The paper substantiates the conclusion that the main direction for the modernization of civil law now is reflected in its socialization, which leads to the incorporation of public interests into the legislation to a greater extent than it is at present. In this regard, it is necessary to solve the problem of socialization of private property, which, in turn, will allow enshrining the provision concerning the social purpose of entrepreneurial activities in the legislation.

Civil law socialization will also make it necessary to change approaches to defining the principles of civil law. Paragraph 1 of Art. 1 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation provides for a list of foundations (principles) of civil law, but this list does not have any unifying ground that would allow us to assert the existence of a system of civil law principles, and it does not bear an expressed social burden. The paper substantiates the conclusion that the principle of the social state should be considered as a unifying principle promoting the principle of solidarity that, in turn, gives rise to the principles of good faith and justice.

The paper also draws attention to the digitalization of public life, which has given rise to new problems. One of such problems includes compensation for harm caused to citizens and legal entities by devices, machines, etc. with artificial intelligence constituting not increased, but special danger for others, that should also include special responsibility. The special danger herein is preconditioned by the use of artificial intelligence, the possibility of its intended actions, for example, due to failures in the program or unauthorized change of the program from the outside. To this end, similar to the provision of Art. 1079 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, strict (no-fault) liability must be imposed on the persons concerned. The liability should not be individual, that is, the liability of an entity exploiting a device under consideration, but solidary one applied to all persons taking part in the work on artificial intelligence.

The paper is devoted to the problem of using the work of another person in the intellectual field, primarily in literary activity. The involvement of ghostwriters in writing literary works has created a legal phenomenon when the subject matter of contractual relations represents the inalienable non-property right, namely: the right of authorship the transfer of which is not possible in many jurisdictions, and in others, despite the absence of an explicit prohibition, there is no legal regulation of such alienation. However, the existence of ghostwriters cannot be assessed as a unique phenomenon of modernity. In our time, they have only gained new forms and a special place not only in the literary, but also in the scientific field. In this regard, the establishment of legal mechanisms for attracting and regulating ghostwriters is more effective than the establishment of a system of prohibitions.

In the conditions of changing publishing businesses and increasing ways and forms of proof, questions about the authenticity of a person's authorship began to arise increasingly, especially in the field of scientific and scholarly literature, where the work of "new" researchers is often used. The issue of assignment of the right of authorship (copyright) — a fundamental property right — is treated differently in different legal systems. The continental system of law relies on impossibility of transferring copyright from one entity to another as part of a civil law transaction. Therefore, instances of attribution of authorship are assessed in the context of criminal or administrative law. It forms the legal essence of the division of rights of authorship into property and nonproperty ones: any commercial rights to intellectual property can be ceded except the authorship.

Threats to consumer and social security in the conditions of imbalance of interests of parties under consumer loan contracts result in the necessity to adjust the current legislation. The significant increase in litigation between borrowers and lenders confirms the need to find new approaches to the regulation of the area in question. The aim of the research is to analyze the most common forms of unfair behavior of credit and microfinance organizations in the light of the implementation of fundamental principles of civil law. The main attention is paid to the determination of essential criteria of the principle of integrity. The paper provides for the comparison between different approaches to understanding its content in fundamental jurisprudence, the possibility of their implementation in law enforcement.

The paper uses methods of legal model analysis, formal-legal and system-structural methods. Comparative analysis of the norms of current Russian and foreign legislation, as well as the method of law enforcement monitoring. It allows us to offer tools to restore the balance between the interests in execution of consumer loan contracts.

According to the results of the study, the author compiles a list of characteristics of the principle of integrity with due regard to such factors as lack of information about a difficult financial situation of the borrower or other circumstances preventing the conclusion of a contract, the prohibition of the inclusion of asymmetric and arbitrary terms of the contract, mandatory consideration of public interest, etc. The listed elements of the criteria will contribute to the balance of interests of the parties in the antinomy of the principles of integrity and freedom of contract. The author makes the conclusion that it is expedient to include algorithms of implementation of fundamental principles of regulation in special laws, which will contribute to harmonization of interests of participants of civil legal relations in the field of consumer lending.

