• A
  • A
  • A
  • АБB
  • АБB
  • АБB
  • А
  • А
  • А
  • А
  • А
Обычная версия сайта
Найдено 40 публикаций
Сортировка:
по названию
по году
Статья
Sasso L. Russian Law Journal. 2016. Vol. 4. No. 2. P. 62-82.
Добавлено: 23 мая 2016
Статья
Bakumenko V. Russian Law Journal. 2020. Vol. 8. No. 3. P. 84-115.

The article is devoted to the comparative analysis of asymmetric jurisdiction clauses in international procedural law. The paper focuses, firstly, on a detailed analysis of the national and international approaches to the nature and interpretation of asymmetric jurisdiction clauses within international civil procedure, and, secondly, on the rules on interpretation, validity and enforcement of such clauses under different jurisdictions and private international law in general. After examining the accumulated case law and theoretical material, particular attention is paid to the issue that currently there is a number of different grounds for recognition of asymmetric jurisdiction clauses as valid. Although Russian courts tend to invalidate such clauses, the issue has not been unambiguously resolved and requires reconsideration of the established approaches in light of the recent trends on international level. Thus, particular attention is paid to the highly problematic and contradictory aspects of unilateral dispute resolution provisions under the general principles of law, including autonomy, mutuality and equality of the parties. The article proposes to reconsider the most typical arguments for invalidating such clauses, both in terms of substantive and procedural principles. Analysis of these issues is of key theoretical and practical importance for the effective evolution of modern arbitration and litigation practices not only in Russia but all over the world.

Добавлено: 4 сентября 2020
Статья
Tretyakov S. V. Russian Law Journal. 2014. Vol. II. No. I. P. 121-124.
Добавлено: 17 октября 2014
Статья
Totyev K. Y. Russian Law Journal. 2016. Vol. 4. No. 4. P. 81-94.

This paper explores business transactions in the context of the principle of legality. It will be argued that Article 168 of the Russian Civil Code, as a metarule, contains three types of rule: 1) rules dealing with the priority of special rules and exceptions (exclusive rules); 2) rules dealing with the interpretation of general, special and exclusive rules, as well as with the requirements of statutes or other legal acts violated by a transaction and established outside of Article 168 of the Civil Code; 3) rules dealing with the admissibility of special rules and exceptions, as well as with the conditions of admissibility of these rules. With regard to the first group of rules, the legislature and commercial courts consider Article 168 of the Civil Code a common base for other grounds in the Civil Code, and in certain other statutes, for declaring transactions invalid. According to the second group of rules, the subject-matter (object) of legal interpretation consists of two elements: а) the text of Article 168 of the Civil Code; and b) the texts of legal acts, described by the generic term “statute or other legal act.” Article 168 of the Civil Code provides instructions, not only for rules as objects of application of the article, but also for the methods of interpreting violated requirements. The rules of admissibility for special rules and exceptions, as well as the conditions of admissibility for these standards, are aimed at the numerous cases in which the legislature, in the Civil Code or in other legal acts, expressly establishes nullity (voidness), voidability and other legal consequences for illegal transactions. The paper also answers questions regarding the impact of recent amendments to the Russian Civil Code on the use, by commercial courts, of rules on business transaction invalidity.

Добавлено: 8 января 2017
Статья
Markuntsov S. A., Wassmer M. P. Russian Law Journal. 2020. No. 4. P. 140-152.
Добавлено: 24 ноября 2020
Статья
Maleshin D. Russian Law Journal. 2017. Vol. 5. No. 1. P. 4-5.
Добавлено: 1 июня 2017
Статья
Maleshin D. Russian Law Journal. 2016. Vol. 4. No. 4. P. 4-6.
Добавлено: 3 марта 2017
Статья
Kravchuk N. V. Russian Law Journal. 2014. Vol. II. No. III. P. 23-48.

Предметом данной статьи стало право ребенка на выражение мнения, в частности, анализ содержания и объема этого права и перспектив его реализации в России в контексте действующего законодательства, культурных предпосылок и российской модели демократии. Автор изучает взаимосвязь между правом ребенка на выражение мнения (частично признаваемом в России) и правом ребенка принимать участие в делах, его затрагивающих (в котором ребенку в России отказано вследствие традиционного отношения к ребенку). Автор приходит к выводу о том что право ребенка принимать участие в делах, его затрагивающих шире права на выражение мнения, притом что второе – основа для первого и смежных прав. Далее автор дает обзор правовых рамок и практики реализации права ребенка на выражение мнения и его права на участие.  И наконец,  приводится анализ культурного контекста и российской специфики демократии и их влияния на право ребенка. Возрождение «традиционных ценностей», нашедшее отражение в законодательстве и практике реализации закона в России, вместе с открытым отрицанием примата международного права в рассматриваемой области, как утверждается, демонстрирует отсутствие готовности России признать право ребенка на выражение мнения.

