The Constitution of Russia obliges the state to create conditions that facilitate scientific and technological breakthroughs and ensure technological sovereignty at a level sufficient to confidently address national development challenges while guaranteeing the security of the state and society. The methodology and substantive parameters of sectoral regimes for scientific and technological development — including the regime for biological (bioresource) collections, which is critical for advancing bio- and genetic technologies and fostering a nature-like technological paradigm — must be based on the constitutional principles enshrined in the Constitution of the Russian Federation. The paper elucidates the constitutional and legal regime characteristics of biological (bioresource) collections that are essential for the effective implementation of the recently adopted federal framework law on such collections. These characteristics are proposed to be defined through the following key categories: recognition of biological (bioresource) collections as a national asset; a priority focus on preserving biodiversity and ensuring national (primarily natural, but not limited to) identity; sustainable completeness (ongoing replenishment), security, stability, regulated accessibility, and relevance.

The paper defines the place of judicial proceedings in cases of administrative offenses in courts of general jurisdiction (administrative offense proceedings in courts of general jurisdiction, or AOP in CGJ) within the administrative process system, based on the function of these proceedings. The author concludes that, contrary to the provisions of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation (CAO RF), this area, influenced by constitutional legislation, has developed distinctions from the function of non-judicial administrative jurisdiction. The purpose of judicial proceedings extends beyond merely combating offenses and achieving the objectives of administrative liability. It must ensure a fair resolution of public law disputes. AOP in CGJ serves the function of independent external review of the managerial initiatives of public administration, as expressed in the acts of the prosecuting authority or a non-judicial body of administrative jurisdiction, with respect to their compliance with the law in light of general legal principles and values. Consequently, AOP in CGJ is not functionally integrated with non-judicial proceedings as a homogeneous procedural activity and does not represent a «continuation» of nonjudicial administrative jurisdiction. However, AOP in CGJ has become the subject of contradictory legal regulation, as its constitutional law function is not congruent with the CAO RF. This disparity poses challenges in judicial practice. For these reasons, the author suggests, within the framework of the third codification, to extract not the entire procedural section from the CAO RF, but rather the provisions concerning AOP in CGJ, isolating them into a separate law titled «On Judicial Administrative Jurisdiction».

In the modern world, the use of expert competencies to justify management decisions is widely spread. A significant amount of expert activity takes place in the field of public administration, where it has its legal framework. However, there is currently no comprehensive law in the Russian Federation that defines the foundations for organizing expert activity in the field of public administration. To substantiate the significance of this issue and demonstrate the existing approaches in the scientific literature, the paper provides a systematic analysis of the understanding of expert activity by scholars from various disciplines and summarizes the views of legal scholars on the problem of the lack of a unified scientific and legal basis for regulating the relationshipsarising from the implementation of expert activity in public administration. Special attention is given to the terminological foundation of this type of expert activity to determine its place and role in the public administration system. The author offers a novel approach to formulating the definition of «expert activity in the field of public administration». The application of one of the categorical methods of systematic analysis has allowed for the development of a scientifically grounded construct. Through the formal-logical method of defining the concept, the author elucidates the necessary and sufficient conditions for the existence of the legal category «expert activity in the field of public administration». The outcome obtained may serve as a basis for improving the conceptual framework of legislation on expert activity in the field of public administration.

One of the key directions in the development of the theory of constitutional judicial argumentation is the development of tools that can help to assess the quality of constitutional judicial argumentation and its effectiveness. Since argumentation serves a functional role in relation to the activities it supports, it is crucial to consider the purpose and features of constitutional norm control in this process. The paper examines the factors that necessitate the identification of specific criteria for evaluating constitutional judicial argumentation. Using the premise that argumentation should strengthen constitutional normativity, the author formulates methodological requirements for the process of forming constitutional discourse and identifies the following criteria for evaluating constitutional judicial argumentation: constitutional justification of assertions regarding the constitutionally appropriate; accuracy in diagnosing the current legal regulation; adequacy in describing and understanding the social context; acceptability of arguments for constitutional discourse; and completeness (exhaustiveness) of the argumentation. The study demonstrates that evaluation criteria for argumentation that take into account the specifics of constitutional norm control significantly reduce the risk of argumentative errors, as well as allowfor the identification of manipulations and incorrect argumentation, giving an opportunity to respond to them. This is particularly important given that in constitutional discourse, each thesis and the arguments presented in its support influence the definition of the boundaries of what is constitutionally appropriate, permissible, and prohibited.

