Articles

The article is dedicated to the 100th anniversary of the birth of a prominent Soviet and Russian legal scholar, Doctor of Law, Professor of the Department of Theory of State and Law and Political Science of the Law Faculty, Honored Professor of Moscow State University named after M.V. Lomonosov Oleg Ernestovich Leist (1925–2003). The article shows the main stages of his scientific biography. It is noted that the work of O.E. Leist organically combines the doctrinal developments of lawyers of the pre-revolutionary school with the best that was expressed by legal scholars during the Soviet era. O.E. Leist developed a comprehensive study of law and the state. According to his estimates, on a societal scale, legal thinking cannot be formed by orders from above; it arises along with mass everyday interest in understanding social relations through specific rights and obligations of their participants, the grounds for the emergence of these rights and obligations, in connection with procedural guarantees of legal relations and responsibility for violations of rights and failure to fulfill obligations. O.E. Leist made a significant contribution to fundamental jurisprudence by developing the topic of sanctions and legal liability. His attention was focused on the analysis of the place of sanctions in the structure of a legal norm, the connection of substantive law and process with legal guarantees of members of society. The general conclusion is made that, in many ways, thanks to the works and activities of Professor Leist, the continuity of theoretical and legal science is currently ensured in Russia.

This article presents a comparative legal study of justice issues in the context of economic sanctions and global challenges to the modern legal order, analyzing the commonalities and specificities of the legislative and law enforcement practices of Russia and the Republic of Kazakhstan in addressing these issues. It explores some of the specific features of the judicial systems of these countries, as well as the main areas of judicial activity within the framework of economic constitutionalism and its fundamental principles related to the relationship between business and government and the protection of the rights of business entities. In analyzing the role of the judiciary in the market system, special attention is paid to the activities of the constitutional justice bodies of the two countries, their decisions both to protect and develop national economies, and to creating conditions for sustainable economic growth in the context of ensuring state sovereignty and investment attractiveness. In this regard, a comparative legal study of ensuring the uniformity of judicial practice in resolving economic disputes and, on this basis, the development of precedent-based principles in the legal systems of Russia and the Republic of Kazakhstan is of great importance.

The article draws attention to the impact of changes in the size of the territory of the state and the social structure of society on the organization of state unity. It is proved that changes in the organization of the fight against local robberies occurred gradually and not simultaneously throughout the state. The restriction of the privileges of large patrimonial officials (serving princes) in the field of the court went hand in hand with the creation of local institutions for the implementation of the court for serious crimes, and the powers of this court were transferred from the breadwinners/kormlenshchiks appointed by the Grand Duke (later tsar) elected by the population. Along the way, attention is drawn to the high level of literacy of the local population of cities and municipalities, the elected ones of which conducted record-keeping on crimes, and then, from the middle of the XVI century, on fiscal matters. Attention is drawn to the fact that the combination of the central and local apparatus since the beginning of the XVII century was based not only on the sad experience of the Time of Troubles/Smutnoe vremya, but also took into account the need to change the management of places due to the sharply increased territory of the state, which objectively required increased centralization. It is emphasized that by the beginning of the XVII century a central bureaucratic management apparatus has already been formed, and during the Oprichnina and the Time of Troubles, changes took place in the nature of land ownership.

One of the legitimate exceptions to WTO rules, which allow its members to deviate from fulfilling their WTO obligations, are security exceptions. To date, there are no unified theoretical and practical approaches to the interpretation and application of security exceptions. However, it is precisely the lack of legal certainty regarding this group of exceptions that leads to abuse by some WTO members, who broadly interpret the legal categories of "essential security interests" and "the existence of extraordinary circumstances in international relations." The approaches of the WTO LFS arbitration panel in trade disputes, in which security exceptions were considered, could be used to form a relatively uniform practice of interpreting and applying security exceptions. However, in subsequent trade disputes, the conclusions of the WTO LFS arbitration panel demonstrated the existence of legal uncertainty regarding the interpretation and application of security exceptions. Such a situation does not allow WTO members, including the Russian Federation, to predict WTO LFS decisions regarding the prospects of challenging unilateral restrictive measures imposed for reasons of national security. In this regard, the filing of a complaint by the Russian Federation to the WTO LFS will become possible after the formation of a relatively uniform practice of interpretation and application of exceptions for security reasons.

