Трансцендентальная дедукция в кантовской философии права
In the modern globalized world almost all the transactions involve a foreign element which inevitably leads to the disputes arising in a foreign country. This is old news for Russian citizens and companies who find themselves more often than ever in the middle of litigation abroad. However, lawyers are well aware that winning a lawsuit is not the end – seeking recognition and enforcement of the judgment is the next step. Enforcing judgments in Russia is a tricky business, the one that many are not ready to encounter. Although Russia is a party of about thirty agreements on mutual recognition of the foreign judgments, there are no such agreements with major European countries or America. In such cases, the principles of comity and reciprocity come into play. Even if there is a legal basis for recognition, then when is the court allowed not to recognize or enforce it? Russian foreign policy does reflect the need for establishing a new level of connection with the countries of the world community by enhancing economic, trade and cultural relations. As a prerequisite for this though, Russian legislation must adequately protect the rights and legitimate interests of foreign partners. Certainty of a result is what attracts businessmen, especially foreign investors. Therefore, the law on recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments (hereinafter - REFJ) must lead to a stable and predictable outcome. This paper is dedicated to analysis of the current Russian legislation, judicial decisions on REFG as well as writings of scholars on the existing problems obstacles and problems. Moreover, here will be discussed the peculiarities of the law of the United States of America on the recognition and enforcement of foreign-country judgments.
This book contains abstracts and complete papers approved by the Conference Review Committee of SGEM conference on Political Science, Law, Finance, Economics and Tourism
Arguing about the juridical nature of the decisions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, taken in particular constitutional review, the author of this article concludes that the acts in question constitute a normative interpretation case law, equal in their legal power to forceverifiable the rules and have in some cases retroactive.
The article concentrates on Chicherin, a Russian philosopher and lawyer, and his views on the correlation between liberty, law and morality. The author comments on Chicherin's ideas in the context of other views existing at the turn of the 19th and the 20th centuries. These are the views of such representatives of the Russian socially political, legal and philosophical ideas as Kavelin, Novgorodtsev, Struve, Alekseev and others, including modern researchers. Special reference is maid to Chicherin and Solovyov's polemics, which is important step in the history of Russian philosophy. Pointing out a constant connection between law and morality, that often complement each other on the basis of common values, Chicherin strongly insisted on differentiating between these notions. He was sure that the only way to a moral ideal was freedom, not an outward compulsion. And our past historical experience is the best confirmation of this idea. The work also focuses on the fact that the peculiarity of Russian law philosophy is its concentration on the questions of morality and law, the attempt of becoming closer to a moral ideal.
The article examines the role of an abstract interpretation of acts of the highest courts in the context of the unity of judicial enforcement, due to the need to implement the constitutional prohibition of discrimination enshrined in the administration of justice. Arguing about the validity of acts of abstract interpretation, the author concludes that their binding may be deemed constitutionally justified only if the current system of legal regulation in the mechanism of denial of constitutional jurisdiction.
In this paper the differences and the similarities of formation of legal traditions in the Medieval Europe are examined. The author analyzes the impact of these differences on the consequent development of legal mentality and legal identity in Russia and in the Western Europe.