Articles

A successful transfer of private wealth to the next generation is important not only to wealthy families but also for the economy at large. There are various levels of asset protection and some of them are available to almost any businessperson. Private foundations have been for a long period conventional asset protection vehicles all over the world as much as trusts are. This article outlines the main features of trusts and private foundations and a special status of the settlor of a trust and the founder of a private foundation in Liechtenstein law. The purpose of this research is to analyze the legal status of the founder of a trust and the founder of a private foundation and to analyze a trust and a private foundation as efficient legal tools to preserve the assets of a wealthy natural person. The objective dimension of the study is the institutional and legal structure of a trust and a private foundation in the chosen jurisdiction. The subjective dimension of the study is the aggregate of international and national legal aspects that are fundamental in determining the optimal structure for protecting the assets of an individual.

Constitutional amendment rules fix the procedure of constitutional reform and also establish the formal and material limits of constitutional changes. These are one of the most important constitutional norms, because on their ground the rest of the constitutional norms are changed and even performed the adoption of a new constitution. Moreover, the validity of the constitution itself largely depends on constitutional amendment rules. Hart’s theory of primary and secondary norms helps to understand the constitutional nature of constitutional amendment rules, which perform the function of substantiating the validity of constitution changes. In this article, constitutional amendment rules are considered precisely as secondary constitutional norms. The article also substantiates the thesis that constitutional amendment rules should be changed only together with the adoption of a new constitution, since these are norms that determine the validity of other constitutional norms. When constitutional amendment rules are changed, arises a paradox of self-amendment (A. Ross), which leads to a formal logical error of self-reference. The paradox of self-amendment confirms that constitutional amendment rules must remain unchanged within the framework of the constitution. Constitutional amendment rules can only be changed by complete constitutional revision or constitutional revolution.

The scientific article examines the problems of determining the content of subjective civil right, the influence of the doctrine on law enforcement, as well as protection in court of the right that does not objectively exist. Based on the analysis of the doctrine, the main theories of the content of subjective civil right are distinguished. In the debate about the possibility of considering the right to protection outside the scope of the content of subjective right, the authors take the position that the right to protection can exist only as an element of the content of subjective right. The impossibility of exercising the subjective right to defense in the absence of any element of the content of the subjective right is substantiated. It is proved that within the framework of the structure of subjective right, the right to protection is inherent in each element of the content of subjective right. It is concluded that the goal of protecting the right is connected with the restoration of the capabilities of the rightholder of the subjective right to act at his own discretion in the scope of his powers. It is proved that judicial protection of the absent right actually “creates” a nonexistent right. Based on the analysis of judicial practice and the existing theory, the conclusion is substantiated that not any error in the behavior of the subject creates an opportunity to protect the right. Such behavior should prevent the copyright holder from exercising the right in his interest.

The article explores preconditions for implementation mechanisms of digital educational environment (DEE). The mechanisms include practice and empirical experience of the Faculty of Law of Lomonosov Moscow State University, academic and methodological component, and organizational and institutional framework. It is assumed that the development of digital educational environment may be defined as ‘innovation’ as it allows to adapt educational process to the challenges of the modern world. It is important to distinguish between the ideas of ‘creation of digital educational environment’ and ‘implementation mechanism of digital educational environment’; ‘education quality criteria’ and ‘quality criteria for the organization of educational process’. The article presents a discussion on functioning principles of DEE and its ‘core’ (key elements). DEE mechanism is analyzed from three aspects: its content, control, and communication. Integration process of DEE components were also analyzed. Characteristics of DEE development drivers comprise generational change; changes in the set of students’ values; accumulation of evidence-based data related to the learning outcomes in the digital environment. This article is a part of research on functioning principles of DEE and law education quality criteria in the digital environment.

This article is devoted to the issues of the possibility and validity of recognizing an act as insignificant within the formally defined crimes. To this end, the author examines the understanding of public danger in relation to the question of the insignificance of an act with formally defined crimes in the doctrine and judicial practice. The article draws a conclusion about the role of the insignificance of an act as a tool that allows decriminalizing violations of regulatory legislation that do not have a criminal public danger within the formally defined crimes. This conclusion is revealed by the example of the corpus delicti provided for in Article 200.3 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The author also substantiates the conclusions about the possibility of recognizing as insignificant an act within the corpus delicti with an alternative form of mens rea; about the need to bring a person to administrative responsibility for committing an act recognized as insignificant due to the absence of criminal public danger; on the need for the court to make a decision on the possibility / impossibility of recognizing an act as insignificant in each specific case and, accordingly, the inadmissibility of limiting the list of acts that can be recognized as insignificant by the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation (at least in relation to acts that have / do not have a criminal public danger).

