Articles

The objective of this work is to clarify the place and significance of strategic planning documents in the regulation of relations on environmental protection and nature management. The creation of strategic planning documents is caused by the implementation of the planning function, and therefore is not something new for management in the field of environmental protection and nature management. But, as we believe, the significance of such documents has greatly strengthened after the adoption of the Federal Law “On Strategic Planning in the Russian Federation”. Different types of strategic planning documents, through which regulation and management in the sphere of interaction between society and nature is carried out, are analyzed in the article. By their legal nature, strategic planning documents, if they contain legal norms, are normative legal acts and are usually approved by acts of the President of the Russian Federation, the Government of the Russian Federation, by orders of various ministries. At the same time, strategic planning documents contain provisions that, in their meaning, should be in legislative acts, as well as provisions that can influence the development of legislation on environmental protection and natural resources, create new trends in legal regulation, including those of them that are unconvincing in terms of implementation of the general principles of environmental legislation. In these conditions, a clear line between such documents, on the one hand, and legislative and other normative legal acts that traditionally regulate environmental relations, on the other hand, must be established. The author concludes that the delineation of the regulatory legal acts should be due to the rule, according to the constitutional foundations, of primary legal regulation exclusively at the legislative level or at the level by legal act of the President of the Russian Federation.

The review gives a brief description of the new monograph by V.D. Zorkin, its main provisions are considered. One of the main topics raised in the book is the relationship between the stability of the state and human rights. It is concluded that human rights should not be opposed to public and state security, since it is the state that ultimately guarantees the legal protection of the individual. The weakening of the State can lead to the undermining of the system of guarantees of human rights. Zorkin examines this dilemma on the example of Russia, points out the main, from his point of view, problems of the Russian legal statehood.

The institution of representation in different legal systems has a noticeable specificity. There are differences in the classification, terminology, contract structures used as the basis for the emergence of relations of representation, forms of authorization of the agent, the consequences of actions of an unauthorized agent, issues of entry of the principal and a third person into direct relations with each other, etc. Since the services of agents are in demand in cross-border trade, the international community (states, scientists, associations of entrepreneurs) attempts to overcome the uncertainties and conflicts that arise in the case of the cross-border nature of these relations in their regulation by national legal sources by unifying the substantive legal norms on the relations of the agent and the principal, as well as on the relations of these persons with a third party. In order to solve the problem of forming a common, uniform approach to the legal regulation of relations of representation in international commerce, the article formulates its universal concept, which includes the main features of the regulation of internal and external relations within its framework, inherent in various national legal systems, international conventions and non-national sources of law, the practice of cross-border commerce; identifies specific features that characterize representation in international commerce; shows the features of its unified legal regulation.

The article uses the example of a criminal case against the employees of the European Surrogacy Center for human trafficking to raise the problem of distinguishing between human trafficking and surrogacy. The article examines the practice of the ECHR and the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. The article analyzes the provisions of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Optional Protocol on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography. The article analyzes the concept of human trafficking in the Palermo Protocol and the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The author comes to the conclusion that the distinction between human trafficking and surrogacy is an urgent problem not only at the national, but also at the international level. Taking into account the recommendations made in the report of the UN Special Rapporteur on trafficking in children, a list of circumstances indicating the existence of intent to traffic in persons is provided. The law enforcement officer should pay special attention to whether the payment of funds to the surrogate mother was due to the transfer of the child. This may be indicated by the refusal of the surrogate mother from parental rights and obligations in favor of the customers before the birth of the child, as well as the inclusion in the surrogacy agreement of conditions regarding the mandatory transfer of the child by the surrogate mother and the receipt of funds by the surrogate mother only after the transfer of the child. The article offers options for changing the current regulatory legal regulation in the field of surrogacy in the Russian Federation.

