The paper is devoted to the group of scientific specialties 5.1 «Law» (for law specialties) that form an integral part of the Nomenclature of Scientific Specialties, approved by order of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation No. 118 dated 24 February 2021. The authors of the paper were directly involved in the formation of this group of scientific specialties. The work was conducted in an environment of broad discussion within the legal academic community, taking into account the opinions of practitioners. The main goal was to enhance the potential and maximize the opportunities of legal science, which by that time had shown obvious signs of crisis. It seems to us that the conditions were created for a freer scientific search, since we deliberately had to abandon unnecessary detailing of the directions of scientific research. Since the approval of the new nomenclature, some time has passed, and it is already possible to draw some conclusions. Of course, there are and will be some problems. But for this there is a science to solve them.

The increase in the value of time and the acceleration of the pace of life of modern society contribute to the constant growth in demand for taxi services, despite the fact that meeting the need for mobility is possible in other ways, including by car sharing or purchasing a personal car. In the context of digitalization and popularization of platform solutions, including services for ordering passenger taxis, the demand for transportation by this means of transport is steadily increasing. The authors state that legal acts aimed at regulating public relations in the field of passenger taxi transportation do not ensure a balance of interests of participants in the relevant legal relations. They also do not contribute to improving the quality of services in this area. The paper concludes that the sphere of passenger taxi transportation objectively needs to form a self-regulatory environment where large taxi aggregators occupy key positions. At the same time, it is noted that the existing system of self-regulation in this area, represented by the existing SROs, is ineffective, which argues for a new approach to self-regulation of passenger taxi transportation. While maintaining the general legislative requirements stipulated by public legal regulation, primarily in the context of ensuring safety, the authors propose to provide participants in the transportation process with the opportunity to independently form a new regulatory environment, ensuring a balance of interests of carriers with passenger taxis, aggregators and consumers of the corresponding service. 

The paper examines the grounds and procedure for terminating the activities of legal entities that do not have enough property (assets) to satisfy the claims of creditors, i.e., when they are in a financial crisis. The author destinguishes insolvency and lack of property of legal entities, entailing different legal consequences upon termination of their activities. It is recognized that the termination of the activities of insolvent legal entities in the insolvency procedure depends on their bankruptcy as a prerequisite for the introduction of the procedure, their ability to be reorganized, and the possibility of financing the procedure by interested creditors. The author concludes that it is possible to terminate the activities of a legal entity during the insolvency procedure or beyond this procedure as part of a reorganization in the form of a merger that allows transferring the debt of the reorganized person to its successor. The author states that the liquidation of non-competitive legal entities can be carried out exclusively in the course of ordinary liquidation, regulated under the rules of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. The paper highlights the procedure for ordinary liquidation and the procedure for bankruptcy proceedings, the procedure for excluding an inactive legal entity from the register, the ground for the application of which is, among other things, the absence of property, the inability to impose liquidation costs on the founders (participants). The author concludes that the Federal Law dated 26 October 2002 No. 127-FZ «On Insolvency (Bankruptcy)» is contradictory in terms of regulating the grounds for terminating the proceedings and introducing bankruptcy proceedings for the absent debtor, as well as Art. 21.1 of the Federal Law dated 8 August 2001 No. 129-FZ «On State Registration of Legal Entities and Individual Entrepreneurs»; the author proposed to exclude Art. 230 of the Federal Law «On Insolvency (Bankruptcy)».

Technology development is one of the signs of today. More and more workers are involved in «nontraditional» forms of employment on Internet platforms, and both the work itself and the search for work are carried out using platforms and artificial intelligence. Today, online platforms form ecosystems that allow you to take into account the interests of both the employee, for example, the selection of work, and the employer, for example, to choose a high-quality employee and develop your own business, organize retraining of employees, etc. Experts from the International Labor Organization rightly note that the platform economy is one of the most significant changes caused by the digitalization of the labor sector. The authors note that platform employment, on the one hand, provides more employment opportunities, therefore, there is an opportunity for additional earnings. On the other hand, workers are not provided with labor, pension rights and guarantees, they are not protected. Employees of online platforms are often deprived of the right to collective bargaining, making collective agreements and contracts, the right to unite in a trade union.

The author draws scientifically grounded conclusions regarding directions of judicial practice development in the context of application of the norms that recently emerged in the Civil Code of the Russian Federation and related to the use of digital technologies by participants of economic turnover. The paper concludes in principle that the courts often apply the rules in question in a different context than the context that was meant by the law-maker. Practice in the cases under consideration cannot be considered as settled, which, among other things, implies the need to prepare scientifically based explanations at the level of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. One of the most difficult issues is the issue of the possibility of applying the rules of Art. 141.1 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, by analogy with the law, to regulate relations over digital assets that are not directly specified in the law. Speaking about the electronic method of concluding an agreement, it is worth concluding that Article 160 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation actually speaks of the admissibility of the procedure for proving the fact of concluding an agreement and its terms, and not of the subjective civil rights of participants in economic turnover to use electronic means of communication. There is a point of view that there is a refutable presumption that the party to the transaction concluded through electronic identification is the entity specified in the transaction documents.

