Preview

Russian Law Journal

Advanced search
Vol 7, No 2 (2019)
View or download the full issue PDF
https://doi.org/10.17589/2309-8678-2019-7-2

Articles

5-52 577
Abstract

The modern democratic state embodies the concept of the state as a service. For this reason, the administration of public property is one of the major issues related to the efficiency of public authority. Common law countries and post-Soviet countries have completely different legal explanations and bases for public property. This article takes a comparative approach, showing similarities and differences in the public property regimes in these two systems.

This article investigates why the two systems have different approaches to public property issues and how the differing experiences result in differing implementation. Australia and Russia have been chosen as examples of a common law system and the post-Soviet system, respectively. In addition to property regimes, this paper also discusses federalism issues.

An analysis of these countries’ historical development permits a significant enhancement of the philosophical and legal understanding of property, especially public property. Protection of private property in Russia was very strong by 19th century standards. However, the Russian Empire fell behind in questions of public property compared to its protection of private property, and also compared to other systems outside of Russia. Some aspects of dealing with the most critical natural resources expand public property regulation issues into the constitutional sphere. Public property issues need constitutional justification in both Australia and Russia. However, Russia has constitutional provisions that provide the categories of property rights existing in its domestic law, while a great deal of effort was required in Australia to create the constitutional basis for water resources administration.

53-80 389
Abstract

As a result of intensive international debate and the adoption of a number of renowned international anticorruption conventions and initiatives in the 1990s and 2000s, the issue of corruption has become a convenient theme for different kinds of generalizations in social sciences. However, national legislation does not reflect these developments in its legal regulation due to conservatism inherent in jurisprudence. One of the most evident gaps in this respect is the sphere of political corruption. While political science and political economy for decades have been successful in explaining political processes in different countries as corrupt conspiracies of political elites, business structures, and other actors in the political process, legal science has kept itself separate from such problems and prefers to deal with individual acts of corruption. But if for criminal law such an approach seems logical due to the methodology of the criminal law, for other branches of law which set forth a systemic view on social processes – primarily administrative and constitutional – there seems to be an omission.

Nowadays, there is a quite favourable environment for the development of a consistent legal understanding of anticorruption in Russia. This has become possible thanks to current Russian administrative reforms, when the need for a highly professional bureaucracy led to a greater demand for various anticorruption mechanisms. The next possible step in Russia may be an attempt to ensure the effectiveness of well-proven anti-corruption methods of the political system as a whole.

In this article we propose a brief background to the evolution of the concept of political corruption in Western and Russian political and legal science, which entails the necessity of complex scientific legal synthesis on this issue, allows to discuss the existing methodological potential and creates new opportunities to build up appropriate systemic legislative models.

81-100 378
Abstract

There are currently six non-recognized states (NRSs) in the post-Soviet space: the Pridnestrovian Moldovan Republic (PMR, 1990), the Republic of South Ossetia (RSO, 1990), the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic (NKR, 1991), the Republic of Abkhazia (RA, 1994), the Lugansk People’s Republic (LPR, 2014) and the Donetsk People’s Republic (DNR, 2014). All of them have been formed as a result of armed conflicts between a state vigorously pursuing the policy of national unification and a minority residing compactly. On the one hand, the legal systems of these states ensure that both the state and the civil society function effectively. In particular, each legal system forms a basis for the state’s political system, sets out human rights and their guarantees and provides necessary regulation of commercial activities. On the other hand, these legal systems reflect certain “statehood deficiency” and are subject to a number of serious problems, including being dependent on political agenda as well as on certain foreign legal systems, providing no personal jurisdiction or property guarantees and having significantly underdeveloped commercial law and judicial system. This “statehood deficiency” has two main causes: the community being not ready for state building (weak statehood traditions; lack of qualified personnel, economic resources and industrial base; high level of corruption, etc.) and the state being non-recognized (including the consequences of this status such as inability to participate in international cooperation, dependence on major geopolitical players, existence of an external threat, etc.).

101-127 360
Abstract

This article puts forward that there are diverse and sound grounds preventing the universal treaty regulating comprehensively the issues of legal protection from crossborder unfair competition by substantive norms from being worked out in the near future. The development of the universal unification of the conflict-of-law rules on the law applicable to the private relations arising out of unfair competition as a possible alternative is also proposed and substantiated. The authors give some possible reasons for the absence of such a treaty and demonstrate the results that have been achieved so far in this field. The concept of the Draft of the relevant Convention is drawn up. The conclusion is made that the latter needs to be centered on the lex mercatus as a single connecting factor (due to its advantages of predictability, account of the interests of the state where the effected market is situated etc.). Furthermore, the Convention should not provide for party autonomy, should set forth the detailed rules for the legal characterization of the basic terms of the Convention, including the scope of the applicable law as well as the public policy clause and the norms on the overriding mandatory provisions.

128-164 529
Abstract

Actio negatoria is necessary in a situation wherein no one questions the ownership of an object by the owner, and the object remains in his possession, but someone exploits it without sufficient legal basis, treats it just as if he was endowed with the opportunity and the right to use someone else’s object. Despite the apparent simplicity of actio negatoria in the legislation of European countries, three models of this lawsuit have been developed, built according to the actio negatoria design that existed at different stages of the development of Roman private law – the common law model, the Roman model, and the German model. This study is based on the method of analysis of judicial practice and the method of comparative law. Based on the results of this study, we conclude that actio negatoria is not a universal method of protection. It is necessary to deviate from the principle of residual attention of the legislator to actio negatoria, residual, first of all, compared to rei vindicatio. Based on the analysis of the three models of actio negatoria that exist in the law of European countries, a new, fourth model of this lawsuit is proposed. Only an immovable object can be the subject of an actio negatoria dispute. Actio negatoria cannot be used to challenge the registered right to immovable objects. Actio negatoria can be used to protect the subjective right of property from a violation of ownership which is produced by interfering with possession and which does not result in dispossession.

Comments

165-193 257
Abstract

The judicial method of dispute resolution has aroused in Africa countless turnarounds of positions, from rejection to acceptance, from construction to destruction, to allow its transformation. It seems to have recently stabilized in the figure of the African Court of Justice and Human Rights, merging the two existing regional judicial bodies. It is already known to us that the two Tribunals have two main pre-defined functions, one that deals with the resolution of conflicts between States of the continent and the other on the protection of human rights, which are quite different roles. So, in this article, we analyze all impediments of the judicial system of African human rights to answer the question of whether it is best for African human rights to keep the tribunals separate, regardless of the desire to reduce costs or merger is better to ensure more effectively the protection of human rights?

Conferences Review Notes



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