Мифы о стандартах доказывания
The author addresses himself to standards of proof, exploring three myths that are commonly associated with them. He concludes that standards of proof are no closer to the truth than the inner conviction and that they are not as objective as they may seem to be.
The articles topic is the concept of «prejudice», «prejudicial force of court decisions», and also their differentiation from the contiguous concepts. Special attention is given to interlinks and cross-coupling of civil and constitutional processes in the aspect of the research topic.
This is the concluding article in the series devoted to the assessment of Russian civil law and legal consciousness of Russian lawyers from the perspective of the functional approach to law. The first publication considered the main theoretical findings, while subsequent articles confirmed these findings empirically. The empirical material consists of several episodes discovering the life of modern Russian civil law. Six of them (Civil Code Supremacy, Principle of Good Faith, Unfair Contract Terms, Protection of Ownership, Principles of Real Estate Turnover Regulation, Collection of Damages) were considered in the previous articles. This article explores the standards of proof as a follow-up on the recovery of damages and compensation for harm caused to life and health.
This article presents a historical and comparative legal analysis of circumstantial (indirect) evidence. The author investigated causes for the appearance of circumstantial evidence and explored scientists’ points of view on circumstantial evidence. The author believes that there is no only single criterion for dividing the evidence on the direct and circumstantial. However, the most useful for practice is the division depending on which type of fact (ultimate fact or evidentiary fact) is established by evidence: an evidentiary fact is proved by circumstantial evidence, an ultimate fact – by direct evidence.
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/