On some ideas regarding lawmaking of modern domestic researchers

Abstract

Based on the understanding of a number of judgments from Russian legal publications, conclusions useful for the theory and practice of lawmaking are formulated. In particular, firstly, it is incorrect to imagine that the essence of law-making is the “search for law”. After all, there is no law before law-making Secondly, the following conclusion is erroneous. “The digitalization of public relations leads to the fact that all processes in society, including the legal sphere, are accelerated many times. There are more and more new groups of relationships, including those developing in the virtual space, which are not regulated by law. As a result, lawmaking is increasingly lagging behind the pace of development of public relations. While law-making bodies pay attention to the emergence of a new group of public relations, make efforts to develop, discuss and adopt a normative legal act, the relations that develop under the influence of digitalization will change again. In these conditions, the processes of digitalization lead to the fact that law-making becomes irreversibly catching up. Many of the adopted regulations become outdated already at the moment when they come into force”. The argument in favor of the fallacy of the above conclusion is obvious. If “all processes in society, including the legal sphere, are repeatedly accelerated”, then there can be no question that “law-making is increasingly lagging behind the pace of development of public relations”, and it is absurd to declare “that law-making is becoming irreversibly catching up”. Thirdly, the following consequences of digitalization highlighted in the legal literature are missing and are not expected. “There is a tendency to reduce the role of legal acts in regulating public relations, to the possible emergence of new, as yet unknown regulatory systems, including, possibly, quasi-legal regulators. Such a trend may lead to the loss of its role by legal acts, which will also affect law-making activities”. The reason for the current absence and improbability of such consequences is simple. There are no and never will be conditions, namely the lag of law-making “from the pace of development of public relations” and the “catching up nature” of law-making activities, which cause mentioned consequences.