Lobbying in the Legislative Process

The paper examines the problems of the sanctions confrontation between the Soviet state and unfriendly countries during the period of industrialization and the Cold War. The main periods of aggravation of interstate relations, which contributed to the tightening of mutual restrictive measures, are considered. It is shown that the ongoing reforms and other initiatives of the leadership of Soviet Russia became the reason for the confrontation for many subsequent years, which were initially initiated by England and France. It is revealed that the “golden blockade”, introduced since 1925, turned out to be a heavy burden, having worked out options for exhausting the Soviet government, strategic opponents refused to accept gold as payment for the supplied equipment, machinery and technologies, supplies were carried out only when paying with grain, timber, petroleum products and other raw materials. Due to the past lean seasons in Europe, starting in 1930, Western exporters persistently demanded payment in bread, which subsequently served as the main factor of famine in the USSR (1932–1933). Drought and crop failures in 1931 became tragic for the Soviet people, these circumstances contributed to the loss of the threshold of food security of the country. It has been revealed that the measures introduced by Western countries were directly aimed at stimulating and whipping up protest sentiments in our country, which they tried to use against the Soviet government.

Relevance: this scientific article examines the features of the effective functioning of public power in the conditions of the modern formation of the development of Russian statehood. Such a model proceeds from the harmonization of constitutional, legal, political, ideological and economic factors. The paper determines that these factors are reflected and manifested in the text of the Basic Law of the Russian Federation – the Constitution, as well as a number of other regulatory legal acts. Objective: to formulate the directions of development of the system of public power in the Russian Federation in the conditions of digitalization of public relations. Conclusions: in this article, conclusions are formed that allow us to form an idea of the current state of the effectiveness of the functioning of public authorities and proposals aimed at improving the effectiveness of such functioning by introducing consistent legislative reforms.

In the OECD countries, pension savings plans, although it was partially discredited during the crisis period, seem to be more effective than pay-as-you-go plans in the face of the growing pension burden on the state budget as a result of aging of population and changing nature of work. The porpoise of the research. In the article an attempt is made to determine the most promising method of increasing the coverage of funded pensions of the working population. The article examines the design of pension systems, determines which plans are funded. The article presents the main directions of changes in the pension systems of the OECD members in the period 2015–2022 and the problems that provoked such reforming. It is concluded that in the last few years, insufficient attention has been paid to improving the pension coverage. The article also analyzes the coverage rates of pension savings plans and determines the main ways that OECD countries have used to increase the coverage. Results. The author concludes that in order to increase the coverage of pension savings plans, the using of the mechanism of automatic enrolment may become the main way for the OECD members and in the distant future for Russia.

The article is a continuation of the author’s series of articles devoted to the prospects of using artificial intelligence in legal proceedings. The paper substantiates the need for the formation of principles-priorities of justice using artificial intelligence systems as a basis for the protection of human rights and the formation of a new ethics of justice. Based on the study of the experience of the People’s Republic of China, it is concluded that such principles form a protective mechanism that will make it possible to protect participants in legal proceedings when considering cases using artificial intelligence systems.

Purpose of the study. For the author, the purpose of the study is to recognize materialist dialectics, as an objective law, as a truly scientific methodology, since dialectics is global, universal – it inevitably manifests itself in the world, nature and in human thinking; its rules and logic must be taken into account in criminal proceedings. Dialectics is inextricably linked with objective truth. The objective-true model of the criminal process corresponds to the scientific requirements of dialectics, in contrast to the current adversarial criminal process in Russia with its self-sufficient adversarialism, excluding objectivity and truth – a process that does not take into account the scientific requirements of dialectics about the inadmissibility of erasing differences between opposites, such as truth and error, goal and means, form and content, probability and reliability, presumption of innocence and presumption of guilt, inevitability of responsibility and impunity. Hence, it is impossible to erase the differences between formal legal and objective truths, between adversarial and objective-true models of criminal proceedings. At the same time, the objective-true model of the criminal process is a higher type of process than the adversarial criminal process with its “right of the powerful”. The purpose of the study also includes solving in the well-known legal dictum that “no case of crime should go unsolved”, the requirement for reliable, objective-true solving of each crime (counteracting the crime) and the requirement for the inevitability of punishment for the crime, which has an important preventive, proactive meaning for crime. Conclusions. As a result of the research, the author comes to the following conclusions: materialist dialectics is the science of the general laws of motion of both the objective world and human thinking; its rule about the inadmissibility of erasing the distinction between opposites should also be applied in criminal proceedings. The objective-true model of criminal proceedings, in contrast to the current adversarial Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, meets the scientific requirements of materialist dialectics and represents a higher type of criminal process. The legislator in the adversarial Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, contrary to the requirements of dialectics, erases the distinction between form and content, goal and means, turning adversarialism (that is, a means) into an end in itself of the process, which excludes objective truth. An attempt to combine formal legal truth with objective truth in the adversarial Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation seems to be an unscientific approach, since it is necessary to observe a rigid alternative: either formal truth (legal, procedural, judicial, “the truth of the winner of the argument of the parties”), or objective truth. A third is not given. The well-known legal provision that “no case of crime should go unsolved” contains not only the requirement for the need to reliably disclose every crime (counteracting the crime), but also has an important preventive, proactive meaning, leading to a reduction in crime. The modern adversarial Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation does not provide for such a requirement for the inevitability of responsibility of the perpetrators.