The paper substantiates the thesis that the distinction between proactive and the reactive rulemaking [lawmaking] becomes much more distinct and significant in crisis periods of societal development. In such periods, when social systems face huge challenges, the corresponding transformation of legal systems either follows the logic of preserving existing institutions and values (reactive law), – alternatively – goal-setting is based on lawmaking aimed at transforming the social reality (proactive law). Both proactive and reactive lawmaking can come into conflict with the existing constitution, moving society to change it by bringing it into compliance with changed goals and values or changed social realities. In this regard, the fundamental differences between proactive law and reactive law are determined, based on the necessity of introducing these understandings into the conceptual space of social legal analysis. In addition, the concept of anticipatory rulemaking, which has become widespread in Russian legal publications, is analyzed, and the irrelevance thereof to the purposes of the research in question is shown. The concept of proactive law is analyzed in more detail and depth, resulting in identification and description of two main types of this kind of rulemaking. The first type, called pragmatic proactive law, is rulemaking based on practical objectives. This type is characterized by an intention to change social reality without affecting the values of the society being reformed through development and adoption of new laws. Unlike the first one, the second type is initiated by a process of value reassessment and abandonment of old ideals in favor of new ones. The desire to restore the lost correlation between the system of values and social practices gives birth to ethico-teleological proactive law or value-based rulemaking. The transformations in legal systems during the last decade are further considered and analyzed in the context of the major challenges whose impact entails the need to choose between proactive and reactive rulemaking, and – in the instance of proactive rulemaking – gives rise to a dichotomy of the pragmatic-goal-oriented type and the value-based type. It is concluded that it is necessary to include a conceptual-and-methodological model of analysis in the toolkit of analysis of the lawmaking policy of present-day Russia, especially in evaluating the consistency of innovations with constitutional identity.

В процессе разработки и реализации программы цифровизации уголовного судопроизводства важное значение имеет оценка роли и места теоретико-познавательных основ данного института с точки зрения их адаптации к новым условиям и процедурам и учета концептуальных изменений, которые произошли в философской теории познания и специально-юридических ее приложениях. В статье рассматриваются проблемы, возникающие в процессе взаимодействия философского и частнонаучного знания (проблема сосуществования различных механизмов межуровневого взаимодействия) и взаимодействия частнонаучных дисциплин между собой (проблема «методологического империализма»). Критически разбираются тезисы о замене человека машиной в процессе «раскрытия преступлений». Цель исследования-проверить гипотезу об изменении смысла и значения терминов «субъект», «объект», «объективность» в контексте цифровизации уголовного судопроизводства. Достижение этой цели предполагало анализ изменений в области философской теории познания, оценку возможности их учета в специально-научной (юридической) теории познания и включения в круг рассматриваемых проблем в перспективе цифровизации уголовного судопроизводства. При подготовке статьи использовались философские (философско-герменевтический и философско-аналитический), историко-и философско-научные (социология знания, дискурсанализ, критическая рефлексия) методы. Основной вывод: в процессе цифровизации уголовного судопроизводства необходимо сохранить базовые теоретико-познавательные принципы различения формального и содержательного, объективного (интерсубъективного) и субъективного, что не исключает критической оценки возможностей традиционных способов определения понятий и категорий, распространенных в классической теории познания. Ключевые слова: теория познания, цифровизация, уголовное судопроизводство, субъект, объект, объективное.

This article assesses the problems and prospects of the development of cooperation among the BRICS countries’ in the sphere of law and the movement of these countries towards the creation of a common legal framework. The article presents a comparative analysis of the systems of law, including the cultural, historical, social and political contexts of their formation and development as well as the functioning of the systems in the conditions of the modern world.The article particularly focuses on the subject of a common philosophy of law for the BRICS countries that would allow not only to establish the interaction of such dissimilar partners in the legal sphere, but also to move towards a new model of legal interaction for the whole world that has embarked on the path of globalization. Special means allowing the assessment of the possibility of future legal integration and globalization based on a common philosophy of law are the traditions and values of the civilizations represented by the BRICS countries. The article suggests that the core of the civilizational and value- based identity of each BRICS partner consists in a set of ideas and interpretations of the notion of justice clearly manifested in the controversy with the theory and ideology of justice proposed by the initiators and leaders of globalization - the countries of the West led by the United States. The theory and ideology of justice promoted by the "Atlantists" is concisely formulated in the book "A Theory of Justice" by John Rawls. Therefore, the reaction to and discussion of such a theory by the philosophers and jurists from Russia, India and China allows determining the contours of the common philosophical and legal position of these countries as well as outlining its significance for the future of the BRICS countries and, perhaps, of the whole system of legal relations in a new globalizing world.

No abstract

The paper explores the problem of theoretical knowledge transformation, the implementation of which is conditioned by the digitalization of legal proceedings. In the context of this problem, the experience of mathematizing nature and society, its similarity and difference with the task of digitalization through the introduction of computer technology in the functioning of the justice system is analyzed. The ontological assumptions and methodological consequences of preparing theoretical knowledge for the processes of mathematization and digitalization are examined in detail. The inclusion and experience of constructing natural and social reality in the task of constructing digital reality is revealed and described. Digitalization itself is being studied both as a kind of cognitive and intellectual technology, and as the improvement of social technology. This action is also considered from the point of view of the correspondence of the experimental and theoretical and conceptual knowledge in the field of criminal proceedings. Heuristic and cognitive capabilities of computer modeling of actions of individuals are revealed on the basis of teleological and causal types of explanation. Cases of the introduction of computer technology in the investigation of crimes and other types of law enforcement practice are considered.