Кодификация как социально-историческое явление. Рецензия на книгу: Csaba Varga. Codification as a socio-historical phenomenon. 2nd ed. Budapest: Szent Istvan Tarsulat, 2011. 431 p.
This article deals with the key ideas, theses, and schemes which are elaborated in the book of the Hungarian researcher Csaba Varga. The reviewed book is focused on the issues of codification. Professor Varga pays particular attention to interconnection of codification projects and the social, cultural environment in which these projects are conceived and carried out. Even if the techniques of codification are similar or analogous to each other, this does not guarantee similarity or identity of the reached results. Such results are summing up from a multitude of different variables. The monograph of Csaba Varga examines these variables, and a special accent is made on analysis of the ideals which are pursued by initiators of codification projects. A total codification of law or creation of a gapless and consistent legal system is, in Professor Varga’s opinion, nothing but a utopian dream which nevertheless plays a decisive role in codification. The author of the reviewed volume proposes a complex and multifaceted classification of different kinds of systematization of legal norms. He stresses interdependence between the strategies of codification and the types of legal culture, the social and economical tasks to be achieved as a result of the codification.
The general aim of this thesis is to explore the gendered and classed nature of social work and social welfare in Russia to show how social policy can be a part of and reinforce marginalisation. The overall research question is in what ways class and gender are constructed in Russian social work practice and welfare rhetoric through Soviet legacies and contemporary challenges? In addition, which actors contribute to the constitution of social work values and how this value system affects the agency of the clients? This study focuses on contradictory ideologies that are shaped in discursive formations of social policy, social work training and practice. It is a qualitative study, containing fi ve papers looking at this issue from three different perspectives: policy and institutions, culture and discourse, actors and identity. The data collection was arranged as a purposive–iterative process. The empirical material consists of qualitative interviews with social work practitioners, administrators and clients, participant observations in social services and analysis of documents of various kinds.
The study dwells on the problem of interaction between North American legal doctrine and codifications of private international law in the state of Louisiana and the Province of Quebec. Covering both classical and modern USA schools of thought in the area of conflict of laws, the article also includes a comparative analysis of Book IV (Conflict of Laws) of Louisiana Civil Code and Book X (On private international law) of Quebec Civil Code respectfully. On comparing these acts, the authors dwell on a thesis that, in spite of the obvious similarities between respectful legal systems, one cannot state undoubtedly that American doctrine of private international law has been recepted by abovementioned codifications in equal measure. Therefore, despite all the similarities, the doctrinal traditions on which they are respectfully based are actually different.
In this article are discussed the limits of application of general theory of systems in legal science. The author criticizes utilization of the notion «systemacity» for description of how legal norms are organized and how legal phenomena are structured. In author’s opinion, the term «system» is charged with a multiplicity of meanings, so that in social sciences this term is sometimes applied for characterization of the fundamentally different phenomena and realities. That is why legal scientists shall be especially careful in using this term. In the Russian jurisprudence the term «system» is applied for both «social reality of law» and for a set of the norms belonging to the positive law of the country. This use is tautological and has no conceptual justification. The author proposes to use the term «legal order» only for description of a structured set of legal rules, reserving the use of «system» for characterization of law from the point of view of comparative jurisprudence, legal sociology and other sciences which examine the relations between the law and other sectors of social reality. Argumentation in favor of «systemacity» of law is theoretically based on philosophy of objectivism. It results in vain illusions about a capacity of norms to produce themselves a legal order which emerges automatically insomuch as law is a functional entity. But this «systemacity» is not given in (the) law a priori. Logical coherence and consistence of norms always remain relative, being the outcome of the purposeful activity of lawmakers, judges, legal scholars. It is naïve to suppose that rules can enter into the law and find their adequate position there without human intervention. Such understanding can lead to apology of irresponsibility of those who create redundant and inconsistent norms in the false hope that these norms will anyways find their place in the law grace to «systemacity» of this latter.
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?
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/