This study examines the legal issues surrounding the sale and purchase of customary land (ulayat land) in Yoka Village, Papua, through the mechanism of the customary release letter. The background of this research focuses on the conflict between customary law and national law in land transactions. Using a socio-legal approach and legal anthropology, this study analyzes the mechanisms of land sales in Yoka Village and the legal uncertainty caused by the incompatibility between customary practices and formal national law. The findings reveal that the lack of legal harmonization creates significant risks for both buyers and the indigenous community. The study concludes that formal recognition of the customary release letter and clear procedures for registering ulayat land are essential to protect the rights of all parties involved.

After laying out a conventional account of the formalism vs. realism debates, this Article argues that formalism and realism are at once impossible and entrenched. To say they are impossible is to say that they are not as represented — that they cannot deliver their promised goods. To say that they are entrenched is to say that these forms of thought are sedimented as thought and practice throughout law’s empire. We live thus amidst the ruins of formalism and realism. The disputes between these two great determinations of American law continue today, but usually in more localized or circumscribed forms. We see versions of the disputes, for instance, in the stylized disagreements over the desired form of judicial doctrines (rules vs. standards); or the best rendition of key political values like equality (formal vs. substantive); or the proper mode of judicial interpretation (textual vs. purposive). Here too, the arguments that comprise the localized variants of the dispute remain inconclusive. The Article concludes by mapping “the logics of collapse” — specifically, some critical moves that undermine the rhetorical and intellectual force of the formalism vs. realism disputes and their localized variants. The aims here are several. First, the ability to deploy the critical moves helps with analysis. The critical moves help show how the arguments are constructed in the first place and how they are rhetorically and intellectually compromised. Second, and relatedly, the critical moves allow us to avoid being taken in by the formalism vs. realism arguments and their localized variants. Third, the aim is to show how our formalist and realist argumentation has already been surpassed by a legal “logic” that undermines the cogency of that argumentation.

The purpose of this article is to analyze the impact of artificial intelligence (hereinafter also referred to as AI) on social inequality. It is evident that AI not only brings about advantages but also serves as a means of infringing upon human rights, exacerbating social stratification at both the level of individual societies and on a global scale. Through the application of formal legal and comparative legal methodologies, it becomes apparent that the current practices of utilizing AI in various legal domains often fall short of achieving the intended objectives, sometimes even serving as a catalyst for discrimination and the perpetuation of social inequality. The paper underscores the active engagement of scholars and practitioners in addressing social inequality and other challenges associated with AI through the lens of AI ethics. The concept of AI ethics is explored, along with a critical analysis of ethical frameworks adopted by several technology companies operating in the field of artificial intelligence. It has been demonstrated that the primary cause of the emergence of social disparity in the realm of AI is not a dearth of ethical tenets in AI-driven algorithms, but rather a lack of adequate formalization of these ethical principles themselves into machine-readable language. It has been shown that the legal regulations in this domain, typically, are advisory in nature and emanate from corporations rather than from state institutions.

The article is devoted to the analysis of the concepts of legal egalitarianism and formal equality both in European legal orders and in legal orders of non-European cultural code in historical retrospect and modern times. The author traces the origin, emergence and development of the concept of formal equality and the accompanying philosophical and legal egalitarian doctrine that has gained dominant positions in the legal orders of European and other countries of the world after the French Revolution of 1789. The author examined historical material and scientific positions of various scientists — sociology, cultural science, social anthropology, political science, history and legal theory. The author reflects on the possibility and effectiveness of the uncontested existence and application of egalitarian legal doctrine in the context of complex heterogeneous multicultural societies. At the same time, the author questions the views on the essence of formal equality as a philosophical and legal concept and principle of law that exist in modern theoretical and legal studies.

This article examines the issue of constitutional provision for the sovereignty of states in the post-Soviet space, using the Republic of Tajikistan as a case study. Despite the centuries-long history, development, and transformation of the concept of sovereignty, it still requires reflection and specification, and in the context of globalization, also protection and implementation.

