Based on the historical-legal and comparative-legal methods, the article examines the evolution of the institute of state of emergency in Russia from the late 19th century to the present. Legal acts of the Russian Empire, the Soviet period and the modern Russian Federation are analyzed, revealing the conceptual foundations, introduction mechanisms, competence of authorities, restrictions of rights and guarantees of their protection. Special attention is paid to the problem of balance between the need for rapid response to extraordinary threats and the risk of arbitrary expansion of executive power. The work uses both published normative materials and archival documents, works of pre-revolutionary, Soviet and modern legal scholars. The conclusion is substantiated about the continuity of some elements of the Russian model of state of emergency, as well as about a significant strengthening of constitutional guarantees of individual rights in the modern period while maintaining a number of unresolved problems.
The author analyzes the functioning problems of the local justice’s institutes: magistrates and constitutional (statutory) board. Based on the scientific works of the local justice’s researchers the conclusion is made, that legal base has imperfections. Imperfection of the legal base prevents effective protection of citizens' rights. The author offers the ways to improve the legal regulation of the local justice. The place of the magistrates and constitutional (statutory) board in the Russian judicial system is determined.
The article explores the principle that the application of legal norms must comply with legality—the primary requirement for lawmaking and law enforcement—as well as expediency. The authors conclude that simply recognizing expediency as an independent requirement of legality is insufficient; the key is to ensure the most expedient implementation of an expedient law.
This article examines the evolution of international legal decisions on the peaceful settlement of the crisis in Ukraine, beginning in 2014 (the "Euromaidan" and the overthrow of the legitimate President of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych), and ending with intensive negotiations in Minsk and Istanbul from February to April 2022, which were unilaterally suspended by Ukraine. The author identifies and analyzes the reasons for the ineffectiveness of the adopted international agreements on conflict resolution in Ukraine, including identifying problematic aspects in the OSCE mediation activities in the Trilateral Contact Group, as well as in peacekeeping within the framework of the Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine. The article focuses on the current situation of the negotiation process in search of peace initiatives to end military actions. In addition, the article presents an analysis of the decision of the International Court of Justice of the United Nations of January 31, 2024, which nullified the discrediting statuses defined by Ukraine in relation to the people of the LPR and DPR as “terrorists and separatists,” which allows us to objectively qualify the status of the conflict in Ukraine through the prism of the principles and norms of international humanitarian law.
