К вопросу об уместности использования термина «международное трудовое право»
Рublication was prepared on the basis of norms of the modern Russian legislation on labor disputes in accordance with state educational standards of higher professional education on the subject "Labor Law of Russia" (course "Labour disputes"). Its main aim is to help students in mastering the basic theoretical and practical knowledge and competences for the consideration and resolution of individual and collective labor disputes. Material contains general, special and peculiar parts. The general part deals with theoretical questions of labor disputes: concept, causes, law, principles, types and location of labor disputes in the labor law system. The special part contains sections on the procedure for dealing with individual and collective labor disputes, as well as the settlement of labor disputes certain categories of employees (civil servants, judges, prosecutors, foreign employees). Questions of foreign experience of labor disputes are considered in a special part of the tutorial. A special place is given to the problems of labor disputes and the prospects of development of Russian legislation on labor disputes.Each part includes relevant case studies (CBS and courts of general jurisdiction). For teachers, bachelors, masters and post-graduate law schools, as well as entrepreneurs, heads of organizations and personnel services, as well as those interested in labor disputes.
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.
The article examines topical theoretical and practical issues of termination of employment agreement initiated by the employer under Article 81, part 1, para. 1 of the Labour Code of the Russian Federation, i.e. in case of dissolution of a company or cancellation of sole proprietorship.
Трудовой договор, расторжение, ликвидация организации, работник, employment agreement, Termination, company dissolution, employee