State and Law

The aim of this research is to highlight the differences in the systematization of legislation and legal acts based on the study of theoretical material, to achieve which a number of theoretical and practical issues of law systematization are discussed, in particular, the semantic differences between the terms "legislation" and "legal act", approaches to the understanding of legal acts and the systematization of legislation, which made it possible to classify the existing concepts of the systematization of law and try to build a new definition.

The development of blockchain technology has led to the emergence of a novel form of collaborative organization, known as Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs), which rely on internet-based communication and cryptographic mechanisms. The economic significance of DAOs has prompted legislators to consider appropriate legal frameworks. This article analyzes the legal status of DAOs in the European Union and the Republic of Armenia. While the EU adopted the Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA), it refrained from recognizing DAOs as distinct legal entities, despite preliminary considerations during the legislative process. Similarly, Armenia, through the Law on Crypto-Assets (HO-159-N), inspired by MiCA, does not explicitly address DAOs. Consequently, both jurisdictions exhibit a regulatory gap. The article demonstrates that, even in the absence of dedicated legislation, interpretative cues within these legal instruments can provide guidance on how DAOs may be treated under EU and Armenian law. By examining these frameworks, the study contributes to understanding the potential legal recognition and regulation of DAOs in different legal systems.

This study examines the critical challenge of online advertising regulation in Armenia, a post-Soviet country with a transitional democracy. The object of the study is the RA Law “On Advertising”, a legal framework developed in the pre-digital era of television and print, which fails to meet the demands of the modern media environment. The purpose of the research is to analyze the gaps in this legislation and propose practical solutions. The scientific novelty lies in its empirical contribution as a comprehensive study to analyze the direct impact of vague legal concepts and restrictive advertising policies on the financial stability of local media in Armenia. The results show that recent regulations, in particular the near-total ban on gambling advertising, have led to a significant loss of revenue for media organizations, while failing to reduce the overall size of the gambling market. The practical significance of the work is that its findings and recommendations can serve as a roadmap for policymakers to reform the RA Law "On Advertising" and develop effective oversight mechanisms that balance public interest with the need for a free and financially viable press.

This article explores the legal implications of a counterparty's superior bargaining position as a factor shaping the expression of will in civil transactions. Anchored in classical and modern civil law theory, the study examines how imbalances in negotiating power—rooted in economic dominance, infrastructure control, or market dependence—can distort the autonomy of will, raising questions about the validity of the resulting contracts. The Armenian legal framework, particularly the Civil Code and the Law on Protection of Economic Competition, is analyzed to demonstrate how abuse of superior bargaining position may constitute a defect of will and render a transaction disputable. Drawing on jurisprudence, legal doctrine, and regulatory practice, the article argues that such abuse, even in the absence of traditional vitiating factors like coercion or fraud, can undermine genuine consent. It concludes that transactions concluded under these conditions should be assessed through a hybrid lens of civil and competition law, particularly where an administrative act has confirmed the abuse.

This article examines modern approaches to pre-trial dispute resolution through mediation, with a particular emphasis on the new functions of the notary in this process. It analyzes the legal mechanisms for interaction between mediation and the notary profession in the context of ensuring sustainable and effective justice, preventing excessive judicial burden. Particular attention is given to a comparative legal analysis of the legislation of Uzbekistan and Armenia, which have seen active reforms in the field of alternative dispute resolution in recent years. The author emphasizes that notarization of mediation agreements plays a key role in ensuring their legal validity and the trust of the parties, and also strengthens the preventive function of the notariat in protecting citizens' rights and the rule of law.

As a result of various global changes and the widespread expansion of digital media, the activity of family influencers on social media has evolved into a multi-billion-dollar industry, often centered around children. Lacking a clearly defined legal status and excluded from negotiating or consenting to either labor or civil contracts, children ultimately become the performers or service providers under such agreements. This article analyzes the concept of “sharenting” and its potential dangers, including identity theft, psychological harm, and the deprivation of a child’s ability to shape their own identity. Within the boundaries of parental autonomy, the article proposes the legal recognition of a child’s “right to be forgotten,” enabling individuals, upon reaching adulthood, to request the removal of their images and personal information from monetized content. This approach aims to protect both parental rights and reduce the long-term risks of exploitation and harm to children.

