Journal headings
"Legal sciences"

Annotation: The period between the February bourgeois and October socialist revolutions was important, in many respects fateful for our country. It is constantly in the field of view of domestic scholars. One of the central issues here is in the problems of the form of government in this short period of time. Precisely this issue will be the focus of this article. The article describes the main activities that were carried out in February – October 1917. This is primarily the creation of new government bodies, and above all the Provisional Government, which was en- dowed with the functions of legislative and executive state power; activities in preparation for the convocation of the Constituent Assembly, which was given the leading role in determining the form of government in Russia. The characteristics of the actively conducted powerful reform in the field of local public administration and self-government are presented. The analysis made it possible to conclude that the established form of government in Russia in the period February – October 1917 should be characterized as an undeveloped republic, semi-republic, or in the spirit of the terminology of that time as a “pre-republic.” In favor of the republic is evidenced by the course taken to create a popular representation, carry out zemstvo reform, and activities to prepare a new constitution for Russia. At the same time, the form of government in Russia in February – October 1917 is most successfully characterized as to a certain extent temporary, incomplete, transitional. Three main scientific methods were used during the work on this article: dogmatic, historical, comparative.

Annotation: The purpose of the study is to examine the legal flaws that have appeared in the activities of judicial authorities, including those caused by decisions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation. The study is based on the provisions of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, which do not provide for the possibility of using judicial practice (judicial precedent) to justify decisions in specific cases, as well as the decision of the highest judicial body for constitutional control in the Russian Federation, on the one hand determining that the interpre- tation of law may be carried out only by law and on the other hand instructing the legislator to make changes to procedural codes, enabling, together with normative legal acts, to consider acts “containing clarifications of the legislation and possessing normative properties”. As a conclusion, proposals are formulated to correct the identified defects, allowing the court proceedings to return to the constitutional norms, for which the necessary amendments, including to the procedural codes of the Russian Federation, are proposed. In the text of the article, the Russian Federation is abbreviated as RF.

Annotation: It is noted that the possibility of canceling acts of public bodies in the order of self-control contradicts the prin- ciple of irrevocability of acts of public authority, justified in civil science. The criteria developed by the highest courts are highlighted, on the basis of which the act of cancellation may be invalidated. The inconsistency of judicial practice on the application of these criteria is demonstrated. It is justified that the legal consequences in the form of influence on civil legal relations are not the only consequences for participants in civil circula- tion, the presence of which should become the basis for invalidating the act of cancellation. According to the authors, currently there is a forming of judicial practice on the application of criteria for the abolition of acts in the order of self-control. Unfortunately, there are no doctrinally developed criteria for the permissibility of such a repeal; nor is there one in law. Based on the results of the study conducted by the authors, it is concluded that it is necessary to legislatively consolidate the criteria that would act as boundaries for the implementation of the right of public bodies to cancel their own acts in self-control. In the text of the article, the Russian Federation is abbreviated as RF.

Annotation: The article is devoted to an analysis of trends in the development of tort law in the context of regulation of rela- tionships involving the use of artificial intelligence (AI), based on the model legislation of the CIS. The central issue of the study is the question of whether it is necessary to create fundamentally new legal mechanisms of liability for harm caused by AI, or whether it is possible to adapt existing civil law institutions. The methodologi- cal basis of the work is a comparative legal and regulatory analysis of the provisions of the Recommendations on the Regulatory Regulation of the use of artificial intelligence, including ethical standards for research and development and the CIS Model Law "On Artificial Intelligence Technologies". As a result of the study, key trends that underpin model regulation have been identified and analyzed: the expansion of strict (objective) liability by equating high-risk AI systems with sources of increased danger; the channeling of joint liability toward specific entities (owner, developer, operator); the socialization of risks through mandatory civil liability insurance; and the strengthening of consumer protection in the digital environment. The author’s main conclusion is that legal regulation of tort liability in the field of AI demonstrates continuity and an evolutionary nature, refuting the position that it is necessary to create an entirely new, “non-anthropocentric” system of liability.

Annotation: In contemporary legal doctrine, the category of «transport infrastructure» is often employed in a fragmented manner – in object-based, managerial, or public-regulatory terms – which hampers its holistic conceptualization as a complex legal phenomenon and obscures its place within the system of civil-law organizational relations. This article examines the legal nature of transport infrastructure through a comparative analysis with energy infrastructure as a typologically related network-based legal formation. The methodological framework combines systemic and functional approaches, comparative legal analysis, and the provisions of the theory of organizational civil-law relations. It is demonstrated that, although transport and energy infrastructures belong to the same general type of network formations, they differ significantly in the mechanisms ensuring their stability: energy infrastructure is characterized by a model of public-law centralization, whereas transport infrastructure operates as a distributed system of contractual and legal coordination. It is substantiated that contracts governing the use of transport infrastructure perform primarily a coordinating function, ensuring the alignment of participants’ actions and the integration of public-law and private-law regulatory mechanisms. In the text of the article, the Russian Federation is abbreviated as RF.