Ural State Law University

Introduction. The relevance of the article is determined by the weak coverage in the scientific literature of the issues of the legal policy of the Russian autocracy, which ensures the legitimacy of the state regime based on the dominance of the monarch in the system of power and management. The role and significance of individual sources of law in ensuring the special status of the bearer of supreme state power remains unclear until the systematization of the legislation of the Russian Empire. Purpose. The article analyzes the significance of the decrees of the Senate for the establishment and development of the rule of law during the palace coups. The article traces the political and legal orientation of a number of the highest initiatives in the field of determining the permissible limits of senate participation in the legislative activities of Peter the Great and his immediate successors. Methodology. In the course of historical and legal research, political, legal and socio-cultural approaches were used. along with the appeal to the micro-historical method of reading the media of legal information. Results. The evolution of the law-forming role of Senate decrees from making institutional changes to legislation and legitimizing supreme state power to correcting the most archaic norms of criminal law based on specific court decisions is considered as one of the vectors of the autocracy's protective legal policy aimed at strengthening the principle of autocracy and removing the monarch from the general laws as the sole guarantor of justice.

Based on the analysis of the array of statistics, the restoration of agricultural production in various categories of farms during the first post-war years was studied. It has been established that the restoration of agriculture in the Sverdlovsk region among different agricultural producers occurred differently. The role of the public sector has increased markedly, the volume of products produced in it significantly exceeded the pre-war level. By the end of the fourth five-year plan, compared with 1940, production on the farms of collective farmers, as well as workers and employees, increased. On collective farms, the pre-war level of production was not achieved. At the same time, collective farms remained the main producers of agricultural products, although their importance decreased significantly. In the first post-war years, production volumes continued to decline on the farms of individual farmers. In general, by the end of 1948, agriculture in the Sverdlovsk region was restored, the volume of products produced in it in physical and cost indicators exceeded the pre-war level.

Two issues of the claim proceedings are considered on the prosecutor's application for the transfer of property to the in-come of the Russian Federation, in respect of which, in accordance with the anticorruption legislation, evidence of its acquisition for legitimate income (Federal Law No. 230) has not been provided. The exclusive jurisdiction of this category of case to the courts of general jurisdiction is justified, since they are based on the prohibition of the defendants' business activities. With regard to the range of defendants, attention is drawn to the inclusion of beneficial owners among them, since officials who violate Federal Law No. 230 often hide behind a chain of nominal owners. At the same time, it is justified that there is no need to involve other persons in the civil procedure, for example, other participants or shareholders of a legal entity in which the relevant official was the owner of shares or shares, since their rights and obligations, as well as the amount of participation in this legal entity will not change.

Contemporary doctrine and practice of international law remain subject-centred: the answer to the question of the subjects of international law still serves as an explanation of what international law is and to whom it is accessible. Another constant of the system is its state-centrism, whereby sovereign States retain a privileged position as the creators and primary appliers of law. The departure from pure statism during the beginning of the twentieth century, nevertheless did not bring about any radical change. The derivative personality theory (the so-called recognition theory), which replaced the statism, not only maintained the monopoly of the State within the international legal system but, in a certain sense, reinforced it by recognising the State as a social necessity and as the exclusive creator of any new subjects of international law (international legal persons). Despite the alternative approaches to personality, the recognition theory proved to be a convenient tool for proponents of the exclusiveness of States under international law and prevails today. Relying on the methodology of critical genealogy and on a case-study of the 1949 Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on Reparation for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations, the historical and philosophical origins of the derivative personality theory are traced. The theory is shown to represent, on the one hand, a revisionist and, on the other, a reactionary and restorative approach in the broader context of the sociological renewal of law. Ultimately, in light of the critique of analytical jurisprudence and its focus on the mechanics of legal regulation, the tautological nature of personality — defined through legal rights and obligations — is demonstrated.