The article is dedicated to examining the unique aspects of a fundamental right held by performers - the right of distribution of the performance fixations.

Although the RA Law "On Copyright and Related Rights" provides the right to distribute performance fixations, the legal regulations do not reveal the essence of the distribution right. Moreover, the law does not provide detailed regulations pertaining to the right of exhaustion, or more specifically, the doctrine of first sale, which is inherently intertwined with the right of distribution.

It's worth highlighting that the concept of exhaustion rights, particularly within the digital age, has sparked extensive deliberation within international practice and scholarly circles. Consequently, this article provides an in-depth examination of the recent stances taken by both the US and EU courts concerning the notion of digital exhaustion.

Based on the studies and analysis, the article summarizes that the right of exhaustion should be interpreted as applicable only in the case of the distribution of performances fixed on tangible objects. Consequently, in instances where performances are, for instance, hosted on streaming services, the doctrine of exhaustion finds no applicability. Furthermore, despite the absence of a specific response within Armenian legal practice and legislation regarding the interpretation of exhaustion rights in the digital realm, the article asserts that the interpretation within the Armenian legal system should exclude the application of the doctrine of first sale to digital fixations of performances.

In the article, the procedural regulations concerning recusal, self-recusal, and exemption from participation in proceedings, as provided in the currently effective Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Armenia, which entered into force on 1 July 2022, as well as the practical problems existing in practice in relation thereto, have become the subject of scientific and practical analysis. In particular, the procedural procedures for terminating participation in proceedings, the subject composition, and the distinguishing features of the grounds have become the subject of detailed analysis. The relevant case law of the European Court of Human Rights and the judicial practice formed by the Court of Cassation of the Republic of Armenia in relation to certain practical issues are presented. The grounds for declaring recusal of a judge and the various interpretations existing in practice in relation thereto have become the subject of separate discussion. Special reference is made to the procedure for resolving the issue of recusal (self-recusal) or exemption from participation in proceedings. In this regard, various approaches already formed in practice in relation to certain regulations, as well as their possible solutions, are presented. In particular, with regard to this latter issue, the question of the subject authorized to decide on exemption from participation in proceedings, when it concerns judicial guarantees proceedings carried out at the pre-trial stage, has become the subject of detailed discussion and analysis.

This article examines how normative logic embedded in reparations law continues to shape contemporary German criminal law, taking the Luxembourg Agreement of 1952 between the Federal Republic of Germany, the State of Israel and the Jewish Conference on Material Claims against Germany (JCC) as its very conceptual point of departure. Against the backdrop of rising antisemitic criminal offenses in Germany, the article focuses on the amendment of Section 46 (2) of the German Criminal Code (StGB; Strafgesetzbuch), which explicitly includes antisemitic motives among the circumstances relevant for sentencing. While this amendment has been criticized as merely declaratory or even ‘symbolic’, this article argues that such criticism overlooks the deeper legal genealogy of state responsibility that ultimately originates in the Luxembourg Agreement. Antisemitic motives intensify culpability and wrongfulness because they engage the foundational commitments of the post-war legal order that emerged in response to antisemitic state-driven violence. Explicitly naming such motives in sentencing law therefore constitutes a crucial institutional function by shaping investigative practices, judicial reasoning, and normative expectations within the criminal justice system. From a criminal legal perspective, the article develops an account of motives as normative indicators that affect both culpability and wrongfulness. Antisemitic motives, it argues, intensify the Unrechtsgehalt of an offense because they negate the equal moral status of the victim and symbolically attack the legal order that emerged in response to antisemitic state violence. The article concludes that the explicit inclusion of antisemitic motives in Section 46 (2) StGB reflects a coherent and legally grounded response to historically specific injustice and underscores the role of criminal law in stabilizing responsibility within the German legal order.