There remains a doctrinal debate about the current position of the Papacy in international law. The key issue on which scholars have not reached consensus is whether the names 'the Roman See' ('the Apostolic See', 'the Holy See') and 'the Vatican City State' ('the Vatican City') denote two distinct subjects of international law under the ruling of Supreme Pontiff, or whether they are synonymous with the same separate political entity (or denote the relationship of part and whole with respect to such the entity). As the practice of the participation of the Roman See and the Vatican City in bilateral and multilateral international treaties demonstrates, each of these entities is recognised as a separate party to the agreement, it concludes. The Apostolic See and Vatican City are separate units with international obligations and responsibilities. Both entities may sometimes be parties to the same trilateral and multilateral agreements. Since Vatican City does not have a foreign policy department for 'organisational economy reasons', in most cases, international treaties are signed 'in its name and on its behalf' by representatives of the Secretariat of State of the Roman See. Thus, the 'dualistic' concept of the international legal personality of the Apostolic See and the Vatican City State most accurately defines the state of affairs in inter-State practice.

Within the framework of the common economic space of the EAEU, the elimination of violations of competition rules is carried out by five national antimonopoly authorities, as well as the Eurasian Economic Commission (EEC). The criteria and rules for determining the competence of each of these bodies, established in the Treaty on the EAEU and in national legislation, do not allow for unambiguous, prompt and unmistakable identification of the competent antimonopoly authority before the start of the investigation. The author analyzes the shortcomings of the concept of cross-border markets, as well as special conditions differentiated by types of violations that are used to establish the competence of the EEC to conduct an investigation, and also substantiates the fundamental impracticability of the procedure for justifying its own competence by the national antimonopoly authority, since it initially requires a reliable exclusion of the fact that the case of anticompetitive behavior under consideration is within the competence of the EEC. Based on the generalization of the shortcomings of the existing system for determining the competent authority, with the involvement of the practice of the European Union, the article provides recommendations for improving the criteria and procedure for determining the competence of the EEC and national antimonopoly authorities: the need for criteria for determining the competent authority based on the signs of a possible violation, as well as from publicly available information about the potential violator and the relevant market is substantiated. In addition, instead of the existing one, a procedure for the joint establishment of competent authority is proposed, which will make it possible to avoid disputes about the competence and jurisdiction of cases. Within the framework of the common economic space of the EAEU, the elimination of violations of competition rules is carried out by five national antimonopoly authorities, as well as the Eurasian Economic Commission (EEC). The criteria and rules for determining the competence of each of these bodies, established in the Treaty on the EAEU and in national legislation, do not allow for unambiguous, prompt and unmistakable identification of the competent antimonopoly authority before the start of the investigation. The author analyzes the shortcomings of the concept of cross-border markets, as well as special conditions differentiated by types of violations that are used to establish the competence of the EEC to conduct an investigation, and also substantiates the fundamental impracticability of the procedure for justifying its own competence by the national antimonopoly authority, since it initially requires a reliable exclusion of the fact that the case of anticompetitive behavior under consideration is within the competence of the EEC. Based on the generalization of the shortcomings of the existing system for determining the competent authority, with the involvement of the practice of the European Union, the article provides recommendations for improving the criteria and procedure for determining the competence of the EEC and national antimonopoly authorities: the need for criteria for determining the competent authority based on the signs of a possible violation, as well as from publicly available information about the potential violator and the relevant market is substantiated. In addition, instead of the existing one, a procedure for the joint establishment of competent authority is proposed, which will make it possible to avoid disputes about the competence and jurisdiction of cases.

Despite the abundance of publications devoted to the EAEU legal order, the issues related to potential for confliction between the EAEU law and other branches of international law, in particular international investment law, remain insufficiently researched in the literature. The article highlights the risks of competing interpretations of the EAEU law carried out by both the EAEU Court and arbitral tribunals that settle disputes between investors from one EAEU member State and other members of the Union on the basis of EAEU law. This problem has shifted from a theoretical to a practical plane due to the appearance of the first investment arbitration awards interpreting the rules of the EAEU Treaty. This suggests that in the foreseeable future, the EAEU Court may find itself in a situation similar to the conflict between the CJEU and investment arbitration, which recently ended with the complete elimination of the possibility for arbitration of the so-called "intra-EU" disputes in the European Union legal order.

This article examines the regulation of trade in services in the EAEU, as well as the phased formation of a single services market within the framework of the Treaty on the Eurasian Economic Union. The key stages, goals, and principles of creating a single services market are analyzed, including the conditions for the supply and receipt of services between the member states of the Eurasian Economic Union. Particular attention is paid to the harmonization of legislation in transport, financial policy, and energy. Since the establishment of the Eurasian Economic Union, significant progress has been achieved in creating a single services market and common markets in strategic sectors. Such regulation will accelerate the development of value chains. Particular attention must be paid to current trends in the development of trade in services, such as digitalization.