The article is an attempt to analyze the transformations in the relations between the state and society in modern Russia. It analyzes public reaction to five high-profile changes in Russian legislation between 2012-2013, toughened sanctions for the involvement in public events, introduction of the concept of noncommercial organization — a foreign agent, freedom of discussion limitation, in mass media and the Internet, a wider interpretation of the concept of banned political activity. The amendments to the legislation have become the response to an extremely high public activity since the 2011-2012 winter. Each of the laws in question was the subject matter of heated criticism in society and its application got actually blocked. Public examination confirmed common disadvantages relating to both the content of law (substitution of its subject matter with legislative objectives) and the procedure of its discussion affected by the violation of laws and principles of legislative process. The laws were adopted for a special purpose, i.e. ad hoc. This circumstance makes all the five acts dubious in terms of constitution and causing violations against the constitutional rights of citizens. Besides, they contradict international obligations taken by Russia. The acts in question are typical of legal uncertainty (ambiguity in presenting normative content). Finally, all the acts analyzed violate the consistency in Russian legislation. The public response to this irrelevant regulation was intentional public disobedience. In this regard, the analysis of the causes in the situation is of special importance which is embedded in the process of election and counting votes. Negative selection is applied when making up the body of the parliament, people included in it as the representatives in parliament depends on the degree of loyalty of their majority to President and the executive power. This is the cause of deprofessionalisation of lawmaking in the Russian Parliament and a lower level in its competency and thus a similar attitude to its activity by society.
The subject matter of the paper is the theory of international private law developed in a treatise of the German 17th century scholar Johann Nikolaus Hert. The paper examines the major doctrines, rules of resolving conflicts of laws, their significance and topicality for the modern international private law. The personality of Johann Nikolaus Hert locates the central place in the German statutory theory. The ways of resolving conflicts of the laws belonging to different nations, proposed by this scholar determined the development of German conflict of law doctrines of the 19th and 20th centuries; the practical solutions developed by him are fixed in the modern legislation and case practice. However, Hert's conflict of laws theory is controversial, ambiguous, real examples do not fit the rigid theoretical categories. The paper concludes that with all the criticism of Hert's theory, he contributed significantly to the development of the international private law doctrine. He developed the terminology of international private law and enriched it with terms collisions of laws, conflict of laws embraced by legal practice, legislation and doctrine in the majority of countries. Hert's three rules are in essence three variants of foreign element (subject, object, fact) which are to be found and assessed in terms of the choice of a competent legislation. His 63 cases cover the law of persons, inheritance, property rights of spouses, contracts, process, i.e. all spheres prone to conflict of laws. Hert's dissertation featured completely all the potential conflict of law situations. He confirmed the classical interpretation of mixed statutes as the laws on the form of legal actions; insisted on the obligation to apply foreign law, pointed to the necessity to unify local laws to avoid interlocal collisions. All these results are of high significance and though in his theory «Hert is a victim of different, sometimes incompatible influences”, his practical tact fullness always helped him to find proper solutions during conflict of laws.
The article expounds the approaches to the definition of the national treasure, comparisons it with similar legal categories, describes cases of use of the term "national treasure" in the legislation, analyzes the legal content of the legal regime of the national treasure by the example of natural resources.
The paper studies the issue of widening Russian criminal law jurisdiction based on the Federal Law of May 5, 2014 № 91-FZ under the title On Applying the Provisions of Criminal Caw of the Russian Federation and the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation on the territories of the Republic of Crimea and the City of Federal Status Sebastopol. Within the normative legal act, legislators rejected the traditional way of the differentiated fixture of the principles of criminal law in time and space by unifying them in the text of the conflict-of-law rule. Historically, both in Russian and foreign criminal law, the analogues of such a decision, which aggravated with incorrect legal mechanics regulation, has caused an ambiguous interpretation of the conflict-of-law rule produced by Article 2 of the Federal Law mentioned. Judicial practice applies the prescription in question only in terms of retrospective criminal law. Judicial opinions lack any traces of the aspect of territorial jurisdiction. This interpretation is seen incorrect due to the impossibility to apply it to the legal relations connected with the Federal Law mentioned and with rules Articles 11 and 12 of the Russian Federation Criminal Code. Hence, without the Federal Law mentioned, the Criminal Code of Russian Federation is not applied to the deeds committed on the territories of the Republic of Crimea and the City of Sebastopol before March 18th, 2014. Thus, the doctrinal interpretation of norm of Article 2 of Federal Law № 91-FZ as a dualistic time and space conflict-of-law rule is seen more realistic as it is based on the analysis of classical patterns of normative prescriptions. The author criticizes the legislative regulation in Article 2 of the Federal Law mentioned due to the lack of legal mechanics, material inner conceptual contradictions, inconsistency between the dualistic approach and the classical postulates of the Russian legal theory of criminal law. On the basis 111 Kyrill Tsay. Non-Classical Extraterritoriality of Criminal Law. Р. 103–111 of analysis of Russian and foreign legislation as well as judicial practice, the author proposes his own version of Article 2 for the Federal Law № 91-FZ.