Computer technologies are actively developing. Due to this fact, the main task of the state is to maintain a balance between computer technologies and the protection of human rights. In 2020–2023, the number of computer crimes increased by a third, and the amount of damage exceeded 210 billion rubles. Thus, it is necessary to introduce new methods for their prevention. Crimes provided for by Chapter 28 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation are mainly committed in urban areas; alone; the persons who committed them were not in a state of alcoholic, narcotic or other intoxication; had no unexpunged or outstanding convictions; committed a computer crime for the first time. New methods of preventing computer crime are hardly investigated by scientists and are rarely used in preventive activities, while advances in artificial intelligence offer a paradigm shift, allowing new methods to be developed and applied to prevent such crimes. At the same time, the current achievements of the use of artificial intelligence in the prevention of computer crimes should not be stopped, it is necessary to continue to develop new methods, since artificial intelligence is able to work in various conditions, for example, with incomplete criminological data, inaccurate information about the alleged place of the crime.

The investigation and consideration of a specific criminal case seem impossible without the use of scientific works containing a doctrinal interpretation of the applicable law, as well as an analysis and generalization of the practice of its application. Refusal to use or ignore the recommendations of experts in the field of criminal law science is fraught primarily with the erroneous application of substantive law or the adoption of decisions that do not take into account the legal positions of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. The result of such decisions by law enforcement officials and judges may be a violation of human rights and freedoms, which, in an era of growing challenges and new threats, have already been intensively and often forcibly restricted in many countries of the world, including Russia. Therefore, the task of practice is to work with science, taking into account its achievements and recommendations, to make decisions that will protect the rights and freedoms of citizens. The solution to this problem assumes that science itself should not be divorced from real life; it should explore problems and offer solutions that are relevant to law enforcement subjects.

The discussion about the social danger of crime is an important component of the criminal law discourse, which has significantly been updated in connection with the criticism of current criminalization practice. However, its content is sorely lacking in applied research aimed at translating high political science and sociological generalizations into the language of law. To this end, the issue of reflecting public danger in the body of a crime, an instrumental category related to determining the basis of criminal liability, should be a necessary addition to the discussion. The analysis shows that modern criminal law and the practice of its application do not strictly adhere to any one of the two concepts of composition presented in the doctrine: real or normative. This creates significant difficulties in the coordinated application of criminal and criminal procedure laws, as well as creates theoretical difficulties in interpreting the corpus delicti. Based on the results of a textual analysis of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, a study of the practice of constitutional interpretation of the norms of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, the current practice of courts of general jurisdiction and the results of scientific discussions, the paper describes the current state of the problem as to indication of the signs of public danger of crime in the law and identifies the prospects for its solution.

The formation of the EAEU common exchange space (CES) is an integral component of the common financial market and is carried out on the basis of the Action Plan approved by the EEC Board in 2020, as well as on the basis of the Concept of Creating a Common Financial Market adopted by the Supreme Eurasian Economic Council in 2019. Drafts of two international treaties, which will form the basis of the CES, have been developed and agreed with almost all the EAEU member States. The essence of these agreements is to provide national treatment within the EAEU to professional participants and securities registered in other member states. Based on a review of the practice of a number of European, African and Latin American integration associations, the authors have identified the main elements of the legal regulation of the CES that can be used in the EAEU. The harmonization of the legislation of the member States of integration associations is effective in cases where it is carried out on the basis of legal acts of integration bodies having direct application or on the basis of legal acts obliging the member States to amend national legislation. Such harmonization can also be carried out on the basis of model laws or recommendations of financial authorities of integration associations. The administrative cooperation of national securities market regulators is carried out via the creation of a permanent body that unites such regulators and ensures contacts not only at the level of heads of national departments, but also at a lower level. Taking into account the sanctions risks and geopolitical turbulence, a supranational body can currently be created with an emphasis on «soft» law-making.

The adoption of the Law on Artificial Intelligence in the EU and the inclusion in the work plan of the Chinese legislative bodies of the development of a corresponding unified law on AI shows that the world is moving from ethical codes and technology development strategies to the issue of comprehensive regulation of the use of AI. In the Russian literature, against the background of great attention to the EU acts, the regulation of AI in China receives insufficient attention. The analysis showed that the unique experience of segmental regulation in China and, to a certain extent, the experimental legal approach in Russia allows us to act as carefully as possible in creating a regulatory sandbox system, forming a rather narrowly differentiated regulation of AI systems. The Chinese approach to observing socialist morality and ethics in the application of AI in the spirit of «developing science and technology for the benefit» and «a human-centered approach» corresponds to the trends of Russian law towards the protection of traditional spiritual and moral values. The Chinese risk management scheme classifies risks not horizontally, but depending on those arising from the same product, which is more suitable for technologies such as generative AI. This can be taken into account when forming the Russian position on the content of legal regulation of the use of AI.

The paper examines the jurisdictional aspects of dispute resolution in the metaverse, a digital world whose key features include the use of immersive technologies (virtual reality); user representation through avatars; conducting transactions using blockchain; the existence of centralized and decentralized platforms; the availability of intangible assets and NFTs in commercial turnover. The author provides a classification of disputes that may arise in the metaverse, namely disputes between users and platform operators; disputes between users; disputes over intellectual property. In the first category, the author highlights legal conflicts related to virtual real estate, as well as disputes over the personal data of users of platforms whose operators cannot guarantee protection from hacker attacks. Regarding disputes between users, the author notes that many of them are related to the lack of any control in the metaverse over the provision of virtual services, the creation of digital assets and transactions. Turning to the question of applicable law and jurisdiction, the author points out that in most cases the relevant provisions are included in the user agreements of individual platforms and are not subject to change. The paper discusses three dispute resolution tools that arise in the metaverse: «traditional» — in state courts or in arbitration; «modified», where the rules of procedure are adapted to the specifics of virtual legal relations, and «decentralized» — in the framework of online dispute resolution, combining elements of blockchain, crowdsourcing and artificial intelligence.