Moscow University Law Bulletin. 2022. 2.

The article is a continuation of the doctrinal and legal analysis of the decision of the Vilnius District Court to give retroactive effect to the law, namely to impose a criminal penalty on the basis of articles of the Lithuanian Criminal Code of 2000 as amended in 2011 in relation to the events of 1991. The publication also examines the issue of the Court’s failure to refer to the UN Charter and the UN General Assembly Resolution of 1974 on the definition of aggression for the purpose of substantiating allegations of “Soviet aggression that began in 1940 and continued” against Lithuania. The Court’s qualification of the actions of units of the armed forces and law enforcement agencies of the USSR in January 1991 in Vilnius as war crimes and crimes against humanity on the basis of the application of the provisions of the Charter of the Nuremberg Military Tribunal, the Convention on the Inapplicability of the Statute of Limitations of 1968 and the Geneva Conventions of 1949 on the Protection of Victims of War are considered from critical positions. Taking into account the refutability of the Court’s statements about the alleged crimes committed by the Soviet Union in 1940–1991. acts of “occupation”, “aggression”, “crimes against humanity”, “war crimes” and other “crimes under international humanitarian law” justify the general conclusion about the illegality of the decision of the Vilnius Court on the application of the norms of Lithuanian national criminal legislation with reference and on the basis of the international legal acts considered in the publication.

The issue of international responsibility continues to be one of mist debatable topics among academia and in the decisions of international courts and tribunals. One of the major features of the WTO is a highly specific and to certain extent unique system of responsibility for violation of WTO rules elaborated by the founding member states. As a result of significant deviations from the classical approach as provided by the International Law Commission in its both Drafts Articles of international responsibility, WTO rules of state responsibility are widely treated by academia as lex specialis with its own advantages and disadvantages. Despite of existence of some rules of state responsibility in the Treaty of the Eurasian Economic Union such rules are mostly of sporadic, case-specific and badly coordinated character based on misguided borrowing of WTO approach which is ill-suited for the purpose of creation of common internal market. The necessity for the EAEU to create its own complex of norms on liability should not lead to a blind replication of either ILC or WTO approaches, as this could be at odds with the objectives of Eurasian integration. It’s suggested as one of possible alternatives to use the approach of the Court of Justice of the EU rejecting almost from the very beginning a classical international law canon of horizontal control performed by the states themselves backed by the use of the horizontal measures of enforcement towards the state violating its obligations.

Constitutional revolution is an order of constitutional change, the validity of which is not based on the current constitution, does not comply with its norms, and is not carried out in accordance with the procedures enshrined in the constitution. When the constitutional revolution is carried out, the limits of changing the previous constitution are violated and constitutional review over their observance is not carried out or to no avail. There are two theories that explain the validity of the constitution adopted as a result of the constitutional revolution: the theory of external legitimacy and the theory of internal legality. The theory of external legitimacy assumes that the basis for the validity of the constitution is external source: God, the people, a charismatic leader, etc. The validity of the constitution is not subordinate to it itself, but has an extra-constitutional source of origin. The new constitution receives from this external source its legitimacy, which makes up for the legality lost as a result of the revolution. The theory of internal legality assumes that the basis for the validity of a constitution can only be an internal source — the constitution itself. The new constitution finds its validity from itself. On the one hand, this approach is logically contradictory, since it is self-referential and explains the phenomenon by referring to itself. On the other hand, it excludes a transcendental and other objectively unverifiable explanation of the constitution. The validity of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, adopted as a result of the constitutional revolution of 1993, is based on the theory of external legitimacy, which links the validity of the constitution with its effectiveness.

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.

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 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.

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 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 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).