The paper provides for the analysis of prototypes of nuptial agreements widely used in ancient Rome in the form of three agreements concluded by the families of the newlyweds or between the bride and groom: an engagement and marriage celebration agreement, an agreement concerning the dowry provided by the bride's family and a wedding gift granted by the husband. The three agreements collectively covered the most important aspects of the property relations between the future spouses, established their authority and powers concerning their belongings both in marriage and in the event of its termination. Much attention is paid to the analysis of pre-revolutionary domestic legislation that consistently carried out the principle of separation of marriage property, whereas the dowry and agreements regarding its use were largely determined by customs established in a separate social stratum. The law-maker did not provide for the right of spouses to determine their property rights in the agreement. However, such agreements were not prohibited. There was almost no need for regulation through nuptial agreements, because it could entail restrictions of ownership of one of the spouses in the property owned by the spouse. The author examines provisions of the Soviet legislation that excluded the possibility of determination by spouses of their property rights through nuptial agreements, which often led to negative consequences. The paper enumerates the factors that have led to the necessity to consolidate legal regulation of relationships under consideration using nuptial agreements. The paper describes the advantages of the nuptial agreement and the circumstances leading to the expansion of the scope of its application. Also, the paper analyzes amendments to the Family Code of the Russian Federation and provides proposals to consolidate the right to regulate property relations arising between citizens engaged in informal family unions using nuptial agreements.

The paper is devoted to the topical issues related to the implementation of the right of a proto-human (nasciturus, an unborn child) to be born and to the assumptions about the legitimate interests of general and special types consolidated in the legislation of a number of countries (constitutional law, civil law, criminal law). The Russian law protects such interests, at least to some extent, in indirect and direct forms. In the indirect form such interests are protected through the benefits and allowances for pregnant women provided under medical, labor, social security, and family legislation. Motherhood is encouraged through the instruments of financial, tax, housing law, and it is given special protection by criminal and penal legislation. In the direct form interests under consideration are protected through the establishment of opportunities under civil law for inheritance and compensation for the loss of a breadwinner. The author explains the difference between approaches to the problem of a legal status and legal capacity of the nisciturus under foreign and Russian laws. The paper provides for the reflections concerning the right to natural biological origin discussed in the doctrine and adjustment of its elements. Also, the paper examines special rights that, due to their purpose and content, are opposed to the right to be born, namely: the right to terminate pregnancy, the right to sterilization. The author emphasizes that not only the right to be born is limited by the lawmaker for objective and subjective reasons. Separate from this complex of interactions, although in connection with the act of the birth, the author analyzes the circumstances caused by the problem of the birth of a dead child. The author elucidates unsettled regulatory and enforcement decisions associated with the protection of the interests of the parents of such a child. The author focuses on inadmissibility of formal legal application of relevant legislation, on the need for its broad interpretation in favor of humanitarian, fair, ethically balanced enforcement of the right of the individual to private and family life.

The author makes an attempt to determine tendencies for the development of the legal regulation of property relations between spouses based on the approved amendments and expected changes in the legal regulation, established jurisprudence and with due regard to the goals of family law regulation and models of contractual regulation of property relations between spouses enshrined in positive law. The paper considers in detail the following trends: enforcement and development of provisions concerning contractual regulation of property relations between spouses and their common property, law enforcement and development provisions concerning contractual regulation of the property relations between spouses for the provision of mutual maintenance.

The author comes to the following conclusions. Firstly, the family law regulation of contractual relations concerning the common property of spouses and law enforcement as a whole comply with the goals of the family law regulation. Secondly, civil law regulation and law enforcement in terms of contractual property relations between spouses strengthen the "pro-creditor" approach and limit contractual freedom of spouses. Thirdly, the prospects for regulating the legal and contractual regime (with the stronger "pro-creditor" approach) may result in changes in the systemic interpretation and law enforcement of provisions concerning the contractual regulation of spousal property and they can contradict the goals of family law. Fourthly, the regulation of contractual relations between spouses concerning maintenance shows sufficient stability and general conformity with the goals of family law regulation, but does not exclude the search for options to expand its limits through the rules of the Family Code of the Russian Federation, while the practice of applying these provisions indicates a "pro-creditor" approach and non-compliance with the goals of family law regulation.

