Energy security as a kind of public security: doctrinal-methodological and criminal-legal aspects of implementation

The subject of the study is the strategic directions of ensuring public security in the Russian Federation at the present stage. One of the directions of ensuring public safety is recognized as the safety of the fuel and energy complex. In this regard, the analysis of the state, structure and dynamics of crime in the fuel and energy complex is carried out. Attention is focused on the implementation of the Russian criminal law policy in the field of combating crime in the fuel and energy complex, taking into account the norms of international law. The purpose of the study is to uncover the elements of crimes in the fuel and energy complex that constitute the crime of this orientation. Particular attention is paid to the consideration of a set of measures for the prevention and prevention of this type of crime, taking into account the interaction of measures of a criminal, criminological and administrative nature. The methodological basis for the study of measures to combat crime in the fuel and energy complex is a combination of general scientific and private scientific methods that have predetermined a comprehensive approach to the study of legal policy in the field of countering this type of crime, taking into account the ongoing reform of the socio-economic system in the Russian Federation. In the course of achieving the goal of the study, special legal methods of cognition were used to facilitate the analysis of the legal regulation of legal liability for fuel and energy crimes. The main results of the study contain conclusions and proposals aimed at improving measures to counteract crime in the field of the fuel and energy complex, including improving the effectiveness of the implementation of the mechanism of criminal law regulation of public relations related to countering encroachments of the fuel and energy sector. Conclusions are formulated regarding the methodological and organizational-practical aspects of the legal impact on persons who have committed crimes in the field of fuel and energy complex. The novelty of the research topic consists in the formulation of the problem associated with the establishment of the causes and conditions of crimes of fuel and energy orientation as a socially negative phenomenon in modern conditions; the definition of key areas of legal policy in the field of combating crime in the field of fuel and energy complex. The conducted research reveals the legal nature of crime in the fuel and energy complex; features of measures to counteract crimes of fuel and energy orientation; trends in the legal regulation of fuel and energy crimes; the specifics of the mechanism of legal regulation of legal liability for fuel and energy crimes. The opinion is expressed that there is no categorical and legal assessment of the concept of fuel and energy crimes in the domestic legislation, which predetermined the recognition of measures of criminal and legal influence as a strategic resource for countering fuel and energy crime. Conclusions are formulated about the factors that determine the legislative regulation of fuel and energy crimes, and the specifics of the implementation of punishment and other measures of a criminal nature.

Private liability without wrongdoing

Rights-based theories of private law tend to be wrongs based and defendant focused. But many private law wrongs do not seem like genuine wrongs, at least when the background distribution of resources is unjust. A very poor person, for example, may be held legally liable for breaching a one-sided contract with a very rich person. When such a contract reflects and reproduces existing injustice, it is hard to view the poor person’s breach of such a contract as a genuine wrong against the rich person. Conversely, some obvious moral wrongs do not generate legal liability. There is, for example, no private law duty of rescue in the absence of a prior relationship in many situations in which most would agree that there is a moral duty of rescue. Thus, private legal liability seems not to track moral wrongdoing in significant respects, raising the question what instead justifies such liability. Instead of justifying private liability in terms of the defendant’s wrongdoing, as corrective justice and civil recourse theorists do, we should seek a justification in terms of the plaintiff’s moral permission to enforce her apparent rights. Switching our gaze from the defendant’s wrongdoing to the plaintiff’s moral permission to enforce her rights will not be normatively consequential if the plaintiff’s moral permission arises when and only when the defendant has wronged her. But, I argue, background injustice can drive a wedge between genuine wrongdoing and the plaintiff’s moral permission. Thus, by reconceptualizing private liability in terms of a plaintiff’s moral permission to enforce her apparent rights, private law may be justified by the essential role it plays in constituting non-ideal political morality.

LEGAL VIEW AT A DIGITAL HUMAN BEING

In continuation of previous research, the article offers a legal view at certain features of the digital human being and the formulation de lege ferenda of the special characteristics of a person of the offense. One of the problems is the question about delusion or weakness of will for digital human being, the decision was made by artificial intelligence, which may call into question the fact that there is a factual basis for legal liability. Regarding the digital person, the possibility of escalation of improved intelligence in all spheres of economic, political, corporate, information and military confrontation is argued. It has been proven that artificial intelligence can eliminate the need to think by human and digital human being, and then eliminate the ability to do it.

