Moscow University Law Bulletin. 2025. 4.

The article examines the means of meeting state (municipal) needs, among which the author includes public procurement, nationalization, requisition, legal forms of public-private partnership (concession agreements, PPP agreements, special investment contracts, production sharing agreements, etc.), the return of state property (assets) from abroad, donations (including crowdfunding), etc. The author has compiled the table in which the means of satisfying state (municipal) needs are arranged depending on the degree of imperative of their legal regime and on the "level of publicity" of the entity using this tool (state, private entity or they are jointly). The article separately examines institutions related to the means of meeting state (municipal) needs (confiscation, "self-sufficiency") or institutions whose attribution to these means is debatable (privatization, "public-public partnership", etc.). The author comes to the conclusion that the Russian public procurement system is the core (central link) of the system for meeting state (municipal) needs, and all other means are its secondary elements. The task of the legislator is to create the common system of means to meet state (municipal) needs by analogy with the contract system in the field of procurement and the corresponding legal framework.

The article is devoted to the formation and development of legal regulation of the state defense order in Russia as an integral part of ensuring the security and defense capability of the state. The legal essence of the studied field of law is revealed through a philosophical approach of the presence of external and internal factors in the development of the relevant legal relations, the article defines the constitutional foundations as a mandatory element of the existence of the relevant legal mechanisms. A significant place in the article is given to the convergence of business law and administrative law, taking into account the availability of relevant research in different branches of law. Entrepreneurial relations with the civil law method of regulation are highlighted as the main ones determining the essence of the state defense order. Attention was drawn to the wide possibilities of theoretical and applied research in view of the relatively small number of works in a given area, and an attempt was made to determine the current state of legal regulation of the state defense order at the moment, as well as possible development prospects. The presence of unnecessary administrative and legal barriers is emphasized. The article also draws attention to the fact that a significant amount of work in this area is of a closed nature, however, from the point of view of taking into account the interests of the executors of the state defense order and ensuring the possibility of discussion regarding options for optimizing the current legislation in the field of state defense order, including in order to save the economic potential of business entities, ensuring their uninterrupted functioning, the availability of open research work is essential.

Despite the genetic similarity with the law of the United Kingdom, the institution of a derivative action in the United States has acquired great national specificity, manifested in a different terminology (derivative action), weak influence of the rules of the case Foss v. Harbottle, the development of independent conditions at the level of judicial precedents for the admissibility of the presentation and consideration of a derivative claim (demand requirement, continuous ownership rule, formation of the will of the corporation by a special judicial committee), aimed, on the one hand, at ensuring the possibility for participants in a legal entity to exercise the latter's right to judicial protection, but to a greater extent — to prevent the presentation of unreasonable actions, because the judicial practice of the United States proceeds from the general rule on the inadmissibility of court interference in the internal affairs of the company. As a result, these conditions themselves have been overgrown with numerous exceptions, exempting from the need to comply with them and leading to confusion and contradictory judicial practice. An analysis of the literature and judicial practice indicates the gradual spread of a derivative claim to the organizational and legal forms of legal entities that were previously denied this, a fairly calm attitude towards multiple derivative actions and even the assumption of "derivative protection" while maintaining the opposition of a derivative action to a direct one, for which the criteria of direct damage are used to distinguish, answering the question: which person — the corporation or its participants — was the first to be harmed; special damage, which allows you to bring a direct claim when a participant has suffered damage that is special and unrelated not only to the damage to the company itself; corresponding rights and obligations.

The participants of the round table pointed out the significant influence of German philosophy and legal philosophy on Russian philosophical and legal thought. Kant and Hegel had the greatest influence. Kantianism and Hegelianism prevailed in Russia, while neo-Kantianism and neo-Hegelianism were extremely fragmented. The influence of German philosophy was accompanied by its profound reworking by Russian authors. By the end of the 19th century, Russian philosophy and legal philosophy had developed a conceptual framework that adequately reflected the richness of German metaphysics.