The aim of the study was to analyze the legislation of the Russian Federation, Russian legal doctrine and judicial practice to identify a causation between a criminally punishable act — incitement to commit suicide and the consequence — suicide. Based on the analysis, it was concluded that the composition of a criminal act is formed when a direct causal link is established between the actions of the perpetrator and the suicide of the victim and cannot be formed if the suicide was committed due to other influences, factors or circumstances, even if it had the element of influence of the suspect, but it, however, is not decisive, does not directly entail a consequence. A consistent and thorough identification of a causation requires a mandatory comprehensive study of mental processes in consciousness, as well as the circumstances of the victim’s life in their dynamics, which motivated or could motivate him to commit suicide. The impact of a complex of such motivating circumstances may indicate a causality other than outwardly looking wrongful influence. Identification of secondary factors becomes more important for qualification. Establishing a causal relationship involves relying on the conclusion of a forensic psychological and psychiatric examination, which is relevant evidence.

This article continues the article devoted to the problem of the political responsibility of Russian Provisional Government. The author shows that violent overthrow of monarchial order didn`t bring to embodiment of ideas of liberal groups about establishment of political responsibility of the government before parliament. The Russian Provisional Government considered that it can bear responsibility for its decisions only before the people and therefore refused to consider itself responsible before the State Duma. Attempts of the Mensheviks and Socialists Revolutionaries to compel it to bear responsibility before Pre-parliament were also unsuccessful. Right up to its overthrow the Russian Provisional Government successfully counteracted the attempts of right-wing and left-wing political groups to establish the political control of any representative body over it. However, although the Russian Provisional Government remained irresponsible, it`s members bore responsibility before the political parties, which delegated them in the Government. Contrary to expectations of the liberal groups, period between the February and the October revolutions was the time of formation of a principle of party responsibility of the officials.

The article analyses views on intradepartmental normative document in terms of correlation of the concepts «normative legal act» and «local normative act» in legislation, function of Ministry of justice of Russia, regulatory document control and juridical literature. Referring to the theoretical division of departmental normative acts into generally binding and intradepartmental ones, author assumes the synonymy of the concepts «normative legal act affecting the rights, freedom and duties of a person and citizen», «normative legal act mandatory for federal state authorities, state authorities constituent entities of the Russian Federation, local governments, as well as legal entities and individuals» and «generally binding normative act». It is substantiated that intradepartmental normative documents cannot be considered normative legal acts affecting the rights, freedom and duties of a person and a citizen, since they apply to a certain circle of persons and their effect does not go beyond the limits of the relevant department. Considering specific departmental normative acts registered by the Ministry of Justice of Russia or challenged in the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, the author shows the impossibility of classifying them as generally binding normative acts, including citing as an example similar documents issued by entities not authorized to exercise legal regulation. It is proposed to abandon the practice of state registration of intradepartmental regulatory documents, the advantage of this abandonment from a practical point of view is noted.

The issues of legal protection of the environment, improving the efficiency of public administration in the environmental sphere have been elevated to the rank of national goals, the way to achieve which, according to official estimates, is seen, among other things, in the introduction of digital technologies. The article raises the problem of the lack of clarity and unambiguity of the definition of the legal concept of “digital society” and all terms derived from it. The purpose of the study was to study the existing regulatory definitions and doctrinal approaches to the concept of digitalization in the aspect of state environmental management, which is considered as the process of introducing digital technologies into the activities of state bodies that improve the quality of their functions. At the same time, under the digital transformation of such management in the article, it is proposed to understand the transition to such a state of environmental management, which is characterized by the onset of specific socially significant results from the use of digital technologies. The readiness of public administration in the field of environmental protection for digital transformation — regulatory, software, technical support, training, etc., should be called digital maturity, which, in turn, is a prerequisite for digital transformation, transition to a digital society.

The legal institution of the use of land plots without their provision and the establishment of an easement, a public easement, is not only new, but also contains a number of unusual legal structures. In this regard, it is important to find out its general direction, correlate it with similar legal categories, find out the legal significance of a number of conditions, and also determine ways to improve existing norms. It is concluded that the emergence of this institution is based on the need to promptly resolve the procedure for the limited use of the spatial properties of the land (land) and expand economic opportunities. Since public ownership of the land remains, and the person using the land plot does not have the rights to the land indicated by the Land Code of the Russian Federation, it is advisable to provide in a separate rule that the permit is issued for use on conditions that are the least burdensome for the current and future use of land (land plots). The current legal regime for permitting the use of land (land) on the grounds under consideration does not provide for the conclusion of an agreement on the use, however, the legislative regulation does not contain an imperative norm that would prohibit such an agreement. The land (land plot) is used in this case as an economic resource, which to a certain extent reduces its value for the public owner. Therefore, conceptually, one should proceed from the fact that in cases where the legislator does not directly establish a ban, the issuance of a permit may also provide for a fee for use.