Оn the problems of understanding the category «sanction» in the theory of law and branch jurisprudence

The scientific article is devoted to the analysis and rethinking of the category «sanction» in the theory of law and branch jurisprudence.As a result of the conducted research, the general theoretical definition of the category «sanction» as part of a legal norm that provides for negative consequences of non-compliance or improper implementation of the rule enshrined in the disposition of the rule of law, is supported.It is noted that, despite the existence of certain terminological differences, in general, the sciences of criminal law and the theory of law are moving in the same direction regarding the definition of sanctions and their classification, which cannot be said about other branches of law. In the science of civil law, modern definitions take us not only beyond the legal norm, but also beyond the law as a whole, focusing on the ability of sanctions to be contained in the contract between the parties, and therefore associating the sanction not with part of the legal norm, but with legal responsibility as such. And sanctions in economic law fully relate to the type and degree of responsibility.It is concluded that theoretical approaches to the definition of sanctions in administrative law can be clearly divided into two groups, the first of which «fits» into the general understanding of sanctions. When referring to the latest doctrinal sources (the second group), there is a significant variability in them and attempts to move away from the established definition. Moreover, the understanding of the sanction goes far beyond both the legal norm and legal liability, extending it, among other things, to preventive measures.Thus, it is necessary to distinguish the category of «sanction» as specifically restrictive measures, as measures of legal liability and as a structural element of a legal norm. Moreover, if the term «sanction» may well be applied to restrictive measures, which is due to the etymology of this concept, then the identification of sanctions as an element of a legal norm and measures of legal liability should be completely excluded. The use of such categories as synonymous at both the doctrinal and practical levels leads to legal uncertainty and confusion of concepts.

Liability in the field of State protection of Ukraine

In this article, on the basis of modern legal approaches to regulating legal relations in the process of Ukraine's formation as a rule of law, its integration into the European community, reforming state structures, the issue of the state of functioning of the current institution of material responsibility of servicemen of the State Security Department of Ukraine is investigated, attention is focused on the existing shortcomings in the functioning of this type of legal liability.

Facebook's Rohingya case will turn on legal liability

Headline INT: Facebook's Rohingya case will turn on liability

Innovation and opportunity: review of the UK’s national AI strategy

The publication of the UK’s National Artificial Intelligence (AI) Strategy represents a step-change in the national industrial, policy, regulatory, and geo-strategic agenda. Although there is a multiplicity of threads to explore this text can be read primarily as a ‘signalling’ document. Indeed, we read the National AI Strategy as a vision for innovation and opportunity, underpinned by a trust framework that has innovation and opportunity at the forefront. We provide an overview of the structure of the document and offer an emphasised commentary on various standouts. Our main takeaways are: Innovation First: a clear signal is that innovation is at the forefront of UK’s data priorities. Alternative Ecosystem of Trust: the UK’s regulatory-market norms becoming the preferred ecosystem is dependent upon the regulatory system and delivery frameworks required. Defence, Security and Risk: security and risk are discussed in terms of utilisation of AI and governance. Revision of Data Protection: the signal is that the UK is indeed seeking to position itself as less stringent regarding data protection and necessary documentation. EU Disalignment—Atlanticism?: questions are raised regarding a step back in terms of data protection rights. We conclude with further notes on data flow continuity, the feasibility of a sector approach to regulation, legal liability, and the lack of a method of engagement for stakeholders. Whilst the strategy sends important signals for innovation, achieving ethical innovation is a harder challenge and will require a carefully evolved framework built with appropriate expertise.

State Adoption of Nursing Home Immunity From Legal Liability During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Twenty-eight states have provided nursing homes (NHs) with immunity from legal liability related to COVID-19. This study places these provisions in the context of prior actions protecting NHs from legal action and explores factors influencing the adoption of such immunity provisions across states. It uses cross-sectional data to examine patterns of policy adoption and to assess states’ likelihood of adopting immunity provisions using multivariate methods. Variables of interest include information on state political, socioeconomic, programmatic, and COVID-19-related characteristics as well as data on campaign contributions and lobbying activity at the state level. Factors significantly related to NH immunity provision adoption included measures of state fiscal health (unemployment), ideology (percent legislators Democrat), governing capacity (unified government), and NH characteristics (percent not-for-profit, hospital-based, and chain). Population density and Medicaid as a percentage of state general fund expenditures proved significant as well. Against these complex influences, organizations lobbying on behalf of NH residents and their families have found themselves ineffectual in creating avenues for accountability. Results indicate that enforcing accountability for NH deaths during the COVID-19 pandemic is a complex process, constrained by available policy tools and made more complicated by factors external to the NH environment that contributed to high death rates. Historically, the NH industry has been successful in avoiding consequences for poor quality care, a pattern that has persisted in that NHs have generally been successful in avoiding liability for negligence during the COVID-19 pandemic.