Neurolaw in the system of modern legal science

Introduction. The development of neurotechnologies has led to the formation of practices for obtaining and using neuroinformation, which can be considered in the legal assessment of human behavior. In response to these changes in legal science, neurolaw is emerging as a direction of research focused on understanding the legal consequences of turning to neuroinformation. At the same time, in legal science there is no agreed understanding of the place of neurolaw in the system of legal knowledge and the conditions for the acceptable use of neuroinformation in law, which makes it difficult to develop uniform methodological guidelines for their legal assessment.

The purpose of the study is to determine the place of neurolaw in the system of modern legal science and overcome the identified uncertainty.

Methods. To achieve this goal, the article uses a systematic method that allows us to correlate neurolegal issues with the structure of legal knowledge. The formal legal method is used to identify the conditions and limitations of the use of neuroinformation in the legal assessment of the legally significant consequences of human behavior. The comparative legal method made it possible to compare domestic and foreign approaches to the legal assessment of neurotechnologies. The identification of the main problems of neurolaw was carried out within the framework of theoretical and legal analysis aimed at establishing systemic contradictions and doctrinal gaps that arise when applying existing legal structures to neuroinformation and neurotechnological practices.

Results and conclusions. It has been established that the development of neurotechnologies and practices of dealing with neural knowledge is changing the conditions for the application of legal concepts used to assess a person's behavior and the legal consequences of this behavior. The technical capability of obtaining and processing neural data expands the range of factual information used in establishing the circumstances of a case and legally assessing a person's behavior, and affects those elements of legal qualifications that were previously formed solely on the basis of externally observable forms of human behavior. This circumstance does not negate the normative nature of legal conclusions, but requires a doctrinal definition of the limits of permissible use of neural science in law. As a result of the study, neuro-law in the system of legal science is defined as an interdisciplinary scientific direction that performs a coordinating methodological function. It ensures the harmonization of fundamental legal concepts and industry standards. legal regimes in relation to the use of neural science and neurotechnological influences, while maintaining the normative autonomy of law and excluding the substitution of natural scientific explanations for legal reasoning. The results obtained confirm that neurocipherization affects legal science as an integral system of knowledge. It affects the fundamental links between actual behavior and regulatory assessment, and thus transcends the scope of a technological or industry phenomenon. This impact requires a systematic theoretical and legal response aimed at preserving the internal consistency of legal knowledge.

1. Morse SJ. New neuroscience, old problems: legal implications of brain science. Cerebrum. 2004 Fall;6(4):81-90. PMID: 15986539.

2. Ienca M, Andorno R. Towards new human rights in the age of neuroscience and neurotechnology. Life Sci Soc Policy. 2017 Dec;13(1):5. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40504-017-0050-1. Epub 2017 Apr 26. PMID: 28444626; PMCID: PMC5447561.

3. Jwa AS, Poldrack RA. Addressing privacy risk in neuroscience data: from data protection to harm prevention. J Law Biosci. 2022 Sep 4;9(2):lsac025. https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsac025. PMID: 36072418; PMCID: PMC9444136.

4. Filipova I.A. Neurotechnologies in law and law enforcement: past, present and future. Law Enforcement Review. 2022;6(2):32–49. (In Russ). https://doi.org/10.52468/2542-1514.2022.6(2).32-49. EDN: KTQBMV.

5. Posadkova M.V. Brezhneva E.A. Legal regulation of neurotechnologies: a game without rules or strict control? Lex Genetica. 2025;4(2):47–62. (In Russ). https://doi.org/10.17803/lexgen-2025-4-2-47-62. EDN: QXJBIW.

6. Krylatova I.Yu. The nature of human neurorights and personal dignity in the context of the development of neurotechnologies, features of their ethical and legal regulation. Bulletin of Liberal Arts University. 2024;12(4):104–112. (In Russ). https://doi.org/10.35853/vestnik.gu.2024.12-4.08. EDN: XMSLJN.

7. Krasikov V.I. Features of new human rights in the context of the development of modern neurotechnologies. Bulletin of the Russian Law Academy. 2023;(1):65–83. (In Russ). https://doi.org/10.33874/2072-9936-2023-0-1-65-83. EDN: QEHURO.

8. Cornejo Y. Neurorights, Neurotechnologies and Personal Data: Review of the Challenges of Mental Autonomy. Journal of Digital Technologies and Law. 2024;2(3):711–728. https://doi.org/10.21202/jdtl.2024.36. EDN: SPERFJ.

9. Aliev D.M. The concept of personal integrity and neurolaw: a review of controversial issues. Moscow Journal of International Law. 2025;(3):92–101. https://doi.org/10.24833/0869-0049-2025-3-92-101. EDN: WMCQAY.

10. Morse stephen. Brain overclaim syndrome and criminal responsibility: a diagnostic note. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law. 2006;(3):397–412.

11. Cornejo-Plaza MI, Cippitani R and Pasquino V (2024). Chilean Supreme Court ruling on the protection of brain activity: neurorights, personal data protection, and neurodata. Frontiers in Psychology. 15:1330439. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1330439. EDN: FOGSGK.

12. Di Salvo, M. (2025). The protection of neural rights in the age of neurotechnologies and AI. The ethical challenge for law and neuroscience. Russian Journal of Economics and Law, 19(1), 202–233. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.21202/2782-2923.2025.1.202-233. EDN: ZOAPLW.