Russia's war against Ukraine, launched on 24 February 2022, had determined new conditions for the existence of Ukrainian society, the state, and all fields of activity. The Bar was no exception. As an institution of civil society that protects human rights and interests, the Bar is an integral element of fair justice, the right which is inviolable even in wartime. However, the war made its corrections and created new rules, determining the specificity of the attorneys` activity, their behaviour, and the activity of the attorneys` self-governing bodies in wartime. The article presents the analysis of the peculiarities of functioning of the Bar of Ukraine in wartime on the example of the Odesa region. Its choice is due to the history and ancient traditions of Odesa Bar, whose representatives have already experienced periods of military aggression, and the available information about the results of its activity in wartime in the modern period. In wartime, it is impossible to obtain and systematize such data regarding the whole territory of Ukraine because part of the state is under occupation, and active hostilities are taking place on the other part. The author's analysis was based on the decisions of the Odesa Regional Bar Council, the results of the activity of the Odesa Regional Qualification and Disciplinary Commission of the Bar, the results of their interaction with the Odesa Regional Military Administration, Odesa City Council, volunteer formations, volunteer organizations and foreign colleagues. The authors used a chronological method, synthesis and a method of information analysis. Actual statistical and empirical data are used for proper argumentation of the conclusions. A conclusion was made about the internal consolidation, as well as the external ability of the Bar to act together with civil society institutions and public authorities in countering the armed aggression against Ukraine. This article was prepared as part of the scientific project ‘Justice in the Context of Sustainable Development’ Project No. 22BF042-01 (2022-2024).

Sustainable development became an essential part of our world since we realized the fragility and limits of our system, dangerous of resource exhaustion, and insistently looking for the way to stabilyze our life and life of our descendents, to restrict risks of collapses. Last years’ catastrophes – the pandemic of COVID-19 and the war in Ukraine, both are still existed, show us undoubtedly that we have to be more careful using our resources and develop our relations in economics and politics. In this article authors made an attempt to reconsider the approaches to understanding judiciary in Ukraine, using the new coordinates – generation born since 1980 till 1996 so called Millennials (generation Y), dictating new requests to life, and, in our opinion, to justice and judiciary development. Analysis of the impact of Millennials (generation Y) on the development of the judicial system is a complex process for a number of reasons. First, the lack of formal information about the age of the parties makes it impossible to substantiate the conclusions with empirical data. Secondly, despite some generalized traits, the characteristics of Millennials differ depending on the region and country of origin, which determines their economic, social, political, and cultural differences A striking example of this are the ex-Soviet Union’s states. In majority of these countries, Millennials have become the first generation sufficiently aware of their rights, the legal ways to protect them and the role of the court as an effective tool for such protection. Their formation was accompanied by the changes in ideology, political regime and economic instability. In this article authors argue how Millennials change the judiciary in the ex-Soviet society, taking into account the specifics of the latter. The study suggests two interrelated aspects: the impact of Millennials on the development of the court as consumers of judicial services; the impact of Millennials, who come to work in the judicial system, as judges. The article substantiates the necessity of modernization of the courts, which is associated with the high technology of this generation and its vital need for information, as well as their consumerization aimed to create more sustainability justice and to answer the request of Millennials by changes of goals, by limits of expenses and by introducing the culture of peaceful and strong institutions in judiciary.

The aim: The purpose of the research is to summarize the leading experience of European countries on the protection and prevention of the alcoholism problem among judges, attorneys and prosecutors as representatives of justice. Materials and methods: The subject under discussion has been considered based on sources on this issue (scientific publications, legal acts, decisions of judicial and quasijudicial institutions), using the method of content analysis, comparative and contrastive, analytical and biblio-semantic methods. Conclusions: Analysis of existing statistics as well as decisions of the disciplinary bodies of justice indicates the predisposition of justice representatives to alcohol dependency, which is caused by a number of reasons. Based on medical research, it is substantiated that stress is the determining factor in prompting a justice officer to use alcohol as a means capable of exerting an antidepressant effect. But in addition to quickly de-stress, alcohol is attractive for its availability. We refer such availability as: financial, social and psychological, corporate, territorial, legislative one. It is argued that among the representatives of justice alcoholism has a harmful effect not only on their health. It has a negative impact on professional discipline and is fraught with de-ethicalization of representatives' of justice behavior. The alcohol dependence of justice officials can cause doubts on their competence, hold them accountable and undermine public confidence in the credibility of justice.

The processes of transition to democracy that post-Soviet countries underwent in the early 1990s predetermined different directions for their further development. The author presents and proves the hypothesis that in the context of post-Soviet civil society, judicial transparency arose as a response to a social demand at a certain historical moment of crisis of public authority. The idea of transparency in post-Soviet countries appeared only at a certain level of development of political institutions and public law, pointing out the democratic transition of power. At the same time, its emergence established information asymmetry and the poor quality of state institutions of power. The need to ensure the transparency of judicial activity, in addition to the natural process of the democratic transition of power, is also driven in post-Soviet countries by two important factors. The first is that in the modern world, the judiciary is increasingly becoming involved in the process of law-making, which requires the transformation of existing ideas about the system of checks and balances. The second is related to a global tendency in the fight against corruption, which has been a key problem for the countries of this region for many years. Although it has become the de facto rule for developed democracies, transparency affects the development of the legal culture of populations in transitional democracies differently. It performs various functions, including educational, preventive, stimulating, communicative, protective, and others. The article pays special attention to the unique forms of communication between courts and the public that have arisen in post-Soviet countries with an unstable political situation. In studying them, the author highlights the transformation of transparency from a factor of the development of civil society into one of its results.

The lack of sufficient legal regulation of relations associated with the use of artificial intelligence and robotics is associated with the conceptual lack of resolution of the basic issues underlying modern models of legal regulation for anything: about the concept and general status of the phenomenon to be settled. With regard to the research topic, this translates into questions about the concept and legal personality of artificial intelligence. These questions represent a kind of logical metaphor: in order to start modeling the legal personality of artificial intelligence, we must first define its concept; and the legal concept of artificial intelligence will be formulated differently depending on whether we consider it as a subject or an object of law. The authors investigate the technical, moral and legal aspects of the problem concerning the status and understanding artificial intelligence, and draw conclusions about the basic conditions for the legal regulation of this area.