On January 21, 2021, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) delivered the judgment on the interstate complaint “Georgia v. Russia (2)”. The purpose of this article is to examine the views of the ECHR to resolving complex issues of the Russian jurisdiction over South Ossetia, Abkhazia and the “buffer zone” in the context of an international military conflict. This judgment is unique one, since the ECtHR used two models of extraterritorial jurisdiction of the member states developed in its practice. In this regard, the article presents a brief analysis of the essence of each of the models and then the author of the article provides an overview of the ECtHR’s case law on the matter, which was once again reconsidered by the Court in this case. In the final part of the article, the author refers to the key remarks made by nine judges of the ECtHR in their dissenting opinions. The author concludes that this judgment has led to even greater confusion in the ECtHR’s case law on the extraterritorial application of the Convention, which raises serious reputational issues before the Court

One of the key grounds for the classification of legal behavior is the sphere of public relations regulated by law, which makes it possible to single out legal behavior in the sphere of dependent labor as a separate variety of it. However, the features of legal behavior in this area, due to the system-forming features of the branch of labor law, are practically not studied in the scientific literature, and therefore the article aims to fill this gap and identify the labor law specifics of legal behavior. Taking into account the special social significance of behavior in the area under consideration, due to the importance of labor as a key factor in the development of society and an individual, the article focuses on the specifics of the legal regulation of this type of behavior. It is substantiated that the specified specificity stems from a combination of state and contractual regulation of labor relations and other relations directly related to them, as well as the special role of local regulations as the main regulators of employee behavior. The problems of determining the limits of contractual regulation of relations in the sphere of labor law, as well as employer’s discretion in determining the content of local normative acts, are considered relevant for the science of labor law, and conceptual ways of their solution are proposed on the basis of the principle of guaranteeing the fundamental rights and freedoms of man and citizen, enshrined in the Constitution of the Russian Federation.

Why is the contract binding? This question might be simple, bui it hasn`t been answered clearly for last several of millennia. The distance between the types of given explanations continues to increase, it is reflected not only in the basis of the notion “contract”, but on the construction of the matter of contract law as well. This gives rise to various modifications of the “theory of flexible systems” that are gaining popularity in the field of contract law and attempting to connect and to balance the existing approaches. The other side of the modern discussions about the concept of the contract concern the disputes about the criteria for distinguishing the contract that giving rise to legal relations from the other agreements which don’t have such nature. Identifying complementarities to separate the contracts from non-binding agreements also helps to give a clearer view of the legal concept and the core of the contract. This article discusses both sets of questions supported by Russian and foreign legal tradition, evaluates the numerous variations of the “theory of flexible systems” as deducting the “what ought to be” from the “what is”, considers the interaction of the subjective, objective and formal in the contract as the combination of factors indicating the formation of the legal relation between the parties

In the science of criminal law and law enforcement practice, there are many controversial issues of the qualification of illegal acts of officials in the field of criminal justice. Special attention should be paid to the problems of interpreting the signs of the elements of crimes that provide for responsibility for falsifying evidence in a criminal case. In particular, the list of subjects specified in Part 2 of Art. 303 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation causes complaints from lawyers. The absence of clarifications about the mentioned element of the composition in Part 3 of Art. 303 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation creates confusion on the question of who should be held accountable for committing the acts contained in this norm. In search of a solution to these problems, the authors conduct a legal analysis of the theoretical and practical aspects of the content of the category “person conducting an inquiry” and the powers of the operative officer to carry out investigative actions. The article illustrates the discrepancy between the provisions of the criminal procedure legislation on participants in the prosecution proceedings and the signs of the subject of falsification of evidence in a criminal case. Based on the results of the study, the authors proposed an interpretation of the concept of “person conducting an inquiry”. The article recommends to qualify the actions of the operative officer who falsified evidence at the time of the investigative action on behalf of the investigator as abuse of official authority. These conclusions can serve as a guide for law enforcement officers until the highest court clarifies the disputed positions or makes changes to the dispositions of Part 2, 3 of Art. 303 of the Russian Criminal Code.