Law of Digital Society: Actual Problems and the Ways of Development

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Open Access Open Access
Restricted Access Access granted
Restricted Access Subscription Access

Abstract

The article discusses the digitalization of law enforcement as the most important trend of post-Russian social development. The author believes that attempts to oppose the transition of postmodern society to digital society are scientifically insolvent for several reasons. First, according to the current consensus, post-contemporary (or post-industrial) society is a stage of sociocultural evolution, when advanced technologies, including information technology, begin to play a leading role, determining the further direction of the development of human civilization. Second, the cultural, social, political, and legal uncertainties of the Postmodern Era are not only not permitted but to some extent are exacerbated by the digitalization of society and law enforcement. Thus, according to the author, the rights of digital society develop tendencies, which, in general, are inherent and natural manifestations of postmodern civilization.

As shown in the work, the rights of digital society in the current stage of legal communication development are characterized by a generally greater (compared to preceding stages) accuracy of the iconic means, among which include digital media, as well as their further extraction from objects acting as referred signs. As a result, digital design of the law enforcement generates several problems that have not received adequate solutions.

The most important of those solutions include anonymization of the subjects of legal interactions (primarily states and legal entities, but also physical individuals), as well as the divorce from objects to which these relationships are addressed. These trends generate a crisis of confidence for communication participants, which is a key problem of post-hour law enforcement. In order to overcome such a crisis, the author offers the reconstruction of the rule of law based on human rights and freedoms that protect the fundamental identity and ensure the stability and coherence of legal reality.

