Abstract: This article is dedicated to the problem of overcoming imbalance between dynamism and stability of the current criminal legislation. Analysis is conducted on the gradation of amendments to criminal legislation for the period from 1997 to the first half of 2021; this includes the changes in criminal law based on objective reasons, as well as unsubstantiated criminal law novelties. There author determines three scenarios of further development of the national criminal legislation: accelerated (uneven), intensive, and transformational. It is stated that the most optimal choice is the intensive scenario. However, regardless of which scenario would be chosen, the starting point towards the stability of criminal law consists in creation of the adequate conceptual-categorical apparatus of criminal law, namely, the legislative definition of certain evaluative concepts. Based on the examples of case law, the author justifies the expediency of legislative consolidation of the definitions of certain evaluative concepts. The following conclusions were made:
1. Legislative clarification of the scope and content of evaluative concepts requires using the most abstract method for formulation of regulatory directions instead of casuistic method.
2. In the event of practical implementation of the intensive scenario for the development of criminal law, the criminal law norm that contains definitive apparatus should be placed in the new Chapter 13 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, and specifically outside the Special Part of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. This requires the introduction of the new “Conclusive Part”.
3. In the event of practical implementation of the accelerated (uneven) scenario or transformational scenario of the development of criminal law, most optimal is to place the criminal law norm containing the conceptual apparatus solely in the General Part of the Criminal Code.

Abstract: The goal of this research is to formulate the definition of the mechanism of Criminal Law counteraction of extremism. To solve this task, the author analyzed the current doctrinal approaches towards the question of definition of such key concepts as “Criminal Law mechanism”, Criminal Law regulatory mechanism”, “crime counteraction”, as well as sequential revelation of their content. As any other mechanism, the mechanism of criminal law counteraction of extremism has a certain task of its functionality and correspondingly carries out specific tasks to achieve it. To solve the question of what should be understood as the goal of this mechanism, the author referred to the goals of crime counteraction as a whole. A conclusion is made that the content and list of tasks and functions of the mechanism of criminal law counteraction of extremist activity is substantially defined by the tasks and functions of criminal law. Moreover, the author highlights the structural elements of the mechanism of criminal law counteraction of extremist activity.

Abstract: The paper is devoted to criminalization of mass distribution of extremist materials. The author analyzes the judicial practice materials on criminal cases regulated by the article 282 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, and on administrative cases regulated by the article 20.29 of the Code of Administrative Offences. The author states that investigative and judicial practice faces particular difficulties when distinguishing the mentioned offence from the crime established under the article 282 of the CC. The problem of distinguishing these illegal actions in the “border areas” is one of the most complicated problems of law enforcement. The research methodology is based on the general principles of the dialectical method. The author applies modern general scientific and specific research methods including logical and legal, comparative-legal, system-structural analysis and others. The author reveals certain shortcomings of anti-extremist legislation and the procedure of formation and the content of the federal list of extremist materials. Particularly, one and the same information material can be examined by court twice if it is represented in another form and fixed on another information carrier. The presence of such a possibility of avoidance of law disperses anti-extremist instruments and unreasonably extends the federal list of extremist materials. The author offers the ways to improve the legislation which can allow avoiding the multiplicity of judicial opinions on the alike issues. The author concludes that the necessary precondition of implementation of the suggestion about criminalization of mass distribution of extremist materials is systematization and analysis of extremist materials included in the published federal list. The author states that it is necessary to establish the so-called “white list” of information materials which should contain the materials which had been declared non-extremist by court. 

Abstract: This article is dedicated to the analysis of legislation on responsibility for extremism and terrorism during the validity time of the Criminal Code of RSFSR of 1960. It is claimed that the beginning of a new stage of criminal legislation became the introduction in 1058 of the USSR Law “On Criminal Responsibility for State Crimes”. The author conducts a comparative analysis of the corresponding positions of 1926 RSFSR Criminal Code in the area of counteraction against counterrevolutionary crimes and against the order of government and positions of the Criminal Code of 1960 in the sphere of counteraction against state crimes, especially dangerous for the Soviet Union. The author concludes that regulation on responsibility for various crimes in the Law of 1958 did not contribute to the development of a general definition of the notion of the other state crime. Due to this fact, there is no unified opinion within the Soviet legal literature related to the question of what should be understood under a state crime. It is stated that namely for this reason the similar difficulties emerge in development of a scientific definition of “extremism (extremist activity)”. The responsibility for racial and (or) ethnic discrimination first in history of the Russian criminal legislation, has been established in the original version of the Article 74 of the 1960 Criminal Code. At the same time, in describing the objective side of such crime, there was no indication towards agitation or propaganda aimed at instigation on religious animosity, as in the Criminal Code of 1926. The author considers such legislative solution as a certain step back.

