The article shows the main reason for the continued population thrust level legal education. The author concludes that the more lawyers, the better, because the fight for their rights becomes more meaningful and more effective. It`s projected out non-State higher legal education at priority parameters. It`s planned twelve indicators on which it could climb to a higher level of development. They all boil down to search more precise answers to the questions of who, what and how to teach « jurist».
the article analyses and proves the conclusion that non-state higher juridical education is an expected result of the development of state juridical education. At that the author shows that alongside with the state higher juridical education the non-state education on solving the relevent personnel issues and performing a high educating must support economy and in futureit will allow to develop culture, social and other spheres of life, to ensure a stable legal order and legitimacy in the country, to open additional opportunities for strengthening of legal fundamentals of our statehood and forming civil society.
The author deals with the issues related to existence of non$state juridical education, noting its potential, and in some point its superiority over state juridical education. Introduction of non$state juridical education in the author’s opinion, may take place only in case of active participation of the state which can render certain assistance and support. The author answers the questions which evidence against non$state juridical education, presenting counterarguments which defend it. The author also writes that non$state higher juridical education must receive the state recognition and gives a list of measures aimed at gaining such recognition by non$state juridical institutions of higher education.
The article concerns basic results of realization of the project on creation of the All-Russia system of evaluation and certification of qualification of legal personnel.
Purpose. In 2013 and in 2014, Federal Law No. 73-FZ of 25 June 2002 “On Cultural Heritage Objects (Monuments of History and Culture) of the Nations of the Russian Federation” was amended, including, the conceptual apparatus of the cultural heritage system. The latter is divided into tangible and intangible objects; the material cultural heritage includes monuments of history and culture. Objects of cultural heritage, according to legislative definition, have a complex composite structure, which requires analysis and systematization, since at the moment this concept and related to it are used in other acts of substantive law, in particular, in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Objects of cultural heritage, according to legislative definition, have a complex composite structure, which requires analysis and systematization, since at the moment this concept and related to it are used in other acts of substantive law, in particular, in the Criminal Code. Methodology: analysis, synthesis, legal, structural, functional, axiological methods. Conclusions. The object of cultural heritage has the following features: the immovable nature of the cultural heritage object (and associated movable objects and archaeological objects until they are included in the Museum Fund of the Russian Federation), anthropogenic character, age and cultural value of the cultural heritage object — is of fundamental importance as the basis for assigning the object the status of an object of cultural heritage, formal status in the Unified State Register of Objects of Cultural Heritage of the Russian Federation. Scientific and practical significance. The carried out research allows to specify the concept of objects of a cultural heritage and its component parts, thus, defining, in particular, subjects of crimes and offenses that encroach on monuments of history and culture. The findings of this study can be used to create regulatory legal acts that regulate the protection of cultural heritage sites, as well as to be applied in the training process in the training of specialists in the field of criminal and administrative law.
Purpose. Analysis of legal status of Christian foreigners in the Bukharan Emirate and Khivan Khanate during the age of the Russian protectorate (1870s-1910s). Although these states didn’t have right for the foreign policy, foreigners had an opportunity to visit them on different purpose. Nevertheless, specific status of protectorates caused some restriction in foreigners’ status at their communication with Russian representatives and local authorities. At the same time the Russian policy in the khanates provided safety of Christian foreigners from religious fanatics, etc. Characteristic of rules of entry and staying of foreigners in the Russian protectorates on a base of legal monuments and notes of foreign travelers themselves. Methods: formal legal method, historical legal approach, comparative legal method, context analysis. Results. Although Bukharan Emirate and Khivan Khanate were formally independent states, Russian imperial authorities provided completely the regime of the stay of foreigners in the territory of these states. It confirms that Central Asian khanates in fact were considered as an integral part of the empire, not as protectorates or even vassal states. Some elements of the legal status of foreigners in Central Asian states could be compared with modern view oon the legal regime of foreigners in Russia. Discussion. There is a comprehension of historical legal experience of relations of Russia with Central Asian states in a specific area: staying the representatives of the “third countries” on their territory. It could be used in modern situation of Eurasian integration, jf course, taking into account substantial political and legal realities and changing of the format of interaction.
The article concerns fundamental problems related to development of higher juridical education in Russia of the postsoviet period, reasons for mass spread of juridical institutions of higher education and faculties in the state and decrease of quality of training as well as possible ways of solution of this situation. The special attention is drawn to study of the mechanisms that have direct legislative regulation: public accreditation of institutions of higher professional education, professional-public accreditation of educational programs.