Foreign Court Decisions, Arbitral Awards and Sovereignty in Russia
This chapter examines a number of theoretical difficulties related to the implementation, in Russia, of the decisions and awards of foreign courts and arbitral tribunals. Along with the normative conditions for recognizing and enforcing foreign decisions, the author draws attention to the educational background of legal professionals—especially judges—in Russia. It is suggested that the statist conception of law inherited from Soviet legal scholarship implicitly leads to the contemporary Russian legal doctrine of negating the obligatory force of decisions from foreign courts. In the opinion of the author, the core of this conception resides in the traditional concept of sovereignty, which excludes the direct effect of legal acts made by foreign states, private arbitration tribunals, and international organizations. Nevertheless, there have been signs of a change in the attitude of the Russian judiciary in several key rulings by commercial courts. The author concludes that one now can observe seeing tendencies indicative of the development of a different concept of law in the mentality of legal professionals in Russia.
According to the author, the quality of political parties and public administration are highly dependent on the ability of the citizens to self-organization, their concernment in public aff airs and also the extent government bodies are interested in cooperation with social structures.
The article presents an analysis of the development of metropolitan areas in Mexico and in the State of Hidalgo.
The author explores the reasons behind the crisis of single industry towns, possibilities and challenges of public private partnership in such towns, presenting foreign experience of transformation of old industrial territories and giving recommendations aimed at increasing efficiency of public policy concerning single industry towns.
The dominant policy style in Russia is reactive, short-term, hierarchical, and state-driven – the result of a strong legacy of authoritarianism as a stable component of political regimes in the Russian Empire, USSR, and the Russian Federation. More complex reasons lie behind this riven or divided policy-making style: namely, a split between universalities or ideology as a foundation for policy legitimacy and implementation. There is a significant gap between declared policy goals and ideas, planned policy strategies and formulations, on the one hand, and policy implementation, on the other. Manual government, corruption, and state imposition define the policy formulation process in Russia. Due to the strength of the imperial legacy and “empire syndrome” ideology, the riven policy style is reproduced by bureaucrats, experts, political elites, and the public, despite the widening gap between public declarations and policy outcomes. Simulations and imitations of strategic and anticipative policy-making, especially at the policy formulation stage, characterize the behavior of key policy actors. Nevertheless, in some sectors such as education, policy styles can differ from the dominant one to a more anticipative and inclusive, long term because of the active position of policy communities such as citizens’ groups and associations or epistemic communities.
Russian federal agencies have created a variety of consultative bodies during the last decade, but their role in the agency's decision-making process is yet to be evaluated. Relevant experience of other countries proposes two major political factors of consultative bodies' influence. The political culture orientation towards compromise and positive perception of interest groups' participation in the decision-making process seem to contribute to that influence.
The article is devoted to a particular form of freedom of assembly — the right to counter-demonstrate. The author underlines the value of this right as an element of democratic society, but also acknowledges the risk of violent actions among participants of opposing demonstrations. Due to this risk, the government may adopt adequate measures restricting the right to counter-demonstrate, certain types of which are analyzed in this paper.
Development of standards of international controllability is reviewed in the article. Institutional approach is applied to development of international legal regime of Energy Charter. Definition of controllability is connected to development of international standards of dispute settlement, which are described in the article in detail. In connection with controllability, Russian interest, defense of investment in European Union and ecological investment encouragement, is reviewed in the article.
мировое управление и управляемость, Мировая экономика, международное экономическое право, энергетическая хартия, International control and controllability, International economics, international economic law, Energy Charter
международное частное право; недвижимость; ; школа бартолистов; бартолисты; теория статутов; статуарная теория/