State and Law

This article is devoted to a comprehensive analysis of the conceptual foundations of the doctrine of resilient statehood and constitutional immunity. It is argued that the effectiveness of the republican form of government is determined not by the formal perfection of the constitutional text, but by the real capacity of the state system for self-regulation, self-restraint, and the reproduction of its institutional identity. The article introduces the concept of the "constitutional republic" as a social immune system, identifies the symptoms of constitutional imbalance — including institutional deformation, the erosion of trust, civic apathy, and the phenomenon of "managed immunodeficiency" — and examines partocracy as a pathological transformation of the republic. Special attention is devoted to the autoimmune effect; whereby protective mechanisms turn against the very foundations of the constitutional order they were designed to safeguard. The article advances a broad, system-functional understanding of constitutional immunity as the capacity of the constitutional order for self-preservation, the restoration of normative equilibrium, and the reproduction of public trust, and demonstrates that the guarantee of constitutional immunity constitutes the necessary and sufficient precondition for ensuring sustainable statehood.

This article provides an in-depth analysis of the constitutional framework governing the powers of the Prosecutor’s Office in the context of the protection of state and community interests. The primary aim of the study is to determine whether the legislative amendments conferring upon the Prosecutor’s Office the authority to initiate claims for the protection of community interests are compatible with the requirements and underlying logic of the Constitution of the Republic of Armenia.

The research employs linguistic, systemic, and formal-logical methods of legal interpretation, as well as the analytical approach of identifying the intent of the legislator. The study examines the evolution of constitutional regulation (1995, 2005, 2015), relevant legislative amendments, their explanatory notes, and the emerging judicial practice.

The findings demonstrate that the concept of “state interest” in the Constitution functions as an autonomous legal category, the content of which does not encompass “community interest.” The amendments introduced by the Amending Law are largely mechanical in nature and were not supported by a comprehensive constitutional and systemic analysis, thereby creating normative uncertainty and a risk of misinterpretation of the constitutional text.

The article further argues that the issue of protecting community interests could have been addressed through alternative legal mechanisms without conferring additional powers upon the Prosecutor’s Office beyond those provided for by the Constitution. It is concluded that the matter requires constitutional assessment and is likely to become the subject of review by the Constitutional Court.

This article examines legal challenges of judicial referrals to the Constitutional Court in Armenia. The analysis is not confined to procedural conditions, but focuses on public-law significance for the rule of law, constitutional supremacy and the constitutionalization of the legal order. The article argues that ordinary courts are not passive applicators of statutes in a centralized model of constitutional review. When a norm applicable in a concrete case raises a constitutionally reasoned concern, the court becomes the first institution capable of detecting that problem and transferring it to constitutional justice. Particular attention is paid to the standard of “reasonable doubt”, which has acquired a more substantive meaning in the recent procedural decisions of the Constitutional Court. The article uses doctrinal, comparative and statistical methods, including the annual reports of the Constitutional Court for 2006-2025 to assess the dynamics of judicial referrals and their relationship with individual applications. The conclusion is that reasonable doubt must be strict enough to exclude formal or unsubstantiated referrals, not so demanding as to neutralize the constitutional initiative of ordinary courts.

This article examines the issues related to the annulment of unlawful administrative acts in administrative law, within the context of balancing the protection of legitimate expectations and the principle of legality. The article establishes the main criteria that administrative authorities and courts should follow when deciding on the annulment of unlawful favorable administrative acts, both ex nunc and ex tunc. Specifically, in the case of ex nunc annulment, emphasis is placed on maintaining a proper balance between the protection of legitimate expectations and the principle of legality, the time elapsed between the adoption and annulment of the unlawful favorable administrative act, and the need to establish a transitional period when annulling an unlawful administrative act in order to prevent disproportionate harm to the addressee. When considering the ex tunc annulment of an unlawful favorable administrative act, attention is given to the degree of reliance and engagement of the addressee on the act’s legality, the extent of violation of the principle of legality, the interests of third parties, and the time elapsed between the adoption and annulment of the administrative act.

This article is devoted to a comprehensive study of the issues of criminal-legal regulation of the illegal circulation of human embryos, foetuses, human or cadaver cells, tissues, organs, biological materials, or bodily fluids.

The aim of the study is to identify the theoretical and practical issues arising from Article 183 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Armenia, to assess the compliance of its provisions with contemporary criminal-legal policy and international legal standards, and to propose avenues for legislative improvement.

In the course of the study, both general scientific and special research methods were employed, including analysis, synthesis, generalization, comparative legal analysis, logical analysis, systems-structural analysis, and legal modelling.

The article comprehensively examines the issues relating to the object, objective side, subject, and subjective side of the corpus delicti, as well as the specific features of the criminal-legal assessment of the illegal circulation of human organs. It is substantiated that the current regulation does not fully reflect the graduated differences in the degree of public danger of the criminal conduct and, in certain cases, is inconsistent with the immediate object of criminal-legal protection. As a result, a new structure of Article 183 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Armenia is proposed, based on the nature of the subject matter of the offence, the degree of public danger, unlawfulness, and the principle of differentiation of the protected legal interests.

