No 5 (2025)

This research examines administrative and informational legal relationships arising in the creation and operation of a unified incident register for recording harm-causing events as a missing component of the digital ecosystem for regulatory inspection in the Russian Federation. The article analyzes a fundamental contradiction in the current stage of regulatory inspection reform: despite the normative establishment of a risk-based approach, the legislature has not supported this abstract principle with an instrument for objective and standardized recording of harm-causing incidents. The prevailing situation results in risk management that is often based on fragmentary data or subjective inspector discretion. This, in turn, undermines the effectiveness of "smart" regulatory inspection and leaves its digital infrastructure with an "open loop" that fails to reflect the state of the regulated environment. The research employs formal-legal methodology, systematic analysis of administrative and information law norms, doctrinal approaches to government digitalization, and legal modeling methods. The scientific novelty of the research lies in proposing, for the first time in domestic administrative-legal doctrine, not merely an idea but a comprehensive legal framework for the examined information system. Within the proposed model, the register's legal status is defined, and a multi-channel architecture for its information content is developed, including automated inter-agency interaction, legal obligations for controlled entities to report incidents, and integration with medical institutions and emergency services data. Particular attention is devoted to resolving accompanying legal conflicts: mechanisms for processing personal data and information constituting medical confidentiality are proposed based on existing legislation. Furthermore, the significance of register data as legal facts for initiating regulatory inspection activities and as admissible evidence in administrative-tort proceedings is substantiated. The author concludes that creating a unified incident register is a necessary step for completing the transition from "process-based" to "outcome-based" regulatory inspection.

Modern constitutionalism faces a fundamental challenge: how to maintain the stability of the constitutional order amid accelerating social, technological, and geopolitical transformations, avoiding both conservative ossification and destructive plasticity. In this context, the concept of "adaptive constitutionalism" acquires the status of a key analytical category that requires strict operationalization and systematization. Existing approaches are typically limited to describing institutional mechanisms or appealing to general principles of flexibility without constructing a comprehensive typology. In these conditions, arises the necessity for a theoretical toolkit capable of not only describing but also normatively evaluating the quality of adaptation processes. The subject of the study is the adaptive constitutionalism as a multidimensional and dynamic social institution, whose viability is determined by its capacity for internal evolution without the loss of its normative core. The aim of the article is to develop an original typology of models of adaptive constitutionalism and to formulate criteria for "sustainable legitimacy" as a normative ideal of a viable constitutional order. The methodological basis of this study consists of a systemic-typological approach, supplemented by comparative-legal and hermeneutical analysis. The scientific novelty of the work lies in the proposal of a multidimensional typology, including five models of adaptive constitutionalism – judicial-adaptive, formally-stable, hybrid-adaptive, evolutionary-pluralistic, and imitation-adaptive. For the first time in domestic and foreign doctrine, the concept of "sustainable legitimacy" is introduced and operationalized, synthesizing legal and socio-political legitimacy through five measurable criteria. The study demonstrates that adaptation models are not static but subject to dynamic transformation, including degradation – as observed in Hungary, Poland, and Turkey. The proposed typology possesses not only theoretical but also practical value: it can be used by legislators, constitutional courts, and international organizations to diagnose the resilience of constitutional systems. In conclusion, the necessity for further verification of the typology in a global context and its adaptation to digital challenges and non-colonial concepts of legitimacy is emphasized.

The subject of the research is the methodological foundations for constructing a system of principles of administrative law. The object of the research is the system of principles of administrative law in the Russian Federation and doctrinal approaches to its understanding. The study focuses on the theoretical and methodological deficiencies of modern domestic and foreign approaches to the systematization of these principles. A critical analysis of existing models (A.V. Dolzhikova, K.V. Davydov) was conducted, revealing their methodological shortcomings, the main one being the blending of legal and managerial elements. A central aspect of the subject is the development and justification of an integral hierarchical model of the system of principles aimed at overcoming the identified methodological problems and establishing clear boundaries between principles of law and principles of the organization of executive power. Key questions considered include: methodological shortcomings of approaches to the systematization of principles; criteria for distinguishing between principles of law and principles of state administration; construction of a hierarchical model that ensures a balance between the effectiveness of governance and the guarantees of personal rights. The methodological foundation of the research consists of general scientific and specialized scientific methods. A systemic-structural approach was used as the general theoretical framework. At the level of specialized scientific methodology, comparative-legal and formal-legal methods were applied. The use of logical methods (analysis, synthesis) allowed for a critical analysis of doctrinal approaches and the construction of a hierarchical model of principles of administrative law. The scientific novelty of the research lies in the development of an integral three-level model of the system of principles of administrative law. The practical significance of the model was confirmed by the example of license revocation by Rosalkogolregulirovanie: the application of the author's model of the system of principles of administrative law revealed a violation of the principle of proportionality when the authority did not consider less restrictive alternatives. A special contribution of the author is not only a clear distinction between the principles of administrative law and the principles of the organization of executive power, but also the creation of a working tool for judicial review. The composition of principles at each level is detailed: general legal (priority of human rights, justice), inter-sectoral (transparency, adversarial nature), and sectoral (legal certainty, proportionality). The proposed model adequately reflects the dualistic nature of administrative law; performs restricting and structuring functions regarding public administration; can be applied in legislative and law enforcement activities, as well as in scientific and pedagogical work to improve administrative legislation and strengthen guarantees of personal rights.