When the case is brought before the international criminal court (a tribunal), a court of universal international jurisdiction, the defendant is granted the right to defense. One of its components includes safeguarding of the right to participate in the criminal proceedings initiated against him. In practice, it may be difficult to ensure this safeguard. Thus, even if the accused is properly informed of the case initiated against him, he may ignore the proceedings or refuse to participate in the trial. There may be difficulties in enforcing a restraining measure related to isolation from the society, including cases when the accused is located in a State different from the State of the forum. Even during the proceedings, the accused can be removed from the courtroom for the violation of order, contempt of the court or insulting a participant in the proceedings. Judicial proceedings in the absence of an accused person in international and national law are not treated separately as a special and separate form of proceedings, but rather as a routine procedure with a number of exceptions. The refusal to allocate as an independent proceeding the trial in the absence of the defendant is based on the narrowness of foundations for its use and practice that does not accept the absence of the defendant in criminal proceedings. In these cases, the problem of a fair trial arises in the absence of the person being prosecuted but with respect to his or her rights.

The current version of part 2 of article 24 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, which appeared because of changes made to the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation in 1998, is rightly criticized for uncertainty. In the literature, various proposals are made to change the rules for determining the forms of guilt. The existing regulation needs adjusting, since it does not ensure the achievement of the initial goal of improving law enforcement, which was originally intended in part 2 of article 24, and does not comply with the principles of equality and legal certainty. The need to ensure compliance with these principles and achieve the original goal of the rule under consideration requires rejecting proposals to "legalize" the discretion of the law enforcement officer, the possibility of which arose due to the uncertainty of the current version of part 2 of article 24. Due to this uncertainty, compliance with the provisions of the Special part will not solve the existing problems. Unifying negligent crimes into a separate chapter, dividing the crimes in the existing chapters by paragraphs, depending on the form of guilt, is too difficult a way if we are talking about improving the current Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Clear automatic consolidation of the possibility of both forms of guilt does not provide the required differentiation of punishment.

Restoring the original version of part 2 of article 24 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is an acceptable and easiest way, but there is a reason to believe that the rule changed in this way will fail to ensure that the law enforcement officer follows it. The inclusion of a form of guilt clause in the description of each body of a crime might be an effective means of limiting the discretion of the law enforcement officer, but this method is difficult to implement. It combines the features of these two methods of fixing the rule in the form of a list of crimes involving a particular form of guilt, by analogy with how the age at which criminal responsibility begins is now established.

In the paper, the authors attempt to analyze the legislative classification of participants in criminal proceedings. The work contains an analysis of the ratio between the concepts of "participant" and "subject" of criminal procedural relations. Having studied the approaches available in the theory of criminal procedure that existed during the period of the Soviet criminal procedure legislation and in the modern period, the authors conclude that it is unacceptable to identify the concepts of "participant" and "subject" of the criminal proceedings. A participant in a criminal proceeding is a person who has certain characteristics, including the existence of rights, duties and responsibilities, as set out in the relevant criminal procedure norm or group of norms.

Having applied the method of comparative legal analysis of domestic and foreign criminal procedure legislation, procedural theoretical constructions of the Soviet and modern period, the authors conclude that the legislator made an error in the presented classification and system of participants in the criminal procedure. In addition to the main criminal procedure functions, the authors focus on the existence of other functions that are no less important for the emergence and development of criminal procedure relations. It is stated that there is a need to change the approach to the legislative classification of participants in criminal proceedings, taking as a basis the existing experience of individual foreign countries. The authors propose to change the structure of section II of the Criminal Procedural Code of the Russian Federation, which makes it possible to avoid the currently existing procedural conflict related to the attribution of the investigator and the inquirer to the prosecution. It may also help to eliminate any doubts about the attribution of persons assisting in the administration of justice to the participants in the proceedings.

The paper considers one of the key stages of court work in criminal proceedings, namely the initial preparation stage for a court session in a criminal trial and scheduling of the said session while choosing the procedure rules (general or special, provided for in Chapter 40 of the Code of Criminal Procedure). The paper analyzes the latest changes in legislation regulating these issues, ambiguities and uncertainties that give rise to judicial errors made at this stage, including those related to the choice (determination) of the procedure for judicial proceedings, their impact on the future fate of the criminal case and the final court decision (sentence).

Studying the cases of specific judicial precedents (including the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation), the author emphasizes the reasons these errors can be caused by. Examples of the actions of the parties (both the prosecution and the defense) that significantly affect this stage and even determine it, as well as the final court document, including in terms of criminal punishment, are given. The author shows that, at the will of only the prosecution (the state prosecutor and (or) the victim), the defendant (convicted), who conscientiously contributes to justice and fully admits his guilt at all stages of the investigation and judicial consideration of the criminal case, is deprived of the benefits provided to him by law (privileges in the appointment of criminal punishment), which even the judge (court) considering the criminal case cannot influence. The difficulties of the court (judge) in deciding on the choice of the procedure for trial in a criminal case and the legislative uncertainty in the issues under consideration are revealed. Specific ways of solving the problems under consideration of scheduling a court session in a criminal trial are proposed.

