Introduction: this article continues the author's series of works examining the entire body of John Locke's writings to identify his criminal law paradigm and the factors that influenced its formation in specific historical contexts. Purpose: while previous studies have identified historical, biographical, and sociopolitical prerequisites, this review focuses on the ideological and religious aspects that, in their own way, influenced the thinker and shaped his views. Methods: the study employed general scientific methods such as description, analysis, synthesis as well as specific scientific methods: historical-legal, comparativelegal. Results: the paper has explored the legacy to which Locke drew. He did not write from a "blank slate," but acknowledged the contributions of his predecessors and colleagues, including J. Calvin, R. Bellarmine, F. Hunton, R. Parsons, J. Buchanan, J. Major, W. Ockham, and J. Buridan. Through polemics with the English philosopher Robert Filmer, the thinker formulated and published two treatises on government, in which he expounded his criminal-political views. For the Enlightenment thinker, Filmer was a “composite figure” since Locke contrasted himself not only with Filmer but also, through him, with all supporters of royalism – H. Fern, J. Heywood, A. Blackwood, J. Barclay, and others. Through identifying the full spectrum of ideas surrounding the thinker, the paper reconstructs a picture of the topic considered and assesses the originality of Locke's approaches to understanding crime and punishment. Conclusions: the theme of the relationship between subjects and rulers is not new – it was not discovered by Filmer and Locke. By the time they joined the discussion, a criminal-law element had already been incorporated into it. The vanguard position of this element was determined by the fact that supreme command was primarily realized through obedience, while disobedience was corrected through punishment as the key form of coercion. Robert Filmer and John Locke accepted this axiom and, in their treatises, continued to directly link authority with the right to punish.
Introduction: this article examines the question of whether the rule prohibiting reliance on witness testimony should be classified as a rule of procedural or substantive law (Item 3 of Article 162 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation). Purpose: to explore the potential of various approaches to determining the legal nature of the aforementioned rule, including approaches adopted within specific foreign legal systems, and to critically assess the relevant aspects of law enforcement. Methods: the study was conducted using predominantly special legal research methods. In particular, the historical-legal and legaldogmatic methods enabled a structured examination of the evolution and content of the legal phenomenon in question. The author also employed methods such as the interpretation of legal norms and the methodology of formal logic. Results: in early Soviet legislation, the possibility of relying on witness testimony was classified as referring to substantive law. Subsequently, in the USSR, the requirement for foreign economic transactions to be in writing acquired the character of directly applicable rules. Currently, this rule has a substantive-law character within cross-border relations. Separately, the author draws attention to the advisability of incorporation into Russian legislation of provisions stating that the application of a rule of foreign law cannot be restricted solely on the grounds that this rule is of a public-law nature, by analogy with Item 4 of Article 1194 of the Model Code of the CIS countries. Conclusions: Russian courts should apply foreign rules regarding the admissibility of witness testimony where Article 1209 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation so provides.
Introduction: the article analyzes the introduction of artificial intelligence (AI) into human society and the UAE's attempts to regulate its use through the creation of a national AI strategy, the development of AI ethics guidelines, and through various legislative initiatives, programs, and measures. Purpose: to provide a constitutional and legal assessment of the legal regulation of artificial intelligence in the UAE in the context of human rights protection. Methods: the research methodology is based on formal and dialectical logic that makes it possible to understand the relationship between the underlying humanistic ideas and ethical considerations as well as to draw practical conclusions concerning the researched area (including finding a balance between the problems of privacy and video surveillance, freedom of speech and AI-based monitoring) as well as concerning discrimination against employees and others (for example, women) and the effect of automation on their rights. The method of system analysis and reflection on the ideas presented in the researched articles, book chapters, etc., along with such operations as induction and deduction, is used in reviewing the provisions of national and international legislation in the researched area. The comparative legal method is used to compare approaches to balancing video surveillance and privacy using the examples of Australia, the United States, Russia, and the United Arab Emirates. Results: the reviewed scientific sources and regulations indicate that in the UAE, as in other countries, artificial intelligence is developing on the basis of the AI Strategy and other acts. The development takes place in an ecosystem that unites government, business, and science for the purpose of achieving ambitious goals while respecting ethical requirements. Conclusions: the study shows that it is impossible to abandon religious canons (for example, the use of Sharia as a source of law) when regulating artificial intelligence in the UAE.
Introduction: the liberal perception of freedom as a contradiction between its negative and positive aspects formed the basis for dividing human rights into generations. Personal and some political rights, on the one hand, and socio-economic rights, on the other hand, are not divided simply into generations, but into levels in terms of their importance for individual freedom. The constitutional legal framework for such classification is based on the opposition between the principles of the rule-of-law state and the social (welfare) state. Purpose: to identify patterns which could allow asserting the need to revise the constitutional legal concept of the generations of human rights in the context of the contemporary view of the relationship between the principles of the “rule-of-law state” and the “social state,” negative and positive freedom, and the constitutional theory of solidarity. Methods: the study is based on general scientific methods, including analysis, synthesis, comparison, description, induction, and deduction, as well as specific scientific methods, including historical legal, comparative legal, formal legal methods, and legal modeling. Results: the division of human rights into generations is based on the approach according to which the first and second generations correspond to negative and positive freedom, respectively. Other criteria for this classification have been seriously criticized in science and refuted by the practice of senior judicial authorities. Nevertheless, constitutional innovations introduced in 2020 essentially eliminate the contradictions between the rule-of-law state and the social state, while the constitutionally proclaimed solidarity ensures the unity of negative and positive freedoms and their interdependence. Conclusions: any human right is the constitutional legal expression of individual freedom, which always has a negative (passive) and positive (active) component. The division of human rights into generations does not correspond to the modern constitutional legal concepts of individual freedom and the system of human rights. Each of the human rights, including “first-generation rights,” is a projection of negative and positive freedom and corresponds to the category “dignified life.”
Introduction: the article studies the legal regulation of joint business activities by members of the same family, explores the legal possibilities for preserving and transferring a family business by inher-itance, including the transfer of digital assets, and analyzes the application of legal technologies (herein-after referred to as LegalTech) in drafting a joint will by spouses as a tool for minimizing the risks of docu-ment forgery and distortion of the testator's will. The presented comprehensive research is novel in that it explores specific aspects of legal institutions such as the joint will of spouses drafted with the use of Legal-Tech, the substitution of an heir, and the inheritance of digital resources in a family business. The purpose of this study is to identify current trends in judicial practice and to analyze the development of legislation in the field of family entrepreneurship and its inheritance planning as well as the application of LegalTech in the transfer of family businesses by inheritance as a family value. The methodological framework of the study is based on general scientific methods of cognition used in social sciences and the humanities, including in legal science. Among the most significant general logical methods employed by the authors are analysis, synthesis, induction, and deduction. A comprehensive and detailed investigation of the issues raised in the paper determined the application of the systematic approach to the study into the legal framework for family entrepreneurship, in particular, into the issues of the inheritance of family business and the use of LegalTech for this purpose. Of special and specific methods, the study applied formal legal and comparative legal methods. Results: the study has identified a number of imperfections in the modern Russian law that hinder the modernization and development of the institution of family entrepreneurship. The paper clearly shows that the inheritance of family business is becoming a particularly relevant issue in the current economic conditions, given the growing number of family businesses and the increasing com-plexity of the procedures for transferring management and assets from one generation to another. The paper analyzes the possibilities of applying LegalTech in the inheritance planning of family busi-nesses. The current rules for drawing up and subsequently amending a joint will of spouses are argued to violate the interests and rights of the surviving spouse. Conclusions: there is a need for a clear distinction at the legislative level between the rights and obligations of spouses as family members and as entrepre-neurs. The authors recommend that there should be introduced amendments concerning the obligation of spouses who jointly or individually conduct business activities to enter into a marriage contract in order to separate property used in business activities from personal property. The authors suggest that the institu-tion of substitute heirs should be made mandatory in order to preserve a business as a family tradition passed down from generation to generation within the same family. The authors also justify the need for establishing special rules for property turnover that could more reliably ensure the effective use of digital resources in joint entrepreneurial activities of spouses.
