The article presents a comprehensive analysis of the current state and development prospects of the judicial system of the Russian Federation within the context of the fundamental principle of separation of powers. Based on a study of scholarly works by Russian and foreign authors, the article examines the transformation of the constitutional and legal status of the judiciary under the influence of two key factors: the 2020 constitutional reform and the global digitalization of legal proceedings. Particular attention is paid to the theoretical distinction between the concepts of «independence» and «autonomy» of the judiciary, as well as an analysis of the risks of disrupting the system of checks and balances due to the redistribution of powers among the President of the Russian Federation, the Federation Council, and bodies of the judicial community. A significant portion of the work is dedicated to the challenges of the digital era. The article analyzes conflicting views on the implementation of «e-justice» and artificial intelligence: ranging from the recognition of their role in enhancing the accessibility and transparency of judicial processes to concerns regarding the «digital divide,» the dehumanization of justice, and the threat of substituting judicial discretion with algorithms. The article concludes that the modern judicial system is at a critical juncture (bifurcation point). To preserve its constitutional essence, a balance must be struck between the efficiency provided by new technologies and the strengthening of the vertical of power, and the preservation of guarantees for judicial independence and citizens’ rights.

The article examines the current problems and prospects of reforming the institution of judicial representation in the Russian Federation. It analyzes the transformation of legislation in the context of the transition from free representation to professional representation, which is established by the introduction of an educational requirement in arbitration, administrative, and civil proceedings. Special attention is paid to the discussion surrounding the introduction of an «advocate’s monopoly»: the arguments of supporters of unifying the legal services market are compared with the concerns of opponents related to the risks of limiting access to justice. The relationship between the quality of judicial representation and the level of modern legal education is explored. The economic aspects of professionalization are considered, including issues of legal cost reimbursement and the legalization of «success fees.» Based on an analysis of doctrinal opinions and law enforcement practice, the article concludes that a comprehensive approach to reform is necessary. This approach should include not only formal requirements for the representative’s status but also the improvement of ethical standards, educational programs, and economic mechanisms for providing legal assistance.

This article examines the limits of criminal liability in the context of expanding criminal law regulation. It is argued that the strengthening of criminal prohibitions and the increasing complexity of criminal offences blur the substantive boundaries of criminal liability and reduce legal certainty. The limits of criminal liability are considered as a system of formal and substantive restrictions on criminal law intervention, ensuring the preservation of criminal law as a measure of last resort. Particular attention is paid to administrative prejudice as a mechanism that transforms the grounds for criminal liability and creates the risk of disproportionate criminalization in the absence of an independent assessment of the social danger of an act. Based on the legal positions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation and clarifications of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, the restrictive role of the principle of proportionality is argued. This principle presupposes the inseparable unity of the nature and degree of social danger in determining the limits of criminal liability.

As the democratic foundations of the Russian state are being established at the current stage of its history and the introduction of a market economy, social issues and the activities of institutions implementing state social policy are of particular importance to each citizen and Russian society as a whole. The state faces the goal of resolving a wide range of social issues, including through the creation and organization of mechanisms that would ensure the implementation of a unified, universal, and equitable social policy. Russia, as a welfare state, has assumed a number of obligations to ensure a decent standard of living for the population, social and pension security, healthcare, labor protection, employment, support for families, childhood, motherhood (paternity), and much more. This article examines the main regulatory legal acts aimed at implementing the constitutional principle of the welfare state. The methodological basis is a combination of research methods—historical-legal and logical-historical, formal-legal and systemic-structural, statistical and sociological, comparative legal, and dialectical. The materials used are based on current legislation. The social foundations of state activity, as laid out in the Constitution of the Russian Federation, presuppose the implementation of social policy aimed primarily at social justice, the creation of decent living conditions for the population, and the organization of appropriate state mechanisms.

The article examines the application of the principle of freedom of contract in civil law relations, analyzes its content, and addresses the issue of abuse in the exercise of subjective civil rights. It also analyzes the limits of the implementation of this principle and its relationship with the categories of good faith and abuse of rights. The article provides an overview of judicial practice that reveals trends in law enforcement, including the positions of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation regarding the assessment of the parties’ good faith and the inadmissibility of using freedom of contract contrary to its intended purpose.

The principle of mitigation and adaptation to climate change is an integral part of modern international environmental law. International acts have consolidated the obligation of States to simultaneously combat the primary cause of climate change (excessive greenhouse gas emissions) and take measures to adapt to its effects that are already coming. While initially the emphasis was on mitigation, adaptation has now taken an equal place, as evidenced by both contractual norms and the growing number of national adaptation plans in different countries. The principle under study includes specific commitments to reduce emissions, plan adaptation actions, and provide international support and cooperation. In recent decisions, international courts and tribunals have actually recognized the responsibility of States for non-compliance with climate obligations. For Russia, the implementation of the principle of mitigation and adaptation is both the fulfillment of global commitments and the solution of internal development challenges. Russia has already felt the effects of warming (extreme temperatures, wildfires), so adaptation is turning from an abstract concept into concrete work on the ground. At the same time, economic realities and technological trends dictate the transition to low-carbon solutions, energy efficiency and innovation – that is, to mitigate the burden on the climate. National policy tends to take both vectors into account, although not always consistently.

The theory of legal relations has always aroused great interest among Soviet and Russian scientists, since it allows us to consider the effect of legal norms not in statics, but in dynamics. This is particularly relevant in relation to real estate properties with high financial value and a complex intersectoral legal regime. In turn, among all real estate objects, the main place is occupied by land (land plots), the emergence of rights to which requires not one (separate) legal fact, but their totality, classified into simple and complex factual (legal) structures. The author argues that the emergence of ownership (or lease) rights means that the citizen or a legal entity (public authority) did not previously own this land, and the rights to it arise from such a person for the first time. The list of such grounds differs between private and public entities. For citizens, the emergence of ownership of land real estate can occur by virtue of a contract concluded between private entities, or by virtue of a more complex factual composition involving public authorities. The latter are divided into actual land administrative structures (provision of a land plot with prior approval) and actual structures, which are dominated by legal facts provided for by civil legislation (auctions). For public entities, the right of state or municipal ownership may arise in the event of termination of the right of private ownership of a land plot, or during the delimitation (or redistribution) of publicly owned land plots.