A characteristic feature of modern drug trafficking is its contactless sale via the Internet. Such criminal activity is organized and is carried out at the regional, interregional or interstate level. The authors of the paper analyze the distribution of roles between the participants of criminal groups, which allows them to act clearly and smoothly and avoid criminal prosecution. The participants of the drug market are identified as "organizers", "regional managers", "producers", "suppliers", "operators", "financial directors", "curators", "storekeepers", "advertisers", "hackers", "couriers", "kladmen". The conducted research allow us to conclude that the structure of organized criminal groups in the regions is not so extensive and due to the combination of the functions of individual participants in criminal groups is often reduced to 3-4 role components. These include: "organizer" — a person who has established the supply of narcotic drugs to the region, who has created an Internet resource for their sale and supports the activity and vital activity of such a resource; "operator" — an intermediary who supports the interaction of drug users and pawnbrokers through the Internet; "kladmen"who directly create dead drops ("zakladki") intended for drug users. The paper considers the functions that are assigned to each of the participants of such criminal groups.

Separately, the authors focus on the measures taken by members of criminal groups to conceal criminal activities: the use of encrypted messengers for communication, Internet websites specializing in drug trafficking; the use of electronic money and cryptocurrencies; the trivial involvement of front persons to register financial and banking transactions.

In Serbia, disputes have been going on for years (which are also the subject of many congresses) about the regulation of the most severe types of punishment. The criminal policy of the country shows a tendency to toughen penalties. By attracting a lot of media attention and putting pressure on state institutions concerning certain tragic events caused by the murder and rape of minors, including children, some members of the public hysterically demand that the state respond with the strictest penalties, even if they no longer exist (the death penalty).

In December 1, 2019 The Law on Amendments and Additions to the Criminal Code, which, among other things, prescribes life imprisonment, entered into force. It is assumed that the fact that there is a life sentence for particularly serious crimes, such as murder or crimes against sexual freedom in particularly serious forms, may make criminals think twice before committing them. In addition, proponents of the introduction of such a punishment argue that the fear of life imprisonment can act as a corrective and preventive measure, thereby reducing the proportion of these criminal offenses.

The paper provides a critical analysis of this justification for the return of life imprisonment to the criminal law. The arguments against this include: 1) statistics confirm that life imprisonment for possible criminals who have committed particularly serious criminal offenses is not a factor of prevention; 2) general prevention is undermined; 3) the previously existing maximum prison term was not an obstacle, that is, it was not a factor of prevention; 3) innovations would not change the decisions of criminals, although they were in their sound mind at the time of committing criminal offenses, realizing the illegality of these actions; 4) it becomes impossible to carry out the correction and re-socialization of the sentenced person, who knows that he will remain closed outside the social and family environment for the rest of his life; 5) it is also necessary to keep in mind that it is the state that financially maintains such criminals.

The existence of once common foundations of the procedural legislation of the CIS and neighboring countries with its subsequent independent development is of interest from the point of view of the analysis of individual procedural institutions. The paper examines the institution of abuse of procedural rights in relation to the category of corporate disputes.

The procedural legislation of the Soviet period did not fix the concept of abuse of procedural law and did not contain its clear criteria for appropriate classification of certain negative cases in the procedural behavior of a participant in a trial in order to suppress such facts. It is with this "legacy" that the countries of the post-Soviet space approached the problem of abuse of procedural rights in the framework of the formation of their own procedural legislation. Attempts to solve this problem often had cardinal differences.

As the analysis of the studied sources shows, the category of "good faith and abuse of procedural rights", in contrast to the Russian procedural legislation, is disclosed in all the examples exclusively within the general part of the procedural laws, which leaves a wide margin of discretion for the law enforcement officer when considering a particular category of disputes. Based on the analysis of the available procedural sources, two constructions of the "good faith — abuse" model were identified. The first one, the "sanctions" model of "good faith-abuse" is presented in most of the procedural sources of the CIS and neighboring countries. The second, "compensatory" model, although singled out separately in the procedural laws, does not disclose the mechanism of compensation for losses by a person who has abused his procedural rights, and therefore seems less effective in terms of protecting the victim from the unfair behavior of his procedural opponent.