The article addresses the opportunities of civil society institutes and think tanks in analyzing regulatory legal acts. The article outlines the current legal framework in this area, describes and studies a bill On Public Evaluation of Regulatory Legal Acts and Bills, reflects the work of civil society institutes in the area of analyzing bills. The author gives examples how think tanks work in the area of analyzing consequences of regulatory legal acts using different social science tools. The work of SU-HSE Institute of Legal Research in this field has been described.
December 21, 2011, HSE Law Faculty held a meeting with Frank Hoffer, senior research officer at the Bureau for Workers’ Activities of the ILO (Geneva, Switzerland), and professor Hartmut Gerhard Seifert, expert on German labor law and the former Deputy Head in Wirtschafts-und Sozialwissenschaftliches Institut in der Hans-Böckler-Stiftung (Germany). The meeting was entitled Unstable Employment: Consequences for Society. The meeting was arranged by the Chair of Labor law of the HSE Law Faculty, the Friedrich Ebert Foundation in Moscow and the Center for Social and Labor Rights.
Argentina is one of the most developed countries in the Latin American region, which certainly stimulates the legislator to pay great attention to improving the national regulation of cross-border relations. The Private International Law of Argentina was first codified in the Civil Code (1869), but always developed mainly through the “international dimension”, and the “national dimension” always had a “residual” character and did not adequately reflect modern trends in the regulation of private international relations. In 2015, the new Civil and Commercial Code entered into force in Argentina, Title IV “Provisions of Private International Law” of which contains a rather large-scale and detailed regulation of the issues of Private International Law and International Civil Procedure. The Argentine legislator has chosen the path of intra-branch complex codification of PIL / ICP - in the act of general codification of civil law the rules for selecting the applicable law and jurisdictional norms are included as a separate special section. Compared with the previous regulation, the new PIL of Argentina underwent significant modernization, primarily under the influence of the European approaches - the Swiss PIL Law and the EU regulations on jurisdiction, applicable law and enforcement of foreign judgments. The article analyzes the most significant novelties affecting the institutions of the General Part of PIL: the establishment of the content of foreign law, the qualification of legal notions, the renvoi, flexible connecting factors, the autonomy of will of the parties, the technique of dépeçage and the adaptation of conflict rules. It is concluded that, in general, the new PIL of Argentina produces a positive impression. On the other hand, there are a number of serious shortcomings in the regulation of general issues of the PIL, in particular: 1) the renvoi institution is formulated very broadly and indefinitely; 2) there is no special rule on prior, preliminary and collateral conflict issues; 3) the institution of qualification of legal notions is not legally regulated. It appears that these shortcomings are the costs of the intra-branch method of codifying PIL, and they could have been avoided if Argentina had followed the path of complex autonomous codification of PIL / ICP.
As part of the legislative work of the common rules of civil procedure to be applied by the courts of general jurisdiction and arbitration courts, the author draws attention to the problem of unification and codification of principles. The thesis of the need for a broader approach: inclusion in the new code as a major, cross-industry principles and institutions, and the principles of international law relating to the rights, freedoms and legitimate interests of the person, including the judiciary. Based on the analysis of the main provisions and principles of international law, the author concludes that there is a need for consolidation in the new code of principles of a fair trial, to be informed with regard to matters affecting the rights, freedoms and legitimate interests; freely exercise procedural rights; access to free legal aid in cases stipulated by the federal law; compliance with private and public interests; compliance with the principle of legal certainty. In this case the focus is on what part of the principles of the concept of a fair trial is already familiar civil and arbitration process, and the other part - only by the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights Complaints against the Russian Federation. However, mechanical transfer of the principles already enshrined civil process in the new code will not be consistent with the objectives and purposes of civil proceedings. Principles of Civil Procedure necessary to comprehend the subject progressively developing legal, judicial practice, including the European Court of Human Rights. Avtor by the example of the openness and consideration of the case within a reasonable time demonstrates the objective necessity of updating the content of the principles of civil proceedings, taking into account the use of electronic public services. The article also draws attention to the need to establish a uniform level of legal safeguards that arise from the generally recognized principles of international law, the rights, freedoms and legitimate interests in judicial and non-judicial proceedings.
The paper considers the legal and philosophical issue of the correlation between facticity and normativity in the aspect of regulation and protection of religious freedoms in the past contemporary Russian law. The paper suggests considering in this aspect the gap between the normative content and the meaning of the corresponding norms of Russian constitution and statutory law and the implementation of these norms in court and law-enforcement practice. The author argues that the liberal norms transplanted from Western legal orders into Russian law do not fit well the symbolic sphere of the post-Soviet Russia where religion itself serves as one of the cornerstones of national identity and as a major constituent element of the state ideology. In factual court practice, constitutional and statutory norms about freedom of conscience are shaped contrary to their prima facie meaning. The lack of tolerance in Russian society leads to the fact that many non- traditional religious denominations are considered as socially unacceptable, and for this reason there emerges a societal attitude against the non-traditional religious denomina- tions. Being formally under the authority of the law, judges and other adjudicators are in fact under the influence of many factors among which one can mention different programs and declarations by the political leadership and by state officials, as well as the public opinion. In author’s opinion, this leads to the integration of the religious concep- tions of the «traditional» denominations into Russian legal order, which is illustrated in the recent statutory amendments concerning the protection of “religious feelings’ and in the practice of enforcement of the anti-extremist legislation.