Abstract: The paper is devoted to the issue of legal responsibility of a person for participation in an extremist group (part 2, article 282.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). One of the most complicated problems of law enforcement activity is the problem of particular actions, the participation in an extremist group is reflected in, and the degree of involvement. The criminal legislation of Russia doesn’t range participation in an extremist group according to the degree of involvement in its activities, and legal science studies qualify this problem as a disputable one. The research methodology is based on the provisions of the dialectical method of cognition of phenomena and processes of the objective reality. The author also applies modern general scientific and specific research methods: logical and legal, comparative-legal, system-structure analysis, etc. The author analyzes the judicial practice related to the problem of qualification of a person’s participation in organized criminal groups. The author analyzes the character of participation of a person in particular criminal groups, described in the Special Part of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, which aim at committing particular crimes or a further involvement in criminal activities, and comes to significant conclusions. The author makes particular proposals about the improvement of the current criminal legislation, helping optimize combating extremism and terrorism. 

Abstract:  
This article gives the criminal-legal characteristics to the inducement, recruitment, and other involvement of an individual as the alternative actions of the objective side of organization of the extremist community (Part 1.1, Article 282.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). Neither the criminal law nor the normative acts of other branches of law reveal the content of the notions of “inducement”, “recruitment”, and “involvement”. Therefore, the aforementioned notions are rather evaluative; their content is not defined by the law or a normative act, but rather specified by the legal practitioner based on the practical circumstances of the criminal case. The author suggests that based on the correlation between extremism and terrorism, the legislator planned the disposition of the Part 1.1 of the Article 282.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation as the “mirror” disposition of the corresponding Part of the Article 205.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. However, despite the similarities of their textual interpretation, the perusal of dispositions of the corresponding articles of the CCRF allows making a conclusion that their conceptual content is diverse. The author notes that the Part 1.1 of the Article 282.1 of the CCRF criminalized the action of an individual aimed at the increase in the number of members of the already existing extremist community, and realization of the first stage of committing a crime that consists in preparation for the crime. The author makes specific propositions regarding the improvement of the current version of disposition of the Part 1.1 of the Article 282.1 of the CCRF.
 

Abstract: This article is dedicated to the analysis of legislation on responsibility for extremism and terrorism during the validity time of the Criminal Code of RSFSR of 1960. It is claimed that the beginning of a new stage of criminal legislation became the introduction in 1058 of the USSR Law “On Criminal Responsibility for State Crimes”. The author conducts a comparative analysis of the corresponding positions of 1926 RSFSR Criminal Code in the area of counteraction against counterrevolutionary crimes and against the order of government and positions of the Criminal Code of 1960 in the sphere of counteraction against state crimes, especially dangerous for the Soviet Union. The author concludes that regulation on responsibility for various crimes in the Law of 1958 did not contribute to the development of a general definition of the notion of the other state crime. Due to this fact, there is no unified opinion within the Soviet legal literature related to the question of what should be understood under a state crime. It is stated that namely for this reason the similar difficulties emerge in development of a scientific definition of “extremism (extremist activity)”. The responsibility for racial and (or) ethnic discrimination first in history of the Russian criminal legislation, has been established in the original version of the Article 74 of the 1960 Criminal Code. At the same time, in describing the objective side of such crime, there was no indication towards agitation or propaganda aimed at instigation on religious animosity, as in the Criminal Code of 1926. The author considers such legislative solution as a certain step back.

Abstract: This article is dedicated to the examination of the fundamental positions of the Criminal Code of RSFSR of 1922 that establishes responsibility for actions, which in accordance with the current legislation, fell into the notion of extremism (extremist activity). Actions that qualify for the legal definition of extremism are included into various chapters and sections of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. In addition to that, the majority of them is referred to as crimes against the foundations of the constitutional structure and state security, as well as against public safety and order. The author conducts a complex analysis of legal norms of the Criminal Code of RSFSR of 1922 that regulate the responsibility for state crimes. The conclusion is made that the first codified source of criminal law of RFSR In defining the criteria of criminal-legal security was guided by the priority of securing the government authority and its interests. At the same time, in the 1922 Criminal Code, state crimes did not attain the parameters of thoroughly developed and constructed with consideration of the object of a crime system of the corresponding infringements. The notion of “counterrevolutionary crime” was formulated in the Criminal Code of 1922; based on this notion, the legislators also constructed separate components of such crimes. A complex analysis of these crimes allows concluding that they contained signs of extremist activity in its modern perception.