Based on an analysis of German civil law, the author concludes that the concept of damages in Germany generally aligns with the domestic framework established by the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. A distinctive feature of the German model for remedying the adverse consequences of civil wrongdoing is its universal mechanism for compensation, which applies both to breaches of obligations and to tortious harm. German jurisprudence attaches particular importance to compensation for losses, but not as a mere procedural matter, but as a means of satisfying the interests of the affected counterparty. In German law, the basis for compensation is a violation of an obligation rather than a subjective civil right, as stipulated in Article 15 of the Russian Civil Code. In cases of contractual breach, German civil law focuses not so much on the violation of a party’s subjective right as on the legal interests arising from their entry into the contractual relationship. The study finds that in Germany, the nature of the protected interest determines the type of compensable damages, their extent, and the method of calculation. As established by the author, German civil law adheres to the principle of priority of specific performance, meaning that compensation for damages does not eliminate the obligation to fulfill the breached contract. This is explained by the fact that the creditor, when receiving compensation for losses, does not receive the positive economic effect that led to the conclusion of the contract.

Personal trusts are legal entities of a special kind, combining the features of unitary and corporate, commercial and non-commercial legal entities, property and contractual legal relations. The legislative framework governing the internal structure of a personal trust allows for the creation of an entity with limited autonomy of will, functioning as an extension of the founder’s own personality-‑a legal alter ego. A personal trust, as a nominal owner subordinate to the control and economic interest of the founder, requires separate legal classification based on the criteria used in trust jurisdictions for sham and illusory trusts. The cumulative criteria for the illusory nature of a personal trust include the absence of a purpose distinct from that of a corporate entity; the establishment of the trust for a fixed term; the lack of beneficiaries; full managerial control of the founder, the lack of their independence; and the absence of a factual separation between the founder’s and the foundation’s assets (commingling). The economic and legal assessment of the expediency of using the mechanism of mutua subsidiary responsibility of the foundation and its founder is given. To protect the interests of the founder’s creditors — whose claims arose before the foundation’s establishment — it is proposed to impose solidary liability on the trust instead of subsidiary liability. Subsidiary liability of the founder for the obligations of the trust has no economic and legal prerequisites, and therefore it should be abandoned.

While recent amendments to criminal legislation in 2022 have strengthened the protection of minors’ rights and lawful interests, however, they have failed to address the differentiation of liability for involving minors in criminal or antisocial activities based on the characteristics of the perpetrator. Meanwhile, the issue remains relevant, as the current list of liable parties under Articles150–151 of the Russian Criminal Code requires expansion. The author’s argument is based on an assessment of the social justification of the criminal law in this part as well as research in family law concerning the concept of de facto upbringing. Studies in this field have established a substantive analogy between the relationships arising from de facto upbringing involving various family members of different degrees of kinship or affinity and parent-child relationships involving biological or adoptive parents, particularly in terms of upbringing. To evaluate the social justification of these criminal prohibitions as a mandatory requirement for criminal law, the author applies the theory of social statuses and roles, which helps identify the behavioral expectations associated with different family members’ statuses, including criminogenic behaviors such as exerting negative influence on minors within de facto upbringing arrangements.

The paper provides a detailed analysis of the problem of defining the subject matter of the science of the history of state and law. It examines the relationship between the concepts of «subject of science» and «object of science», discusses various perspectives on the subject matter of historical legal science, and explores the nature of the history of state and law (whether it is primarily legal, historical, or a combination of both). The study addresses the temporal, spatial, and dogmatic boundaries of the subject matter of historical legal science, as well as its relationship with branch legal sciences, the theory of state and law, and the history of political and legal doctrines. The paper analyzes the structure of the science of the history of state and law and the structure of its subject matter, touching upon the relationship between the concepts of «history of law» and «dogmatics of law». It examines the empirical material of this discipline, including the historical (domestic and foreign) origins of the specialization of law, the development of legal theory, and the role of law among other social regulators in different historical epochs. The study also critiques the inadequacy of a purely positivist approach to understanding law for an objective study of the history of state and law and discusses the scholarly classification of the history of international law. The author presents their own perspective on these issues and their possible solutions. The work identifies and analyzes the «real» and «ideal» levels of historical legal research, their content, and significance.

The history of state and law serves as a fundamental discipline for shaping legal consciousness and therefore requires continuous updating alongside the evolution of legal scholarship. This need has been addressed in the publication of D.Yu. Poldnikov’s comprehensive two-volume textbook «Comparative History of Foreign Law» (Moscow: Norma, 2024). The work stands out for its original conceptual framework, grounded in civilizational theory and comparative analysis of the world’s legal traditions in their uniqueness, equivalence and diversity. The author employs a unified analytical model of legal tradition (historical context and bearers of tradition, foundations of tradition, characteristic institutions), covering the period from antiquity to modernity while drawing upon rich legal and historical and cultural materials, including examples from literature and art. The textbook’s undeniable merits include its scholarly depth, innovative educational methodology (featuring visual materials and chronological tables), and accessible writing style. However, certain debatable choices include the exclusion of Russian and some other legal traditions from consideration, as well as the predominance of «law in books» analysis over «law in action». Overall, the reviewed textbook makes a significant contribution to developing comparative-historical thinking and interdisciplinary legal research.