Автор анализирует сложившиеся в судебной практике подходы к оценке правомерности отказа страховщиков в осуществлении страховых выплат при причинении ущерба вследствие военных действий. Дает оценку формам государственной поддержки в этой сфере. Отмечает, что правовое регулирование претерпевает изменения в части выработки универсального механизма защиты страхователей и страховщиков, однако они затрагивают преимущественно сферу ипотечного страхования жилья, хотя также требуется защита имущественных интересов организаций и индивидуальных предпринимателей. The author analyzes established judicial approaches to assessing the legality of insurers’ refusal to pay out insurance claims for damage caused by military action. He also evaluates the forms of state support in this area. He notes that legal regulation is undergoing changes in terms of developing a universal mechanism for protecting policyholders and insurers. However, these changes primarily affect mortgage insurance, although the property interests of organizations and individual entrepreneurs also require protection.
Relevance. Modern science and practice of criminal law is permeated with dogmatism in terms of its attitude to responsibility. The rigidity of the structure of this category, based on several centuries of its development, does not allow today to transform it in the direction of expanding the forms of implementation. Responsibility has long turned into a kind of inviolable phenomenon, the definition of which is not only in the text of the criminal law, but even in the theory of criminal law. Any attempts to analyze the current situation in this matter are perceived not otherwise as an invasion of the forbidden area, but only the intended result, is obviously doomed to failure.Purpose: to determine the relationship between the functions of criminal law and the forms of implementation of criminal responsibility in the context of the modern picture of the world.Objective: analyze the functions and subfunctions of criminal law, as well as show their impact on the forms of implementation of criminal liability.Methodology. To achieve the goals of the study, various scientific methods were used: materialistic dialectics as a universal method of cognition, general scientific methods of cognition (system-structural, analysis, synthesis, induction, deduction), as well as private scientific methods, such as comparative legal, legal modeling and extrapolation.Results. The forms of realization of responsibility, especially in the context of the transformation of modern social relations, against the background of prevailing prejudices, are not able to receive a full, consistent and doctrinal justification. Taking into account the dynamics of the transformation of the entire world space, the violation of most previously established rules and the emergence of not yet completely understandable new criteria for development, the legal sphere is also undergoing turbulence, where responsibility is one of the cornerstones of all legal regulation of public relations.Conclusion. We see confirmation of the above in the changes in criminal law that have occurred in it in the past few years. The legislator, although reflexively, but obviously, is ahead in terms of understanding how to influence those who have committed a crime in the new conditions.
Judicial precedent in the Anglo-Saxon legal family is seen as an institutional mechanism for the production and stabilization of law through judicial interpretation and application of norms. The study analyzes the elements of the stare decisis doctrine, the ratio decidendi allocation methodology, vertical and horizontal connectivity, and flexibility tools (distinguishing, overruling, per incuriam). Special attention is paid to how the highest courts (primarily the Supreme Court of Great Britain, the Supreme Court of the United States and the Supreme Court of Canada) balance legal certainty and the development of law in the face of accelerating social and technological changes, including the digitalization of law enforcement and the growing role of algorithmic tools. The article concluded that judicial precedent in the Anglo-Saxon legal family is not just a source of law, but integral institutional technology. It provides predictability through the cohesion of the courts, allows law to develop through structured mechanisms of flexibility, and maintains the legitimacy of the judiciary through consistency of argument. Digitalization of justice changes not only access to judicial practice, but also the structure of the doctrine of precedent itself. Judicial precedent sets not only the result, but also the procedural format of thinking: legal argumentation must be verifiable, comparable and reproducible. This dramatically reduces the risk of arbitrariness, because arbitrariness is not just a "bad decision," but a decision without verifiable logic in the system.
This article analyzes some aspects of the spatial basis of state territorial administration in modern Russia. Attention is focused on spatial-territorial units such as the constituent entity of the Russian Federation, region, macroregion, federal district, military administrative district, the Arctic zone of Russia, federal territory, and territory of advanced development. As a result, generalized conclusions and judgments on the research topic have been formulated. It has been suggested that state territorial administration in Russia cannot be based solely on a single type or form of spatial organization that is non-alternative.
The article examines the problem of excess in cases of plurality of persons within absolute civil legal relationships. The authors proceed from the assumption that, where a legal good is jointly held, internal relations between the participants of such plurality do not always remain irrelevant to external legal relationships. Special attention is given to situations in which one participant performs a legally significant act concerning the common object while acting both in his or her own interest and in the common interest. Using co-ownership and co-authorship as examples, the article analyzes the limits of permissible independent conduct by a participant in plurality, the criteria for normal and excessive conduct, and the legal consequences of acting beyond the agreed or presumed common will. The authors argue that excess in plurality reveals the external effect of an internal legal relationship and should be assessed through the principles of good faith, reasonableness, fairness, and balance of interests.
