Lobbying in the Legislative Process

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) set a global goal for ending hunger by 2030. Ensuring food security is a global agenda. At the national level, states develop and approve strategic planning documents that define goals, objectives, tools, and indicators for ensuring food security. The Russian Federation’s food security doctrine aims not only to achieve food security indicators but also to ensure food independence (food sovereignty) of the Russian Federation. However, there are a number of threats and risks to food security, particularly technological risks. Technological lag and dependence on imports lead to a significant decline in agricultural performance, making any country more vulnerable to external threats. Therefore, the goal of Russia’s food policy is to create an effective legal framework for agricultural activities. Legal support for technological leadership in food security is comprehensive and encompasses norms from several branches of law, including agrarian law, the role of which is increasing in the context of Russia’s innovative development. The purpose of this study is to identify trends in the legal transformation of agricultural law in the context of the development of a legal mechanism for ensuring technological leadership in food security. The study identified the main areas of legal support for technological leadership in the domestic agro-industrial complex and trends in the transformation of agricultural law.

The article examines the interrelated issues of interpretation and application of the prohibition on abuse of authority, which has led to grave consequences, provided for in part 2 of Article 201 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, as well as some problems of distinguishing this crime from some related crimes. The author draws attention to the increase in recent years in the share of acquittals among all verdicts issued by Russian courts in cases of abuse of authority. The most important provisions of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 21 dated June 29, 2021, “On Certain Issues of Judicial Practice in Cases of Crimes Against the Interests of Service in Commercial and Other Organizations (Articles 201, 2011, 202, and 203 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)” (Resolution of the Plenum No. 21), which provide explanations on certain features of the qualified composition of abuse of authority and on the issues of distinguishing it from related crimes, have been analyzed. The article examines certain controversial provisions and gaps in the Resolution of the Plenum No. 21 in terms of the qualification of abuse of authority and formulates proposals for minimizing the identified shortcomings. Тhe author proposes a broad professional discussion with the participation of relevant government agencies, the legal community, business, and scientists to consolidate the position of experts on improving the criminal policy against abuse of authority.

The article is devoted to the assessment of the prosecutor’s procedural powers in criminal proceedings. The consequences of the exclusion of the right to initiate a criminal case and its impact on the timeliness of the investigation are considered. It is concluded that it is necessary to restore this power by law in order to increase the effectiveness of supervisory activities and ensure timely protection of citizens’ rights and the interests of the state.

Introduction. The article examines the place of reconciliation with the victim (Article 76 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) within the traditional retributive model of criminal law and the emerging paradigm of restorative justice in Russia, as well as its relationship to the purposes of punishment and to international standards. The study demonstrates that Article 76 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation has considerable restorative potential and is in practice implemented through a two-tier model: in cases involving minor and medium-gravity offences, priority is given to the victim’s will, whereas in cases involving grave consequences the public interest predominates. At the same time, systemic problems are revealed, including the indeterminacy of the very definition of “redressing the harm,” the risks of a merely formal and monetised practice of reconciliation, insufficient safeguards for the voluntariness of the victim’s will, the absence of criminal mediation as a distinct procedure, and the lack of a coherent concept of restorative justice. It is argued that the institution of reconciliation with the victim in its current form only partially realises its restorative potential and requires greater normative precision, the institutionalisation of criminal mediation, enhanced protection of victims, and clarification of the criteria for its use in cases involving grave consequences. The paper substantiates the necessity of combining retributive and restorative models of criminal justice, whereby reconciliation becomes not a substitute for punishment but an integrated mechanism for achieving social justice and preventing reoffending.

This article examines several issues related to exemption from criminal liability and punishment under the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The application of these criminal law institutions to crimes that infringe on the circulation of labeled products is examined. An analysis of criminal law provisions that allow for the achievement of punishment goals without actually serving a sentence or serving it in full is conducted. The importance of these regulations for the process of whitewashing the national economy is noted. It is suggested that, to increase the effectiveness of transitioning entrepreneurs from the shadow sector to the legal and transparent sphere of economic relations, it is advisable to use criminal law tools that allow for the legal assessment of illegal acts that infringe on the circulation of labeled products, while simultaneously preserving the legally compliant economic activity in a competitive state, thereby achieving the objectives of criminal punishment. A number of conclusions are drawn regarding the most optimal methods for exemption from criminal liability and punishment for the commission of the relevant criminal offenses. Proposals have been formulated to improve policy in combating the illegal trafficking of industrial products. The work is intended for law enforcement officers in criminal proceedings, faculty and graduate students at law schools, and students studying criminal law and criminology.

The article examines the problems of peaceful settlement of the military conflict with Ukraine, taking into account the current active confrontation between Russia and the West, as a modern adaptation of international legal methods and approaches in the fight against Nazism.

In the light of the adoption of the new Criminal Code of the Republic of Armenia on 05.05.2021 and the ratification of the Rome Statute of the International Court of Justice and the commitments made to implement the provisions of the latter, it is extremely important to study the internationally recognized principle of non bis in idem (“Not twice for the same thing”), which has received a slightly different framework in the new Criminal Code of the Republic of Armenia. The article analyzes various aspects of the principle under consideration, including cases when a person brought to a different type of responsibility cannot be criminally liable twice for the same act, as well as the content of the phrase “for the same acts”.