Право Совета Европы: учебно-методическое пособие
This training manual was prepared within the framework of the study of a new copyright training course "The right of the Council of Europe" for the Masters (lawyers).It includes introductory staging and other materials for lectures, seminars and practical tasks, includes a number of logic circuits and tables. material benefits produced with the latest developments and trends in the European and Russian regulations and practices to ensure the fundamental rights and freedoms in the Council of Europe, protection etc.
This chapter compares the Russian national legislation on online freedom of expression with the Council of Europe’s (CoE) legal standards on this issue to investigate the extent to which the Russian legislation has been consistent with the CoE vision. The chapter first examines the CoE perspective, including the European Court of Human Rights case law and non-binding documents of the other main CoE institutions. It then analyses the Russian national legislation and the perspectives of the highest Russian courts. The chapter compares the CoE and Russian legal visions of key principles in the governance of online freedom of expression, the new notion of media, editorial responsibility for users’ comments, the right to anonymity, and the protection of journalists from surveillance. The chapter concludes that the Russian legislation on online freedom of expression needs a considerable revision to comply with the CoE standards and suggests that Internet companies and international organisations should drive this process.
The article deals with the International Military Tribunal for the just and prompt trial and punishment of the major war criminals of the European Axis, the role of the Charter and the given Tribunal sentence in the international legal standards forming in the field of the international criminal justice.
This paper examines Russian defamation law and judicial policies to identify the extent to which they have been influenced by international legal standards on media freedom put forward in Europe by the Council of Europe (CoE). The main research method employed in this work is a qualitative comparative analysis of the CoE standards and the Russian national law as well as judicial practice. This paper suggests that the CoE standards have mostly an insufficient influence to the Russian legislation of defamation, and the discrepancy between the Russian and the CoE’s perspectives on defamation has increased during Russia’s membership in the CoE, especially because of the recent amendements on online defamation. The paper also argues that the CoE standards on defamation has had diverse impacts on the Russian judicial practice. The paper suggests that international organisations have the potential to become the main social platforms for resisting “weaponized” defamation but new effective measures should be devised for this.
This paper explores, mainly from a legal perspective, the extent to which the Russian regulations of traditional TV and online audiovisual media policies have been consistent with the Council of Europe (hereinafter CoE) standards. The study compares between the CoE and Russian approaches to specific aspects of audiovisual regulation including licensing, media ownership, public service media, digitalization, and national production. The paper first studies the CoE perspective through examining its conventional provisions related to audiovisual media, the case law of the European Court of Human Rights as well as the CoE non-binding documents. The paper then considers Russian national legislation governing audiovisual media and the Russian general jurisdiction courts’ practice on broadcast licensing. The paper suggests that the Russian audiovisual regulations are insufficiently compatible with the CoE standards and more in line with the Soviet regulatory traditions.
This study examines the development of Russian anti-extremist legislation with the purpose to identify the extent to which it correlates with the legal standards of the Council of Europe (CoE) on the right to freedom of expression. Apart from Russian national legislation, the article also considers judicial visions of extremism – for the first time in the field. The analysis goes beyond the issue of compliance and non-compliance and shows the fundamental differences of Russian and CoE legal visions of the issue. It is suggested that the differences have considerably increased over the last few years which is mainly explained by the shift of priorities of the Russian political establishment, rather than by pressing social needs. It is concluded that the Russian concept of extremism has the worrying potential for further expansion both in Russia and beyond it, including in what we call “alternative” international law.
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/