory of the inhabitants of the Japanese archipelago. The opinions of Japanese scholars are represented regarding the first Japanese Constitution in the European interpretation of this term, based on the Japanese sources. An inference is made about the conservative nature of this law, which was unable to prevent the militarists from coming to power and unleashing wars in the middle and in the late first half of the twentieth century.

The problem of legal regulation of contracts not provided for by the current positive civil legislation has long been the object of scientific research of many generations of scientists. Providing the participants of civil relations with the freedom necessary for them to carry out their activities should be recognized as an essential condition for the effective development of the economy of states based on the principles of a free market. The legal recognition of various atypical private law constructions is precisely one of the manifestations of such freedom. As the main such atypical constructions, most often encountered in practical activity, it is customary to single out unnamed and mixed contracts, which are understood as agreements of counterparties, in respect of which the current civil legislation does not provide for any positive regulation. In this regard, the main objectives of this article are to describe the historical development of the Russian normative regulation of mixed and unnamed contracts; to identify a clear distinction between these atypical agreements among themselves, as well as with the named contractual constructions enshrined in the current civil legislation; to analyse the main doctrinal positions regarding the essence and specificity of mixed and unnamed contracts, including foreign researchers; to find the optimal mechanism for the application of rules for the following types of agreements.