The article is devoted to the analysis of the constitutional and legal foundations of public control in the countries of modern Asia on the example of the Republic of South Ossetia and the Republic of Abkhazia. This region of the world is located at the junction of Europe and Asia and is important for the development of the Eurasian continent. The relevance of the research topic is also due to the fact that these republics are recognized by only a few states and partially recognized states, being considered by the UN as part of Georgia, but they have made an original but largely successful attempt to form national legal systems, the cornerstone of which is the institution of human and civil rights, freedoms and legitimate interests, which allows to qualify these states as belonging to the modern democratic legal social states with a republican form of government. The role and importance of this institution of civil society as the leading legal guarantee for the implementation and protection of the system of constitutional principles and the entire system of rights, freedoms and legitimate interests of citizens of the republics is substantiated. The article examines the current state of the legislation of the mentioned countries in the field of public control, conducts a comparative legal analysis of positive and negative examples of the legal regulation of public relations in this area of society and the state. Conclusions: the system of constitutional and legal regulation of public control in both countries is similar (but in the Republic of Abkhazia it was formed earlier and serves in many ways as a model for the Republic of South Ossetia); the constitutions of both states do not enshrine the concepts of "public control" and "civil society"; there are no laws on the basics of public control, but there are laws on the public chambers of these republics; in general, in the Republic of Abkhazia, this institution of civil society is represented in a large number of laws and subordinate regulatory legal acts; the legislative and judicial branches of government have been removed from public control; the creation of public chambers and councils under state and local government bodies is not mandatory; the system of their formation is weakly democratic; subjects of public control have only advisory powers, have weak funding and insufficient use of modern digital technologies; forms and methods of public control are poorly developed.

This article is devoted to a comparative legal analysis of the constitutional and legislative foundations of public control in the countries of modern Asia on the example of the Lebanese Republic and the Sultanate of Oman. The relevance of the research topic is due to a number of circumstances: these countries have a different history of national constitutionalism; their legal systems are distinguished, on the one hand, by a powerful national flavor, and on the other hand, they have experienced significant foreign influence in the process of their formation and development; they relate to various forms of government and political regime; they are distinguished by the complex structure of civil society due to the influence of confessional, ethnic, and communal factors; national constitutions and legislation of these States define the possibility of participation of citizens of the country and their public associations in the political life of the state in different ways. The article uses a number of scientific research methods: formal-logical; historical-legal; comparative-legal; method of analysis of specific legal situations; statistical; sociological. The constitutional and legal foundations of public control in the Lebanese Republic and the Sultanate of Oman are distinguished by a number of negative examples of legal regulation, in particular: this institution of civil society is not formalized in national constitutions; there are no separate laws on the legal foundations of public control; the mechanism for forming subjects of public control is not entirely democratic; its effective functioning is hampered by strong pressure from religious, ethnic and community factors that defragment the system of public control. At the same time, in these countries there are a number of positive examples in the organization of this institution of civil society, for example: a number of subjects of public control in the Lebanese Republic have a set of real powers (in particular, the right to veto political decisions that contradict the interests of regional and local communities, the right to control the activities of the police, courts, and prosecutor's offices); The Consultative Assembly (Majlis al-Shura) in the Sultanate of Oman, being, in fact, a public council in front of the monarch, has not only advisory powers, but also the right to legislative initiative after public discussion of draft laws; the Coordinating Council for Public Control over Voting in the Lebanese Republic controls not only the voting process on the day of its holding, but also the entire election procedure.

