The reviewed monograph is devoted to the theoretical and legal puzzle — complex conflicts of law (coincidence of conflicts, competition of conflict of laws). The book contains a number of valuable ideas on the topic of research. In particular, the authors correctly distinguish between positivized conflict-of-laws rules and principles (maxims) developed by lawyers to overcome conflicts (conflict-of-laws rules of interpretation), which may be inconsistent with each other. This gives rise to complex conflicts. The authors successfully demonstrate this by the example of the complex fate of the lex posteriori derogat priori principle in the legal system of Armenia. The work provides a comparative legal study of the legal regulation of the resolution of conflicts of norms, including complex conflicts, in the post-Soviet States. The hierarchical system of conflict criteria proposed by the authors to overcome complex conflicts of law is very interesting. In addition, the monograph describes in detail the problems of "non-systemic conflicts" in law, which are understood as antinomies of principles and norms of law and inconsistency between the principles of law. At the same time, there are a number of controversial theses in the work, for example, on the priority of the humanistic substantive criterion of conflict resolution over traditional legal criteria (such as lex superior, lex specialis, lex posterior); on the need to allocate competence and industry criteria as separate criteria for overcoming conflicts; on the restrictive author’s interpretation of the scope of application of the lex specialis conflict principle. These controversial ideas are criticized in the review in a well-reasoned manner.