Purpose: The paper distinguishes between closely related yet not identical concepts related to the development of an optimal legal policy in modern developed economies: less regulation, better regulation, and smart regulation.Design/Methodology/Approach: The work is based on comparing smart regulation as an academic construct and as a regulatory practice in combination with other approaches to managing regulatory impact. Modern methods of smart regulation are assessed from the perspective of their consistency with the concept of "smart" which is conventionally used with regard to different instruments/technological devices (such devices consume less resources, while opening up more opportunities).Findings: In consequence of the research, the author concludes that smart regulation: (1) saves regulatory instruments (intervenes only where appropriate and to the extent necessary); (2) does not rely on own resources, exerting influence at different levels, engaging any actors whose involvement may help in achieving the objective, as surrogate regulators; (3) does not rely on the intelligence of the regulator, requiring smooth systematic interaction of all parties to the regulatory process during the improvement of the norm; (4) uses a set of different means, including those that are not traditionally considered to be strictly legal;(5) relies on experiments and the need for continuous testing of various combinations of regulatory instruments in search of the most effective combination of them; (6) includes all the progress made in other legal regulation concepts (less regulation, better regulation), but unlike them, it shifts the emphasis from the regulatory process to its outcome in an attempt to understand what exactly is preventing from obtaining it and to achieve it in the least onerous way.Originality/Value: To exemplify the instruments that are capable of addressing the problem in a pinpoint way, the paper presents the combination of command and control regulation with voluntarism and information strategies, nudging, regulatory sandboxes, digitization and automation of the processes of interaction between the participant of legal relations with the State. The success of these instruments depends largely on providing the opportunity to display initiative, to bring a sense of free will, not to subordinate a person to the will of the State, but to form a cooperative relationship that would be much less resource-consuming, more productive and reasonable.

No abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this work is to study the regulatory sandbox concept and distinguish it from related phenomena.Design/Methodology/Approach: This work analyzes current scientific and legislative definitions of regulatory sandboxes and related phenomena. Theoretical comprehension of this subject takes into account the attributes of legal regimes and legal experiments defined by the legal science as independent categories. The analysis of current and proposed legal regulation of experimental legal regimes is provided.Findings: The research has analyzed current scientific and legislative definitions of regulatory sandboxes. Given the attributes typical for legal regimes and legal experiments, as well as available scientific definitions, an all-encompassing theoretical definition of a regulatory sandbox is provided. Potential legal discrepancies related to regulation of experimental legal regimes are demonstrated.Original/Value: The research is aimed at eliminating terminological confusion caused by applying a new legal concept. Besides, it proposes an allencompassing definition of the regulatory sandbox concept than can be applied for further theoretical study of fintech testing regulation as well as for related legislative practice. Keywords: Experimental legal regimes Á Regulatory sandboxes Á Fintech Á Digital economy Á Digital innovations Á Legal experiment Á Legal regime JEL Code: K10 Á K220 Á K230

Introduction. Changes in the modern world, due to the development of the Internet, have had an impact on the legal system. The purpose is to study the transformation of the legal system under the influence of the Internet. The objectives are to determine the operating concept of the legal system, the factors affecting it, as well as to highlight the elements of the legal structure of the system; to research the transformation of these elements under the influence of the Internet. The methods include general logical methods (analysis, synthesis, induction, deduction), system-structural, formal logic. Results. The legal system has such attributes as dynamism, adaptability, openness, and functioning as a kind of social system. It is determined by economic, political, national, moral, information and other factors. But the Internet is a complex factor that expresses itself in all these groups of factors and transforms the legal system, which includes elements such as the objective law, legal practice, legal infrastructure and legal consciousness. Conclusion. Objective law develops due to the emergence of the complex inter-branch institute-Internet law and to a modification of other branches of law. The Internet also ensures electronic publishing of a law, provides public access to the stages of adoption of a law, and improves the procedure of legislative initiatives. The transformation of the legal infrastructure under the influence of the Internet is based on e-government concept that is developing in two directions: optimization of relations between the public authorities, and better cooperation between public and private parties. As a result of the Internet's impact on the legal practice, new legal procedures and subjects appear. It implements the principle of transparency and the rule of law, as well as access to justice. Transformation of legal conciseness under the influence of the Internet is associated with the increase in transparency of the legal system. For theoretical legal conciseness the Internet creates a new subject area of study. For the professional legal conciseness the Internet creates new objectives to solve. Moreover, ordinary conciseness can be transformed both in the direction of development, and in the direction of degradation depending on the quality of the legal information from the Internet.

This article examines the impact of the need for maintaining physical and social distancing between people caused by the epidemiological situation upon the organizational-legal means of the Russian judicial system. This implies the concept of “smart” regulation with the use of both traditional means of legal regulation (prohibitions, permits, obligations, sanctions, incentives) and tools of psychological, educational, and information influence. At the same time, distancing is viewed as a factor that prompts changes in the forms of legal activity, as well as the result of transformations taking place in society. Such organizational-legal means affected by the need for physical and social distancing, suggest using video conferencing systems, online sessions, change in the procedure for submitting procedural and other documents, familiarization with audio protocols of court hearing and other documents in digital format, as well as restrictions for presence in the courthouse. The author determines the advantages and disadvantages of the innovations. The conclusion is made that such restrictions must be temporary only to avoid violating the principles of transparency and openness of judicial proceedings.