The subject of the study is civil and administrative legal norms that establish the foundations and procedures for applying conciliatory processes in disputes involving executive authorities in Brazil, as well as the scientific perspectives of Brazilian authors on this regulation. The research covers key regulatory acts in Brazil, including the Civil Procedure Code of 2015, laws on arbitration and mediation, and special acts in the administrative legal sphere. It examines the legal mechanisms for applying various types of conciliatory procedures, including mediation, conciliation, and arbitration. It considers the creation of specialized bodies, such as the Federal Chamber of Mediation and Conciliation. The study includes an analysis of the works of Brazilian authors and examines the evolution of the legal regulation of conciliatory procedures since the 1990s, highlighting key stages in the development of legislation. The research was conducted using the following general scientific and specialized legal methods: analysis, synthesis, deductive method, inductive method, classification method, abstraction method, and formal-legal method. The scientific novelty of the study lies in identifying key stages and trends in the development of legal regulation of social relations arising from the resolution of legal disputes through conciliatory procedures involving executive authorities in Brazil. As a result of the conducted research, it was concluded that the genesis of legal regulation of dispute resolution involving executive authorities using conciliatory procedures in Brazil consists of four stages: 1) consolidation of the possibility of using conciliatory procedures for resolving property disputes involving executive authorities (1990s); 2) expansion of the scope of application of conciliatory procedures and the establishment of formal organizational structures within the executive branch authorized to organize and conduct them (2000-2010); 3) adoption of special regulatory legal acts governing the process of resolving conflicts involving executive authorities through various types of conciliatory procedures and official confirmation of the possibility of their use in administrative legal disputes, as well as in resolving legal conflicts in an administrative manner (2010-2018); 4) improvement and detailing of the rules for conducting conciliatory procedures in resolving administrative legal disputes by creating a large body of subordinate legal norms (2019-present).

The present article is devoted to a public law analysis of the legal regulation of labor for minors in the context of somatic rights. The authors explore the role and significance of the institution of human and civil rights and freedoms as a key value of Russian society and the state. An analysis of the place and role of somatic rights within the system of human and civil rights and freedoms is conducted. The authors provide a formal definition of somatic rights and classify them. It is noted that the most important somatic right is the right to work. The significance of research dedicated to the analysis of the legal regulation of labor for minors in the Russian Federation is substantiated. The current state of labor legislation regarding the regulation of labor for minors in Russia is examined, distinguishing between different age categories (16-17 years; 14-15 years; children under 14 years). The article employs a number of scientific methods, including formal-logical, comparative-legal, historical-legal, statistical, sociological methods, and the analysis of specific legal situations. The study formalizes and investigates key problems that hinder the establishment of an optimal labor regulation system for minors, particularly those related to clarifying the length of the working week for different age categories of minors; those concerning the moral development and health of children engaged in labor (considering their age categorization); those dedicated to ensuring legal guarantees for the payment of wages to minors (with distinctions for night and day work); those regarding the clarification of the duration of night work for children; those related to determining the optimal length of vacations for children entering into labor relations; those dedicated to legal guarantees preventing harm to the mental and physical health of minors; and those concerning the optimization of civil society institutions' participation in monitoring the process of ensuring labor rights for children in the Russian Federation.

This article is dedicated to the public-legal analysis of the boundaries of legal regulation of human somatic rights. The authors substantiate the position that not every human capability related, in one way or another, to the disposition of one's own body falls under the category of somatic rights. Some of these capabilities, according to the legislation of the Russian Federation, are classified as offenses, for instance, engaging in prostitution or euthanasia. Human somatic rights represent the protected and state-supported opportunities of a person to dispose of their body, life, and health, including opportunities related to the reproduction of new human generations. However, not all of these opportunities are detailed in legal norms. The state intervenes in the process of realization of these capabilities by legal regulation only when it: affects the rights, freedoms, and legitimate interests of third parties (for example, part of reproductive rights, the right to donate); violates moral and ethical norms or legal norms (in particular, engaging in prostitution); or when third parties are involved in this process (for example, euthanasia). A number of scientific research methods were employed in the article, including: formal-logical; comparative-legal; historical-legal; statistical; sociological; and the method of analyzing specific legal situations. The authors have identified some issues related to determining the boundaries of legal regulation of human somatic rights in the Russian Federation, in particular: the legislation does not establish a definition of the term "somatic rights"; several somatic rights recognized by foreign legislation are not acknowledged as such in Russia (or are even classified as offenses and crimes); there are no unified regulatory legal acts dedicated to the legal regulation of either somatic human rights as a whole or major groups of these rights (for example, reproductive rights); a uniform classification of somatic human rights has not been developed in Russian legal doctrine; the content of these rights has not been defined; and there is no developed definition of the concept and content of the boundaries of legal regulation of somatic human rights.