Abuse of law is generally considered to be a legal phenomenon most inherent to private law. Historically, it first appeared in private Roman law; it found doctrinal development and application in legal sciences associated with private law. This issue and even the possibility of its existence are not paid due attention in constitutional legal regulation and the science of constitutional law. This article attempts to substantiate the existence of abuse of rights (powers) in the spheres that were mentioned, and to identify the problem of the insufficiency of appropriate legal regulation, which gives rise to the preconditions for abuse of rights. The current paper highlights distinctive elements of the legal phenomenon under study, and also gives a definition and assessment to the “gray zone” in which abuse of law in constitutional and legal relations is possible.

The purpose of the study is to analyze Russian and foreign goal-setting practices when choosing types of expenses and problems that will later be considered in the framework of budget expenditure reviews. The author used methods of comparative legal, logical and systemic analysis. The study showed that goal setting has a major impact on the process of selecting issues when budget expenditure reviews are preparing, on their structure and subsequent use: at the same time, there is a competition between the goals of saving and increasing the efficiency of budget expenditure. The goals of saving budget become a priority in a situation of increasing budget deficit, or under pressure from international structures such as the European Commission. At the same time, the task of overcoming budgetary incrementalism, that is, the annual “inheritance” of the structure and volume of current expenditures, is usually not solved, even if it is reflected in the reviews. Thus, the main task in preparing reviews is to increase the efficiency of budget expenditures, which, as a rule, means a very vague range of management decisions. In addition, increasing the efficiency of budget expenditures, as a rule, is not achieved in practice. The study also showed that most countries, as a rule, do not use any formalized methodology when setting goals and selecting types of expenditures for subsequent reviews of budget expenditures.

This article is devoted to identify the features of the legal regulation of investment activity from the point of view of the concept legal regime. It should be stressed that such type the investment research is shown us the specific it’s regulation, the ratio of imperativeness and dispositivity and also the subjects activity level of the investment.

The article analyzes and systematizes the doctrinal point of view on the concept of “legal regime”, it’s features and structure. The author’s definition of the investment regime is formulated, by which it is proposed to understand the procedure for regulating investment activity, expressed in a set of legal means characterizing a combination of interacting permits, prohibitions, as well as positive obligations and creating a special focus on regulating investment activity. The investment regime, according to the author, is a kind of legal regime.

The article considers the institute of special economic measures as a specific form of restriction of freedom of economic activity in Russia.

The article characterizes the essence of special economic measures, defines their individual varieties that have the greatest impact on the realization of the constitutional principle of freedom of economic activity under sanctions. The author analyzes the normative-legal regulation of special economic measures, as well as the peculiarities of the functioning of certain types of special economic measures introduced and applied in the conditions of foreign economic restrictions.

In the conditions of sanctions legal regime, which is extraordinary, restrictions on the freedom of economic activity of certain categories of economic entities can be significantly expanded, and the limits of state intervention in the implementation of this constitutional principle are narrowed.

It seems reasonable in accordance with a number of principles of the institution of special economic measures. The measures include general principles of restriction of rights: the principle of compliance of the restriction with constitutional purposes (ensuring the defense and security of the state, protection of life and health of citizens, etc.), the principle of reasonableness of the restriction (application of the restriction in order to organize the functioning of the economic system of the Russian Federation), the principles of legality, urgency, proportionality of the restrictions imposed on existing threats.

At the same time, the author admits the necessity to improve the Russian legislation on special economic measures (including in terms of specifying the grounds, mechanisms and guarantees of their application to economic entities).

The aim of this article is to scrutinize the authority of tax agencies concerning the transfer pricing supervision in uncontrolled transactions among related parties. The interpretation of tax laws by the Russian Federal Tax Service has significantly broadened the supervision capabilities of tax agencies over taxpayer transactions initially not meant for scrutiny, resulting in ambiguity and inconsistency in legal proceedings. The article provides an analysis of the legal framework, methodology, and procedures for tax control of prices in uncontrolled transactions, as well as examines the concept of “multiple price deviations” and taxpayer defense strategies. The methodological basis of the article includes both general scientific and specialized scientific methods. In particular, the author employs analysis, synthesis, formal legal, and historical-legal methods. The findings suggest disparities in the treatment of taxpayers in transfer pricing supervision due to the absence of specific safeguards outlined in Section V.1 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation. Consequently, the author advocates for an extension of transfer pricing laws to encompass all taxpayers, thereby ensuring parity in rights and protections while mitigating arbitrary actions and uncertainties by tax agencies, thereby fostering a more equitable and transparent tax supervision system.