Difficulties of using evaluative categories in intersectoral legal studies: causes and effects

The paper of the editor-in-chief provides a generalized analysis of the number of studies presented in the main topic, devoted to the content and use of evaluative categories in the theory and practice of substantive and procedural law. The prepared issue traditionally concentrates the results of scientific research, creative ideas and original approaches in solving specific topical problems of concern to modern society. The main problematic issues that formed the basis of the discussions unfolded on the pages of the issue are identified, in particular: the controversy about the ambiguity of the evaluative categories’ content; the plurality of criteria for the evaluative categories’ classification; the definition of proper evaluative concepts, and their separation from other terms, whose use or interpretation is due to the legal uncertainty or inaccuracy of wording. The content of such evaluative categories as “proportionality”, “insignificance”, “urgency”, “proof”, “criminal procedural truth”, “discretion of the court”, “discretionarypowers”, and “electronic justice” became the subject for discussing the main theme of the issue, which led to the development of proposals for improving the legislation in terms of using evaluative vocabulary. The demand of legal science and law enforcement practice for research in the field of evaluative categories is substantiated. The thoroughness of the provisions formulated and presented on the pages of the journal as the research results allows us to talk about the prospects for further development in the field of the stated topic.