Preview

Russian Law Journal

Advanced search
Vol 5, No 1 (2017)
View or download the full issue PDF
https://doi.org/10.17589/2309-8678-2017-5-1

Chief Editor’s Note

Articles

6-32 832
Abstract

Russia had few temporary workers in the 1990s, but after the fall of the Soviet Union and the entrance of foreign MNCs, the percent of workers on temporary contracts grew in 2014. In 2016, a new law was implemented that bans hiring temporary workers except through government-accredited agencies, but only for the purpose of substituting for employees who are temporarily absent from the workplace; to assist in the temporary expansion of production or services (for up to a maximum of nine months); and to provide temporary employment to certain approved categories of workers (i.e., fulltime students, single parents, parents of multiple children, and former convicts).
This paper will compare and contrast the current labor protections of temporary dispatch workers in the U.S. and Russia, with consideration also of the recent legislative labor protections provided in the East Asian countries of China, South Korea, and Japan.
Following the Introduction, the paper, in Part I discusses the phenomena of “fissurization,” in employment relations and its resulting legal implications for the regulation of “dispatch (agency)” workers in the above countries. Part II compares and contrasts the regulatory approaches of the U.S. with Russia and the East Asian countries of China, Japan, and South Korea; and the Conclusion follows. Perhaps the menu of regulatory legislation provided in this paper will be useful for those looking for the tools to construct dispatch regulation in the U.S.

33-56 1031
Abstract

The basic question of the paper: are power-conferring legal rules coercive and in what sense can we say that power-conferring legal rules coerce? In his recent book, Frederick Schauer answers the first question in the affirmative and proposes an interesting account of how it works. I believe that this claim is unsustainable due to the inconsistencies in the psychological account of coercion applied by Schauer, and his theory’s unrestricted reliance on counterfactuals. In what follows, I try to reconstruct the thesis on the coerciveness of the power-conferring legal rules. The basic insight is that the powerconferring legal rules coerciveness claim is inextricably connected to the unmoralized account of coercion, as any moralized theory shifts the problem from coercion to the issue of distributive justice. However, the unmoralized concept of coercion can hardly be coherent in law because it makes coercion a matter of context, dependent on the willpower of each individual, which threatens to eliminate the force of law as such. Even applied on its own terms, the unmoralized concept of coercion is unworkable within the context of power-conferring through law because power-conferring legal regimes do not eliminate non-legal alternatives, making it dependent on the will of the legal subjects themselves. Schauer’s everlasting contribution lies in his ingenious attempt to substantiate the coercion (of power-conferring rules) claim relying on counterfactuals.
A (coerced) choice has been limited relative to some situation which never occurred but would or should have occurred. In order to limit a set of counterfactuals, making them realistic (preferences and needs are limited only by imagination), one should impose severe limits on them, which makes it impossible to characterize the particular situations described by Schauer as coercive in that sense.

57-78 959
Abstract

Unlike some other Soviet Codes, first acts of the Bolshevist Criminal law were not modeled after the pre-revolutionary imperial codes. In the early Soviet criminal legislation, key juridical categories were replaced by sociological categories. The Marxist-Leninist principle of supremacy of interests of the state over the interests of an individual was envisaged on the legislative level and became a fundamental principle of the Soviet criminal law: crimes against the state were made the gravest ones, and the punishment for these crimes was much heavier than for all other crimes. The principle of analogy allowed criminal prosecution even in the cases, where the offence was not stipulated in the Criminal Code. In 1930s, the trend towards criminal repression intensified. Big changes, including the restoration of the traditional vocabulary of criminal law, the limitation of the doctrine of analogy, the careful analysis of crime in terms of subject and object, took place in the Soviet criminal legislation in 1960, when the new Criminal Code of the RSFSR was adopted. 1990s saw the long-awaited humanization and modernization of Russian criminal law, but situation started to change after the turn of the millennium.
Certain cases as well as recently passed pieces of the Russian legislation show the sings of old Soviet attitudes in contemporary Russian criminal law and law enforcement.

Comments

79-97 635
Abstract
Non-state armed groups are the main threats to states’ national security in the 21st century, to defend against which, states require useful methods. Recently, use of children by these groups, especially in the Middle East, has turned into one of the most important discussable issues that need to be evaluated in the context of the law of armed conflict. This study aims to discuss legal regime of the military use of children in armed conflict. The main purpose of the study is to analyze the use of child soldiers by the Syrian-Iraqi Salafi-Jihadist Group in its combat operations. In this respect, initially, the legal definition of child soldiers and the role of them in armed conflicts will be discussed. Based on this, different forms of the child soldiers’ involvement in armed conflicts and the international criminal responsibility for their war crimes will be examined as an applicable law in the context of international criminal law.
98-118 558
Abstract

The international legal right of peoples to self-determination is an integral part of the basis for the formation of an independent state. The most acute problems are with those regions that seceded from the Soviet Union in political and military conflicts and now seek recognition of sovereign status. Until the middle of XX century, such recognition was achieved following global military conflict, and then following the struggle against colonialism. In the past three decades, it has been associated mostly with the destruction of totalitarian regimes. This study is analysis the formation of the unrecognized state and historical, political and legal processes in a changing world political environment, and the implementation of the right of peoples to self-determination. The modern search for optimal forms of self-determination subject to the ideas of external and internal forms predetermines the scientific analysis of the historical political and legal formation of statehood in the territories for which the implementation of the right of peoples to selfdetermination is problematic. Here we examine the example of the Republic of Abkhazia.
The methodological basis of research is the systemic approach that allows a holistic view of political and legal processes in the state. We also use comparative, structuralfunctional and historical approaches. The current status of the Republic of Abkhazia at its present stage of development is “denied,” which affects its political and legal system, characterized by a mixture of traditional and modern state and legal institutions. The state and the law in Abkhazia largely depend on the geopolitical situation in the region and the world, as well as the political systems of its neighbors and strategic allies. Quite a large role in the formation of Abkhazian statehood and its legal system is played by the Russian Federation, which has influenced power structures of the Republic of Abkhazia so as to integrate them into a single economic, political and legal space. Conclusions:
The state and the legal system of the Republic of Abkhazia are in a state of transition and undergoing synchronization with the state and legal system of the Russian Federation in in order to establish a sovereign state. The status of an unrecognized state makes it impossible for the Republic of Abkhazia to fully participate in international processes and slows down the possible impact of international legal institutions on its state legal system.

Recent Cases

Conferences Review Notes



ISSN 2309-8678 (Print)
ISSN 2312-3605 (Online)