The article presents a review of the XIII All‑Russian Annual Meeting of Legal Theoreticians “Modern Theoretical Guidelines of Legal Science”, held on February 25, 2026 at the Institute of Legislation and Comparative Law under the Government of the Russian Federation. The Meeting was dedicated to the 85th anniversary of the birth of the outstanding lawyer, Professor Valery V. Lazarev. The event brought together leading representatives of theoretical‑legal and branch legal science, public authorities, the judicial system and legal education, which allowed for a comprehensive discussion of both the basic ideas of the scientist and their development in modern doctrine and practice. The plenary session focused on integrative legal understanding, concepts of the effectiveness of legal regulation and law enforcement, the doctrine of gaps and limits of legal regulation, as well as the importance of Valery V. Lazarev’s ideas for understanding the digital transformation of law and constitutional changes. The review reflects the work of sections that analyzed the influence of Valery V. Lazarev’s teachings on modern theory of state and law, branch legal sciences (primarily civil law), legal technology, the history of political and legal doctrines, problems of lawful behavior, judicial regulation and interpretation of law. The role of Valery V. Lazarev’s scientific school in shaping the research agenda, updating the methodological tools of the theory of law, and strengthening the connection of theoretical developments with law‑making, judicial practice, and legal education is emphasized. The review demonstrates that the scientist’s ideas continue to act as an intellectual reference point for the search for modern theoretical foundations of the Russian legal order and the professional identity of a lawyer.
National legal systems are currently forced to adapt to the active implementation of various new groups of related technologies, including digital ones, and the emergence of a platform economy based on these technologies. At the same time, they must, on the one hand, maintain their stability while achieving the necessary level of regulatory flexibility, on the other. One means of addressing this challenge is legal experimentation and related tools, such as “regulatory sandboxes” abroad and their Russian equivalent — experimental legal regimes. The development of legal policy in national states in the context of the ongoing digital transformation presupposes the emergence of a normative framework that, while maintaining legal certainty and predictability, facilitates the development of a new type of economy. As a result, what’s in demand is not a classic legal experiment, but quasi‑experimental (para‑experimental) legal regimes that facilitate and stimulate digital transformation, including through flexible legal frameworks that enable rapid adaptation to the rapidly changing technological environment. This article, based on a comparative legal analysis (comparing the legal systems of Russia, the United States, China, the European Union, the United Kingdom, Singapore, Hong Kong, the UAE, Australia, Malaysia, India, and others), attempts to determine the relationship between legal experiments and “regulatory sandboxes”, including their Russian counterpart — experimental legal regimes in the field of digital innovation.
To protect the interests of the insurer who has fulfilled the obligation to compensate for losses caused by the person responsible for the occurrence of the insured event, the legislator uses two well‑known constructions: subrogation and recourse. Using historical, formal‑logical and systematic research methods, the author outlines the scope of the subrogation model of ensuring the interests of the insurer. Subrogation is possible if there are grounds for imposing liability for losses actually reimbursed by the insurer on their causer, who is not the policyholder or beneficiary. After the occurrence of an insured event, there are two obligations — between the insurer and the policyholder (beneficiary), as well as between the policyholder (beneficiary) and the person responsible for the occurrence of the insured event. If the recourse structure were used, there would be (at the time of payment of the insurance indemnity) an obligation between the insurer and the person responsible for the occurrence of the insured event. Since the payment of the insurance indemnity terminates only the first obligation, the person responsible for the occurrence of the insured event would be a debtor not in one, but in two obligations at once: to the victim (within the framework of the preserved protective obligation) and to the insurer (within the framework of the newly arisen recourse obligation). Such a state of affairs, in which a subject would be responsible twice for a single violation, is categorically unacceptable for reasons of justice. A different picture is observed in the case of civil liability insurance. By concluding a civil liability insurance contract, the policyholder assigns to the insurer the fulfillment of his obligation to the beneficiary, which may arise upon the occurrence of an insured event — the policyholder commits an action that is the basis of the insured liability. Therefore, by paying insurance compensation to the victim (beneficiary), the insurer fulfills not only its regulatory duty to the policyholder, but also the policyholder’s protective obligation to the beneficiary. And since such an obligation is terminated by proper performance, subrogation of a non‑existent right is excluded. However, in cases stipulated by law or an insurance contract, instead of the obligation binding the beneficiary and the policyholder, a recourse obligation is formed between the insurer and the policyholder.
Privatization was the basis for the formation of a class of private owners in Russia, and this process could not be unambiguously positive for both the private and public sectors of the economy. The violations of the legislation on privatization that have arisen have formed a relatively independent and subjectively isolated category of disputes that are still being considered and resolved by arbitration courts. Their complexity and versatility are confirmed by law enforcement practice, the range of which is constantly expanding. The search for optimal legislative solutions that could guarantee the parity of interests of the state and business is on the agenda. It is necessary to take into account and critically evaluate the experience of legal regulation of privatization relations in the legal systems of foreign countries, showing the multi‑stage, turning point of privatization processes. The principle of legal certainty presupposes the establishment of clear conditions and procedures for the deprivation of certain and clearly named types of property, with a distinction between the legal regimes of deprivation, invalidity of transactions and the application of their consequences, expropriation. The article is devoted to certain problems of legal regulation of public relations related to the privatization of federal property. Examples of the fragmentation of legal norms in this area are considered, including due to the presence of a large number of exceptions. The article analyzes a number of legislative imperfections related to the privatization of property leased by small and medium‑sized businesses, as well as the alienation of public property by separate decisions of the Government of the Russian Federation. Suggestions are made about the need for a retrospective analysis and comprehensive changes in the privatization legislation.
Administrative discretion is usually compared with the discretion of the courts, and the difference between them is often determined only by formal criteria. In fact, administrative and judicial discretion represent the same type of legal structure, and public administration bodies and courts use the same type of legal tools that allow them to exercise their discretionary powers. The article examines the legal nature of administrative and judicial discretion, and draws some theoretical and practical conclusions about their interaction. The objectives of the study are to analyze the doctrinal sources in which administrative and judicial discretion is represented and their interaction is demonstrated; to identify the legal essence of these types of discretion; to investigate the interaction of administrative and judicial discretion by answering the question about the limits of judicial review of a discretionary administrative act. The research uses methods of general scientific knowledge and special methods, primarily the comparative legal method. This made it possible to analyze the features of the study of administrative and judicial restraint, identify problems, and suggest ways to solve them. In particular, the comparative legal analysis confirms the unified legal nature of the discretion of public administration bodies and courts, which allows us to talk about the interaction of legal doctrines in the field of substantive administrative law and judicial administrative process. As a result of the research, conclusions are drawn about the unity of the legal nature of administrative and judicial discretion, which is predetermined by the peculiarities of the formation of the theory of an administrative act and its relationship with the doctrine of the validity of a court decision. These views are based on the Roman principle formulated by Ulpian. The public administration and judges, using discretion, operate with similar legal tools, which requires the development of unified, clear formulas suitable for assessing the legality of discretionary acts. When reviewing discretionary administrative acts, the courts should, if necessary, examine their appropriateness. However, verification is permissible where the expediency of acts coincides with their legality; otherwise, expediency is not subject to judicial control.