Добавлено: 13 августа 2014
Статья
Gerasimova E. Russian Law Journal. 2017. No. 2. P. 5-32.
Добавлено: 5 июля 2017
Статья
Khramova T. M., Troitskaya A. Russian Law Journal. 2020. Vol. 8. No. 2. P. 28-48.
Добавлено: 21 июня 2020
Статья
Yury Rovnov. Russian Law Journal. 2016. No. 3(4). P. 102-123.

Even though Russia’s new Code of Criminal Procedure of 2001 had from the very beginning contained the article titled ‘Preclusive Effects,’ it was not until a decision by the Constitutional Court of 2008 that the doctrine of issue preclusion was, in its proper sense, reinstated in Russian criminal law, barring facts definitively established in a civil trial from relitigation in criminal proceedings. Despite heavy criticism that came down on the Constitutional Court for what was seen by law enforcement agents as unwarranted judicial activism, the Russian Parliament soon amended the article in line with the interpretation offered by the Court. This, however, did not end the controversy as critics raised a valid point: an automatic transfer of facts from civil proceedings with a priori more lenient requirements of proof is likely to distort outcomes, harming defendants, the prosecution, and, ultimately, societal interests. This article will turn for apotential solution to common law, which has been able to avoid this problem by clearly distinguishing between different standards of proof applicable in civil v. criminal litigations. It will be shown, using the United States as an example, how courts can effectively use issue preclusion to pursue a number of legitimate objectives, such as consistency of judgments and judicial economy, with due account for the interests of parties in proceedings. At the same time, issue preclusion appears an inappropriate and ineffective means to combat arbitrariness of the judiciary – the end which Russia’s Constitutional Court and law makers arguably had in mind when introducing the doctrine into Russian law.

Добавлено: 14 июня 2016
Статья
Kashanin A. Russian Law Journal. 2016. Vol. IV. No. 2. P. 26-61.

В работе анализируется актуальное состояние дискуссии о минимальных требованиях к уровню творческого характера объектов авторских прав, в том числе господствующие в российской доктрине и судебной практике позиции, основные тенденции, а также возможные противоречия и дисфункции, связанные с реализацией тех либо иных подходов к установлению охраноспособности произведений.

Добавлено: 14 апреля 2016
Статья
Kashanin A. Russian Law Journal. 2014. Vol. 2. No. 1. P. 57-81.
Добавлено: 23 марта 2014
Статья
Golovina S. Y., Lyutov N. Russian Law Journal. 2018. Vol. 6. No. 2. P. 93-117.
Добавлено: 5 сентября 2018
Статья
Molodyko K. Russian Law Journal. 2016. No. 4. P. 46-61.
Добавлено: 21 ноября 2016
Статья
Boklan D., Lifshits I. Russian Law Journal. 2019. No. 7 (3). P. 169-193.
Добавлено: 23 августа 2019
Статья
Kuznetsov D. Russian Law Journal. 2014. Vol. II. No. 2. P. 75-101.

In the last decade ethnic and religious contradictions became a matter of growing concern and the issue of preserving the balance between the rights and interests of different groups of people comes to the forefront. There are many examples when freedom of expression is in opposition to freedom of religion. Two recent cases, the cartoons in the Danish newspaper and the recent parody of the Prophet Mohammed, show the importance of this issue. However, the notion of manifestation of religious beliefs, which in the paper is considered primary as a part of freedom of expression, is also very problematic. The paper considers models of coexistence of both freedoms adopted at the international level, in Europe and in Russia. The first chapter considers general approaches towards balancing of fundamental rights, including approaches of the Human Rights Committee and the European Court. The second chapter concentrates on the regulation of both freedoms in Russia, relevant international and domestic cases.

Добавлено: 3 октября 2014
Статья
Kalinichenko P., Petrov R., Karliuk M. Russian Law Journal. 2019. Vol. 7. No. 3. P. 107-133.
Добавлено: 29 августа 2019
Статья
Maslennikova S. Russian Law Journal. 2016. Vol. IV. No. 3. P. 157-160.

Автор описывает содержание монографии о трудовом праве России. Он обращает внимание на важные проблемы исследования: свобода труда, социальное партнерство, гарантии труда и отдыха, запрет дискриминации на работе и многие другие. Он рекомендует читателям познакомиться с книгой.

Добавлено: 9 марта 2017
Статья
Muravyeva M. G. Russian Law Journal. 2015. Vol. 3. No. 4. P. 170-182.
Добавлено: 22 декабря 2015
Статья
Bogush G., Đurić N., Roksandić Vidlička S. Russian Law Journal. 2018. Vol. 6. No. 1. P. 28-57.
Добавлено: 4 октября 2018
1 2