About the authors

Nicolay V. Razuvaev

North-Western Institute of RANEPA under President Russian Federation

Author for correspondence.
Email: nrasuvaev@yandex.ru

doctor of law, extraordinary professor

Russian Federation, Saint Petersburg

References

  1. David R, Joffre-Spinosi K. Osnonye pravovye sistemy sovremennosti. Moscow: International Relationship, 1998. 400 p. (In Russ.).
  2. Zweigert K, Koetz H. Vvedenie v sravnitelnoe pravovedenie v sfere chastnogo prava. Moscow: International Relationship, 1998. 480 p. (In Russ.).
  3. Ennekzersur L, Kipp T, Wolf M. Curs germanskogo grajdanskogo prava. Vol. I. Part 1. Introduction. A common part. Moscow: Foreign Literature Publishing, 1949. 379 p. (In Russ.).
  4. Sukhanov EA. Tendezii razvitiya corporatinogo prava v protivostoyanii anglo-americanskogo i continental’nogo evropeyskogo podhodov. Law and State. 2015;3(68):87–93. (In Russ.).
  5. Merkt H, Göthel SR. US-amerikanisches Gesellschaftsrecht. 2. Aufl. Frankfurt-a. M.: Recht und Wirtschaft Verlag, 2006. 925 p.
  6. Gaetner MJ. Reverse Piercing the Corporate Veil: Should Corporation Owners Have It Both Ways? William & Mary Law Review. 1989;30(3):667–704.
  7. Bainbridge SM. Abolishing LLC Veil Piercing. University of Illinois Law Review. 2006;(1):77–106.
  8. Kraakman RN. The Anatomy of Corporative Law: A Comparative and Functional Approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. 282 p.
  9. Macey J, Mitts J. Finding Order in the Morass: The Three Real Justification for Piercing the Corporate Veil. Cornell Law Review. 2014;100(1):100–155.
  10. Ternovaya OA. Otvetstvennost’ yuridicheskih liz v korporativnon prave: problemy i perspekivy. Journal of foreign legislation and comparative law. 2017;(5):17–20. (In Russ.).
  11. Timofeev IA. Doktrina prokalyvaniya corporativnoy vuali v USA. Questions of Russian Justice. 2019;(5):225–252. (In Russ.).
  12. Chestnov IL. Pravovaya communikatsiya v kontekste postklassicheskoy epistemologii. News of higher educational institutions. Pravovedenie. 2014;5(316):31–41. (In Russ.).
  13. Saurin AA. Zifrovizatsiya kak factor transformatsii prava. Constitutional and municipal law. 2019;(8):26–31. (In Russ.).
  14. Kodjokar IP. Vliyanie nedostatkov na sudebnoe primenenie v epohu tsifrovizatsii prava. Legal science. 2019;(7):9–12. (In Russ.).
  15. Vaskova MG. Problemy stanoleniyai realizatsii elektronnoy demokratii v elektronnom gosudarstve. Russian legal journal. 2010;4(73):47–50. (In Russ.).
  16. Rawls J. Political Liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press, 1993. 435 p.
  17. Habermas J. Three Normative Models of Democracy. Democracy and Difference. Ed. S. Benhabib. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996. P. 21–31.
  18. Vasilevskaya LYu. Zifrovye prava kak novyj object grajdankih prav: problem juridicheskoy kvalifikatsii. Household and law. 2019;5(508):3–14. (In Russ.).
  19. Abramova EN, Broginets AYu. K voprosu o ponyatiyah prava sobstvennosti i imyshestva v zifrovuyu epohu. Household and law. 2020;6(521):12–21. (In Russ.).
  20. Nietzsche F. Veselaya nauka. Polnoe sobranie sochinenij. In 13 vols. Moscow: Publishing House «Cultural Revolution», 2014. V. 3. 640 p. (In Russ.).
  21. Foucault M. Slova i veshi. Arheologiya gumanitarnogo znaniya. Saint-Petersburg: A-CAD, 1994. 407 p. (In Russ.).
  22. Bell D. Prihod post-industrial’nogo obshestva. Opyt sozial’nogo prognozirovaniya. Ed. 2nd, copy. and add. Moscow: Academia, 2004. 944 p. (In Russ.).
  23. Bourdieu P. Raison pratiques. Sur la théorie de l’action. Paris: Seuil, 1994. 245 p.
  24. Liotar ZhF. Situatsiya postmoderna. Moscow; Saint-Petersburg: Institute of Experimental Sociology; Aleteia, 1998. 160 p. (In Russ.).
  25. Agamben J. Homo sacer. Chrezvychaynoe pologenie. Moscow: «Europe», 2011. 148 p. (In Russ.).
  26. Heysinga J. Homo ludens. Stat’i po istorii kul’tury. Moscow: Progress — Tradition, 1997. 416 p. (In Russ.).
  27. Humboldt V. O razlichii stroeniya chelovecheskih yazykov i ego vliyanii na duhovnoe razvitie chelovechestva. Selected works on linguistics. Moscow: Progress, 1984. P. 37–300. (In Russ.).
  28. Ivanov Vyach.Vs. Lingvistika i gumanitarnye problem semiotiki. Izvestiya AN SSSR. Ser. literatury i yazyka. 1968. T. XXVII. Vol. 3. P. 236–245. (In Russ.).
  29. Bogdanova EV. O nekotoryh aspektah izucheniya termina idiolect v otechestvennoy i zarubegnoy lingvistike. Bulletin LSU. A.S. Pushkin. 2009. T. 1. No. 4. P. 100–108. (In Russ.).
  30. Kistyakovsky BA. Sotsial’nye nauki i parvo. Ocherki po metodologii sotsial’nyh nauk i obshey teorii prava]. Moscow, 1916. 718 p. (In Russ.).
  31. Petrazhitsky LI. Teoriya prava i gosudarstva v svyazi s teoriey nravstvennosti. V. 1–2. Ed. 2nd, copy. and add. Saint-Petersburg: Type of Partnership “Ekateringof Printing”, 1910. 763 p. (In Russ.).
  32. Stovba AV. Temporal,naya ontologiya prava. Saint-Petersburg: Aleph Press, 2017. 355 p. (In Russ.).
  33. Smelzer N. Sotsiologiya. Moscow: Phoenix, 1994. 688 p. (In Russ.).
  34. Gavrilova MS, Burina EA. Telesnost’ v epohu postmoderna. Aktual’nye problemy razvitiya lichnosti v sovremennom obshchestve Ed. DYa. Gribanova. Pskov: PskovSU, 2020. P. 10–16. (In Russ.).
  35. Izvekov AI. Problema lichnosti postmoderna: krizis kul’turnoy identifikazii. Saint-Petersburg: Publishing House of St. Petersburg State University, 2008. 246 p. (In Russ.).
  36. Kantorowicz E. The King’s Two Bodies: A Study in Mediaeval Political Theology. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1957. 584 p.
  37. Anderson P. Rodoslovnaya absolutistskogo gosudarstva. Moscow: Publishing House «The Territory of the Future», 2010. 507 p. (In Russ.).
  38. Bourdieu P. O gosudarstve: Kurs lektsiy v Kollege de Frans (1989–1992). Moscow: Publishing House «Delo» of RANEPA, 2017. 720 p. (In Russ.).
  39. Weber M. Hozyaistvo i oibshestvo: ocherki ponimayushej sotsiologii. In 4 v. V. 1. Sociology. Moscow: Publishing House of High School of Economics, 2016. 448 p. (In Russ.).
  40. Shutz A. Izbrannoe: mir, svetyashijsya smyslom. Moscow: Rossman, 2004. 1056 p. (In Russ.).
  41. Appadurai A. Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimension of Globalization. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1996. 244 p.
  42. Arkhipov VV. Deystvie pravovyh norm v zyfrovom mediaprotranstve i semanticheskie predely prava. Laws. 2019;63(1):8–27. (In Russ.).
  43. Kozlova NV. Ponyatie i such’nost’ yuridicheskogo litsa: ocherk teorii i istorii. Moscow: Statute, 2003. 318 p. (In Russ.).
  44. Andreev VK. Tendenzii razvitiya ponyatija juridicheskogo litsa. Problemy vzyskaniya ubytkov v rossijskom pravoporyadke. Moscow: MAEP Publishing, 2016. P. 53–63. (In Russ.).
  45. Gai. Instituzii. Moscow: Lawyer, 1997. 368 p. (In Russ.).
  46. Brinz A. Lehrbuch der Pandekten. Bd. I. Erlangen: A. Deihert Verlag, 1879. 375 p.
  47. Landkoff SN. Subjekty prav (litsa). Nauchnyi kommentariy k Gragdanskomu kodeksu. V. III. Moscow: NCJ RSFSR Publishing, 1928. 63 p. (In Russ.).
  48. Sukhanov EA. Pravovye osnovy predprinimatel’stva. Moscow: Volkers Clever, 2008. 588 p. (In Russ.).
  49. Anderson B. Voobragaemye soobshetva. Razmyshlenija ob istokah i rasprostranenii natsionalizma. Moscow: Kanon-Press, Kuchkov Field, 2001. 288 p. (In Russ.).
  50. Gryasin IN. Pravo est’ mif. News of higher educational institutions. Jurisprudence. 2011;5(298):72–95. (In Russ.).
  51. Postklassicheskaya ontologiya prava. Ed. IL Chestnov. Saint Petersburg: Aleteia, 2016. 688 p. (In Russ.).

Copyright (c) 2021 Razuvaev N.V.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies