Property and Law. The Pillars of Stability, Wellbeing and Morality
Russia is in a precarious position: although formally enshrined in legislation, quite legal private property very often is not considered to be legitimate. The “unfair” procedures that brought about the emergence of mammoth private wealth during the privatization period breeds distrust in the authorities, the laws it adopts, and the measures it takes.
From the outset of privatization in Russia researchers from a number of countries have been studying the emerging real estate market and the residential sector development in Russian cities. Typically, their attention has been focused on legal and institutional challenges like the inconsistency and inadequacy of legislation, blurred or duplicated functions of different power bodies, the immaturity of real estate market infrastructure and low professionalism of the market's agents (appraisers, developers, intermediaries, notaries, etc.). They also pointed out that privatization required tighter control over area development, and introduction of new townplanning instruments and regulations. While accepting many points raised by the above publications, we must nevertheless emphasise that the development of real estate market in Russia has shown impressively high rates. Despite all the difficulties the private sector now prevails in construction; and professional associations of realtors, appraisers, and notaries, as well as associations of mortgage banks and insurors are in good progress. The state sector's level of adjustment to market is less impressive, but one should not forget that the main reason behind all reform's controvercies and inconsistencies is politics. The existing political pattern of Russian legislative bodies blocks radical market transformations, and the confrontation between the President and the State Duma leads to controvercial decisions.
The main focus of this paper is the analysis of problems in the field of legislative regulation of the international abduction of children in Russia as well as of the perspectives and obstacles of the implementation of the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. Russia acceded to the Convention one year ago. Author aims to study the progress achieved during this period in the field of setting the mechanisms prescribed by the Convention and in bringing Russian legislation in the conformity with standards stipulated in the Convention.
In the article questions of administrative discretion are considered. The historical analogies in the doctrinal approaches to the definition of the nature and content of administrative discretion in the Russian Empire and in modern Russia are carried out. Factors influencing the balance of rights and discretions in various epoches of historical development of the Russian state are identified.
This Chapter describes the history of social security legislation development abroad and presents both classical and modern models of social security in foreign countries.
The idea of ligalization of bribe giving for certain types of bribes was expressed by K. Basu in 2011 and got a name Basu proposal. In this paper we discuss effects that can be caused by the direct implementation of this proposal. Our game-theoretic model shows that while legalisation of certain bribe-giving occurances can lead to some positive consequences, it is not always a good idea to return bribe to the bribe-giver as suggested by Basu. The chance to get the paid bribe back increases the amount of bribes that end up in corrupt officials' pockets.
This article is devoted to the Digest of the Laws of the Russian Empire – an embodiment of the operative legal system in late imperial Russia. Even though the Digest contained the law in force, and thus should be studied as a crucial source on Russian (legal) history, its meaning has been often overlooked. The reason for that is a remarkable difference between the original texts of laws adopted by the legislator, and their published form in the Digest. This difference came from the necessary editing procedures when every new piece of legislation was included in the existing system of the Digest. This strange feature of legal procedure when two different versions of a particular law – the original one and the one codified in the Digest – both remained in force should be considered as a part of official autocratic legality in late imperial Russia. Even though it may seem inefficient and irrational, the practice of obligatory codification of laws in the Digest existed for a rather long time – from 1835 until 1917. My research aims to find possible explanations for the Digest’s prolonged existence in the context of political and legal culture of late imperial Russia. What did Russian ‘official legality’ actually mean on the levels of theory and action?
In the collection of issues there are published the works of the participants of the III International scientific-practical conference "Systematization of legislation: theoretical development" (Kazan, October 23, 2015) on topical issues of legal science and practice.