Information Technologies and the Collective Subject of Law
- Authors: Sukharev M.V.1
-
Affiliations:
- Issue: No 11 (2023)
- Pages: 53-65
- Section: ARTICLES
- URL: https://ogarev-online.ru/2409-7136/article/view/367985
- EDN: https://elibrary.ru/KSURGZ
- ID: 367985
Cite item
Full Text
Abstract
The article deals with the problem of a collective subject in the conditions of the spread of digital communications. The classification of collective subjects is a definite problem for legal science. There are social, political, and economic collective entities. A collective entity exists under the following conditions. Firstly, there should be a possibility of constant communication between the members of the team. Secondly, the team conducts one or more types of common activities. Thirdly, the team members participate in the development of directions and ways of future activities. Fourth, they can directly or indirectly influence decisions on the choice of one of the proposed options for future activities. The spread of digital communications significantly increases the connectivity of large teams. There is a possibility of existence of geographically distributed collective entities, whose members are located in different countries. The research method is based on the analysis of changes in the ways of communication between individuals who make up a collective subject. Digital networks allow for discussions (including those protected by cryptography), voting, foresight, the use of digital signatures, and automatic logging of all communication. Compared to telephone communication, digital communications allow the simultaneous participation of hundreds of people (collective chat). The speed of e-mail transmission is thousands of times higher than the speed of written messages. The new tools allow for video conferences with demonstrations of graphic and tabular materials. Voting using secure protocols and digital signatures is possible. There are decision support systems, computer models (digital doubles) of objects that need to be managed to make decisions. All this leads to a significant change in the quality and effectiveness of collective subjects. New types of collective actors (virtual communities) are emerging, which ultimately influence events in the real world. Legal science needs to start studying the processes of digitalization and comprehend their theoretical significance for jurisprudence.
About the authors
Mikhail Valentinovich Sukharev
Email: suharev@narod.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-3190-9893
References
Самылов И.В. Понятие и система коллективных субъектов права // Вестник Пермского университета. Юридические науки. 2009. Выпуск 4 (6). С. 25-32. Велиева Д.С. Коллективные субъекты конституционных прав // Вестник Саратовской государственной юридической академии. 2013. №4 (93). С. 205-208. Касавин И.Т. Коллективный субъект как предмет эпистемологического анализа / И. Т. Касавин // Эпистемология и философия науки. 2015. Т.46, № 4. С. 5-18. McCarthy D.E. Knowledge as Culture: The New Sociology of Knowledge. New York&London: Routledge, 1996. Viale R. Methodological Cognitivism. Vol. 1: Mind, Rationality, and Society. Heidelberg, Dordrecht, London, New York: Springer, 2012. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-24743-9 Riesch, H. Philosophy, history and sociology of science: Interdisciplinary relations and complex social identities // Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A. 2014. V.48. Pp. 30-37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2014.09.013 Сухарев М.В. Эволюционное управление социально-экономическими системами. Петрозаводск: КарНЦ РАН, 2008. Иванова М.А. Правовая культура в условиях развития сетевого общества // Балтийский гуманитарный журнал. 2019. Т.8.2(27). С. 149-152. doi: 10.26140/bgz3-2019-0802-0035 Рабазанов С.А. Общественные объединения – коллективные субъекты конституционных отношений // Известия Саратовского университета. Новая серия. Серия: Экономика. Управление. Право. 2021. Т. 21, вып. 3. С. 348–354. https://doi.org/10.18500/1994-2540-2021-21-3-348-354 Рубинштейн С.Л. Бытие и сознание. Человек и мир. СПб.: Питер, 2003. Психология индивидуального и группового субъекта // Под ред. А.В. Брушлинского, М.И. Воловиковой. М.: ПЕР СЭ, 2002. 368 с. С. 9. Туомела, Р. Кто боится групповых субъектов действия и групповых сознаний? // Мысль. Журнал Санкт-Петербургского философского общества. 2016. № 21. С. 7-33. Сухарев М.В. Идеоматериальные полисистемы и политика // Национальная безопасность / nota bene. 2022. № 6. С. 1-22. doi: 10.7256/2454-0668.2022.6.38969 Четвериков А.О. Большой адронный коллайдер как юридический феномен // Lex Russica. 2019. № 4 (149). С. 151-169. Evans J.A., Rzhetsky A. Advancing Science through Mining Libraries, Ontologies, and Communities // Journal of Biological Chemistry. 2011. V. 286 (27). Pp. 23659-23666. doi: 10.1074/jbc.R110.176370 Iba T. An Autopoietic Systems Theory for Creativity // Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2010 V. 2 (4). Pp. 6610-6625, ISSN 1877-0428, doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.04.071 Koch, C., Jones, A. Big Science, Team Science, and Open Science for Neuroscience, Neuron. 2016 V. 92(3). Pp. 612-616. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2016.10.019 Lambiotte R., Panzarasa P. Communities, knowledge creation, and information diffusion // Journal of Informetrics. 2009. V.3 (3). Pp. 180-190. doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2009.03.007 Dich, L. Community Enclaves and Public Imaginaries: Formations of Asian American Online Identities // Computers and Composition. 2016. V. 40. Pp. 87-102. doi: 10.1016/j.compcom.2016.03.012 Jindal, R., Seeja, Shivani Jain, S. Construction of domain ontology utilizing formal concept analysis and social media analytics // International Journal of Cognitive Computing in Engineering. 2020. V.1, P. 62-69. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcce.2020.11.003 Preventis, A., Petrakis, E. CLONE: Collaborative Ontology Editor as a Service in the Cloud // Procedia Computer Science. 2021. V.l. (184), P. 275-282. doi: 10.1016/j.procs.2021.04.006
Supplementary files
