The article is devoted to a critical analysis of the terminology used in regulating entrepreneurial activity in the territories of “free” and “special” economic zones. The author explores the reasons for the parallel use of the concepts of “special economic zone” and “free economic zone”. The method of comparative legal analysis of legislation identifies the declared goals, terms of operation, management structure and requirements for business entities in various legal regimes. The author expresses the opinion that the key essential difference between the “free economic zone” and the “special economic zone” is the possibility for the entity covered by the legal regime to carry out entrepreneurial activities outside the territory of the zone. As a rule, the use of the term “participant” instead of “resident” in the law serves as a marker of this difference. The author points out specific examples of inconsistencies between the concepts used in the regulations and the established terminology. Based on the analysis, specific proposals are being made to adjust the conceptual framework in order to achieve greater consistency and certainty of legal regulation.

The article is devoted to the analysis of the legal category “source of increased danger”. The authors consider the discussion between approaches that treat this source as an activity or as a material object. The uncertainty of legislative regulation and the breadth of judicial interpretation of the concept are noted. The paper emphasizes that it is almost impossible to create an exhaustive list of sources of increased danger. Based on the analysis of the norms of current legislation and judicial practice, the position in favor of the need to separate the concepts of “a source of increased danger” and “activities that pose a danger” is substantiated. The authors conclude that the activity is dangerous, and the term “source of increased danger” plays an “official” role to specify the person responsible for possible harm.

The article is devoted to the study of topical issues of legislative regulation of the concept of "transportation period" in Russian insurance law. The provisions of federal legislation regulating the start and end of the transportation period, as well as judicial practice, are analyzed. Controversial issues of legal regulation are identified. The specific features of the regulation of compensation for harm to the life and health of a passenger during transportation by off-road transport are considered. It is noted that due to the termination of the operation of monorail transport in Russia, the relevance of the legal regulation of carrier liability insurance has been lost. Specific proposals are being formulated to improve legislation aimed at increasing the level of legal certainty for participants in the transport process and insurers.

The article is devoted to the problem of the increasing fragmentation of the legal regulation of entrepreneurial activity in territories with a special regime in the Russian Federation. Based on the analysis of the regulatory material, the author states the accumulation of a significant array of disparate regulations governing various TCDD. A classification of such territories is carried out, as a result of which six main types are distinguished. The study excludes science cities and innovation centers from this list, whose activities are not strictly entrepreneurial. The author supports the idea expressed in the scientific literature about the need to overcome terminological and regulatory contradictions by consolidating legislation. As a key solution, it is proposed to develop and adopt a single federal law that would systematize the regulation of all TCDD, consolidate unified concepts and principles, thereby providing greater legal certainty for businesses.

В данной статье авторы приводят анализ договорных отношений между оператором по договору на управление перевозками пустых вагонов и операторами подвижных составов. Выявлены положения действующего законодательства и научные взгляды по вопросу правовой природы договорных отношений по управлению порожними вагонами. Сделан вывод о смешанном характере отношений: превалируют арендные отношения в сочетании с отношениями по оказанию услуг. Анализ проводился на основе нормативных документов ОАО «РЖД». Установлено, что договор на управление является договором присоединения. Определено, что отношения по управлению перевозками порожних вагонов представляют собой две группы взаимосвязанных отношений: аренда — с управляющим оператором, взаимная аренда — между операторами подвижных составов. Сделан вывод о необходимости нормативного установления новой правовой конструкции договора на управление порожними вагонами на законодательном уровне в виде новой разновидности договора аренды, осложненного предоставлением услуг.