编号 7 (2025)

This article examines the experience of Russia, the CIS, China and the EU in regulating the use of generative AI. This study covers a practical block of issues in terms of mandatory requirements for generative AI service providers, the main forms of liability for violating national and supranational legislation. In addition, the difference in the definition of generative AI and the main block of doctrinal studies in the presented jurisdictions are examined. Based on the conducted study, proposals are formulated for the subsequent improvement of domestic regulation of the use of generative AI models. The subject of the study is public relations with the use of generative AI models in the private and public legal field. The object of the study is regulatory documents, recommendations and other documents regulating the use of generative AI models in the EU, China, Russia and the CIS model law, academic publications on the issue under study, as well as individual examples of judicial practice. The research methodology includes a set of philosophical, general scientific, special scientific methods of cognition, including dialectical, systemic, structural-functional, hermeneutic, comparative-legal, formal-legal (dogmatic), etc. Within the framework of the presented study, as indicated in the title of the article, special emphasis is placed on conducting a comparative-legal study of the regulation of the use of generative AI models. Within the framework of the presented study, the regulatory framework of the studied countries and supranational associations in the context of regulating generative AI is deeply (by article) analyzed. Distinctive features of regulation are determined both at the level of definitions and at the level of requirements for generative AI service providers. In the identified differences in the regulation of the use of generative AI, potential proposals for the implementation of a number of foreign regulatory approaches for Russia are formulated, taking into account the specifics of the formation of domestic regulation of generative AI models. The proposals presented as a result of the conducted research may be reflected in the legislative and law enforcement practice of the relevant authorities exercising control and supervision over the activities of generative artificial intelligence service providers in Russia, and will also be of interest to practicing lawyers involved in supporting projects using generative AI.

The modern stage of state development is characterized by the intensification of processes of institutional dilution of democratic norms and legal constraints that were previously considered an integral part of liberal constitutionalism. In many countries, which formally maintain democratic procedures, there is a consistent trend towards the erosion of checks and balances, the loss of real independence of the judicial power, and the weakening of parliamentary control. These processes are particularly evident in the framework of so-called "soft autocracy," where the external legal shell is used to legitimize anti-democratic practices. These phenomena cannot be reduced solely to internal breakdowns in law enforcement—they represent a systemic transformation of fundamental constitutional principles. In this context, there is a growing interest in studying the transformation of the rule of law and its replacement with mimetic mechanisms. The subject of this study is the crisis manifestations in the functioning of democratic institutions and the degradation of the rule of law as an expression of the transition from substantive to formal constitutionalism. Against this backdrop, the task of conceptually rethinking the role of public authorities, civil society institutions, and legal procedures in the context of a "post-liberal turn" is brought to the forefront. The methodological basis of the study includes comparative legal, institutional, and critical-normative approaches, allowing for the analysis of the evolution of constitutional regimes from the perspective of the sustainability of democratic practices. The novelty of the research lies in the attempt to systematically understand the crisis of democracy and law not as isolated deviations, but as a consequence of a deeper transformation of the political-legal order. It is suggested to view these phenomena through the lens of the concept of adaptive constitutionalism, capable of revealing signs of simulation and hidden de-constitutionalization. It has been established that formal compliance with procedures does not guarantee the genuine implementation of the principles of the rule of law. Moreover, legal instruments are increasingly becoming objects of political instrumentalization. The work emphasizes the role of constitutional courts as potential actors of legal resistance to transformation, provided they maintain institutional independence and social legitimacy. The possibilities of civil society in addressing the deficit of representation and accountability of power are also considered. In conclusion, the necessity of reevaluating traditional models of constitutional analysis in light of the current challenges of democratic erosion is underscored.

The subject of this study is the multilayered complex of legal relations arising between the Federal Tax Service and law enforcement agencies of the Russian Federation: the Investigative Committee, the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the Federal Security Service, and the Prosecutor's Office in the process of identifying, qualifying, and prosecuting violations of tax legislation. The article analyzes the regulatory and legal grounds for involving law enforcement agencies at the stages of desk and field tax audits, collection of tax arrears, and initiation of criminal cases under Article 199 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation; inter-agency cooperation mechanisms established by departmental agreements and instructions; case law reflecting the conflict between the tax authority's obligation to send audit materials to investigative bodies (paragraph 3 of Article 32 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation) and the protective measures that suspend the enforcement of decisions of the Federal Tax Service (part 3 of Article 199 of the Administrative Procedure Code of the Russian Federation). The study is based on the use of the following complementary methods: regulatory and legal analysis, comparative legal method, casuistic method, and summarizing empirical data. This research offers an integral model for the distribution of competencies between the Federal Tax Service and four law enforcement agencies, reflecting their "points of entry" and interdependence at all stages of a tax dispute. It introduces the concept of "preemptive prosecutorial lawsuit," a situation where the prosecutor, relying on the data in Article 82 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, achieves recognition of the transaction as invalid even before a tax decision is made, effectively transforming the balance of power in the upcoming judicial process. A legal conflict has been established between paragraph 3 of Article 32 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation and part 3 of Article 199 of the Administrative Procedure Code of the Russian Federation in the context of a unified tax account, and options for its legislative resolution have been formulated. The key findings of the study are: Firstly, excessive duplication of the functions of law enforcement agencies exacerbates the accusatory bias and reduces the procedural opportunities of conscientious businesses, often driven by the complexity of modern evasion schemes. Secondly, the existing practice does not ensure uniformity: in some districts, audit materials are blocked by protective measures, while in others they are immediately directed to investigative bodies, undermining the principle of equality among taxpayers. Thirdly, clear regulatory delimitation of the powers and timeframes for the intervention of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the Investigative Committee, and the Prosecutor's Office is required, necessitating procedural filters (judicial permission for the use of coercive evidence, the prosecutor's assessment of the legality of the actions of the Federal Tax Service).