The research findings may contribute to the improvement of national criminal legislation, the effective implementation of international obligations undertaken by the Republic of Armenia, and the harmonization of law enforcement practice.

The article examines the problems relating to the protection of the right to life within the armed forces in the context of the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, international standards, domestic legal regulations, and mechanisms of civilian oversight. It is substantiated that the protection of the right to life of servicemen is not limited solely to the State’s obligation to conduct an effective investigation into cases of death, but also includes the prevention of real and foreseeable risks to life, the обеспечение of a safe service environment, and the establishment of effective measures aimed at eliminating psychological pressure, non-statutory relations, and degrading treatment.

Particular attention is devoted to the role of non-governmental organizations, especially the “Peace Dialogue” NGO, as an important factor in identifying human rights violations within the armed forces, ensuring public oversight, and promoting legislative reforms. The article also analyzes the regulations contained in Articles 522 and 523 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Armenia, highlighting issues related to psychological violence, systemic pressure, command inactivity, and the establishment of causation.

It is concluded that the effective protection of the right to life within the armed forces is possible only through the complementary application of criminal law, preventive mechanisms, psychological support, and independent oversight mechanisms.

The article presents the author's position on the necessity of further comprehensive study of the institution of jurisdiction in criminal proceedings within the framework of a separate field of research—the doctrine of jurisdiction. It substantiates the need to develop a doctrinally grounded concept of jurisdiction and its types, including the identification, as a separate type of jurisdiction, of the jurisdiction applicable during special periods (jurisdiction under martial law or a state of emergency). The author also argues for recognizing the interbranch nature of jurisdiction, characteristic of civil, commercial (arbitrazh), administrative, and criminal proceedings, as well as the possible necessity of unifying the relevant terminology. Furthermore, the article emphasizes the expediency of scientific and practical research into certain controversial issues, including the scope of the concept of the "prohibition of disputes over jurisdiction," the improvement of the existing procedure for transferring cases according to jurisdiction, and the inclusion of a separate chapter entitled "Jurisdiction" in criminal procedural legislation. Discussions of this kind may prove particularly useful among scholars of the post-Soviet states, which previously existed within a common "procedural space."

The article examines the legal nature and classification of criminal procedural sanctions within the system of means of criminal procedural coercion under the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Armenia. It analyses the legislator’s approach of placing all procedural sanctions in the chapter on “Means of Coercion” and compares it with the legislation of continental legal systems (Russian Federation, Italy, Austria, Georgia, Latvia) and the Anglo-American legal system (United States). The study reveals that the uniform treatment of sanctions as coercive measures in Armenian law contradicts both international practice and fundamental theoretical distinctions between means of coercion and sanctions as forms of legal liability. Drawing on doctrinal sources and the jurisprudence of the U.S. Supreme Court (Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co. and International Union v. Bagwell), the author proposes clear criteria for distinguishing between restorative/coercive sanctions and punitive sanctions. The paper concludes with concrete recommendations for legislative reform, suggesting the separation of sanctions constituting legal liability into a distinct chapter, following the Georgian legislative model, in order to strengthen the principles of legality, proportionality, and the authority of the judiciary.

The correct choice of the type of action in the administrative proceedings of the RA is crucial in the context of the outcome of the case, the distribution of the burden of proof, and the effectiveness of judicial protection.

The purpose of this research is to reveal the legal nature of administrative actions and to identify scientific and practical issues by analyzing the peculiarities of administrative actions, studying the claims underlying them, and, accordingly, the main criteria for differentiating these types of actions in the context of existing problems.

As a result of the research, conditioned by the significance of the institute of types of actions and their impact on the realization of the right to effective judicial protection, it is proposed: to merge actions for performance and actions for obligation; to interpret the procedural restrictions on filing a declaratory action (action for recognition) through the substantive impossibility of filing another type of action and the ineffectiveness of other types of actions in the context of achieving the goal pursued by the plaintiff; to consider the submission of a claim for compensation for damages caused by improper administration to the court as a derivative claim to the main claim of recognizing the administration as unlawful; as well as to confirm the fact of recognizing an administrative act as void also by a judicial act rendered as a result of the examination of an action for annulment (action for challenging), regardless of the outcome of the examination of the claim.

In the context of the above, this research contributes to the clarification of the criteria for differentiating types of actions, as well as to the regulation of existing legislative gaps.

An interim measure (securing a claim) is a key institution safeguarding the right to effective judicial protection. At the same time, it must not be transformed into a punitive or coercive mechanism that undermines the procedural position of the party against whom it is ordered. It is, therefore, particularly important to determine which procedural instruments can prevent the unlawful imposition of an interim measure in administrative proceedings and, where such measure has already been granted, ensure its revocation, while preserving a fair procedural balance grounded in the principle of equality of arms.

Drawing on an analysis of relevant theoretical sources, legislation, and judicial practice, the article examines the development and legal nature of the institution of interim measures, identifies the conditions governing the lawfulness of its application, and considers the revocation of an interim measure as a procedural remedy for overcoming its unlawful imposition.

The authors put forward a number of scholarly and practical conclusions that may guide the further development of legislation and law-enforcement practice concerning the institution of interim measures, including its revocation.