Abstract: This article examines the provisions of the 1926 RSFSR Criminal Code that establish responsibility for actions, which in accordance with the currently existing legislation, qualify under the notion of extremism (extremist activity). Actions that fall within the legal definition of extremism are included into the various chapters and sections of the Criminal Code of Russian Federation. At the same time, the majority of them are referred to as crimes against the foundations of constitutional structure and state security, as well as public security and public order. The author conducts a comprehensive analysis of the norms of the 1926 RSFSR Criminal Code, which regulate the responsibility for state crimes. The conclusion is made that in the Criminal Code of RSFSR of 1926 the main changes pertaining to the counteraction against actions containing the signs of extremism in its modern understanding, were made due to the enactment of the “Position on propaganda or agitation involving a call for the overthrow, subversion, or weakening of Soviet authority or for the carrying out of other counterrevolutionary crimes” by the 25th Central Executive Committee of the Soviet Union in February of 1927. The author claims that were no major differences with regards to crimes of extremism character during the comparison of the Criminal Codes of 1922 and 1926. The Criminal Code of 1926 maintained continuation of the Criminal Code of 1922, which is particularly expressed in equalization of responsibility for participation and organization of the counterrevolutionary crimes. In addition to that, in the Criminal Code of 1926 the propaganda and agitation aimed at instigation of national or religious animosity, which testifies about the gradual reflection in the criminal law of the formulated in the 1925 RSFSR Constitution ideas of racial and national equality.

Abstract: This article is dedicated to the analysis of legal means in counteracting extremism (extremist activity) in the period of uncodified criminal legislation of the Soviet power. The subject of the research is the positions of legislative acts of the Soviet power that regulate to one or another extent the responsibility for actions, which in accordance with the current legislation, fall under the notion of extremist (extremist activity). The author claims that the rejection of the achievements of the former legislation is practically equal to the rejection of apprehension of the positive experience that existed in the pre-revolutionary legislation. A complex analysis of the positions of the 1917 Declaration of the Rights of the Peoples of Russia, Constitution of the Russian Soviet Federated Socialistic Republic, as well as a number of the Soviet Decrees that regulate relations in the area of functioning of the various religious confessions, is being conducted. The conclusion is made that the first legislative acts of the Soviet Power that determine the character of the state-church relations, corresponded with the international legal norms and established the conditions for the equal functioning of the various religious confessions. In addition to that, the author examined a number of the normative legal acts that codify the responsibility for the counterrevolutionary crimes. This work allows making a conclusion that under the counterrevolutionary activity we should understand any threat to the Soviet power; this notion was defined in the legislation similarly to the currently existing notion of extremism. During the first years of the Soviet government, the legislation in the area of counteracting extremism, gained a principally new form; this is explained by the change in the socio-political structure of the country, and the beginning of the process of establishing the new socialistic law and the normative legal base of the state.

Abstract: This article is dedicated to the retrospective analysis of the legislation of the Russian Empire for actions that would today fall under the category of extremism. The subject of this research is the key positions of the 1845 1845 Code of Criminal and Correctional Punishment and Criminal Code of 1903, representing the prototype of crimes of extremist nature. The author states that actions that fall under the legal definition of extremism are included into the various chapters and sections of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. At the same time, majority of them pertain to crimes against the foundations of the constitutional structure and security of the state; against public safety and public order. Advancements in the legislation on responsibility for extremism is directly connected to certain historical eras of development of Russian statehood and establishment of the national legal culture. The author analyzes the norms that set the responsibility for political crimes and crimes against religious beliefs. The article presents the continuity of certain legislative decisions on responsibility for crimes of extremist nature by the legislation of Russian Empire and by modern Russian criminal legislation.

Abstract: This article is dedicated to the issues of regulation of responsibility in the United States criminal law for crimes that are recognized by the Russian legislation as crimes of extremism. The author examines the criminal legal norms that regulate the issues of responsibility for crimes committed on the grounds of hate, as well as the practice of application of criminal legislation in the area of counteraction of such crimes. The article analyzes approach of the American legislator towards the issue of criminalizing actions that according to Russian legislation fall under crimes in the Article 282 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The United States is one of the most liberal legislations in the world from the perspective of freedom of expression and freedom of speech. It forms a completely different legal and political approach towards the problem of proclamation of hate than in practically any other country: US has a strong tradition of freedom of speech that covers even the most insulting statements. The position of the American legislator consists in the adherence to the doctrine of minimal restriction of freedom of speech, which is substantiated by the positions of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.