Russian Law Journal (RLJ)
Not a member yet
210 research outputs found
Sort by
No full textAttracting Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) has been priority issue for the Government of Uzbekistan (GOU) since the proclamation of the country’s independence from the Soviet Union in the early 1990s . Today the operating legal regulations provide adequate state guarantees of protection, tax incentives and other privileges for foreign investors, and the GOU has been introducing legal adjustments to honour its commitments in securing a more favorable investment climate. However, foreign investors in practice are facing serious legal problems in doing business in the country. Frequent modification of laws and their artbitrary application, erroneous interpretation of legal terms, ambiguous rules and procedures, lack of protection of property rights and an independent dispute resolution mechanism are the legal concerns that usually keep foreign investors from entering the market.In this paper I will analyze some of the measures and changes recently adopted by the GOU that aim to make the country’s investment climate more attractive and I will try to find answers for the following questions. How sincere can these efforts be considered by prospective investors? What novelties do those changes provide for the investors? Will such attempts emanate actual and immediate constructive results in the near future
Public Participation and the Rights of the Child: Reflection on International Law Standards in the Legal System of the Russian Federation
Full text linkThis article deals with the much debated issue of children’s public participation from the perspective of legal practices in the Russian Federation. Having emerged at the level of national jurisdictions, the practice of engaging minors in decision-making processes on issues of public significance – or the practice of public participation of children – is stipulated by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, based on Article 12 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Public participation of minors implies that children have clearly defined opportunities to take part in decision-making processes concerning those political and public matters affecting their interests.Albeit limited by the clause “regarding the issues concerning them,” the claims for such participation are dictated by emerging standards of international law. The author has examined the process of devising these standards in Russian public law. Moreover, an analysis of the evolution of academic views on public participation of children in Russian legal scholarship is also included in this article.Relying extensively on the method of legal analysis and the comparative analysis of the conformity of national public law standards with respect to international law, the author proposes several legal amendments to the Federal law “On the Basic Guarantees of the Rights of the Child in the Russian Federation,” which would lead to anchoring more solidly the participatory right of minors in the legal system of the Russian Federation
Economic Sanctions Against the Russian Federation Are Illegal under Public International Law
Full text linkIn response to the Russian Federation’s purported ‘annexation’ of Crimea and the conflict between separatists in the Donbass region and the central government of Ukraine, the United States, the European Union, Japan, and Australia, the principal countries, have imposed economic sanctions upon Russian officials, firms, and private individuals. The economic sanctions imposed upon the Russian Federation violate public international law on three grounds: 1) lack of authorisation under the United Nations Charter; 2) inapplicability of Art. XXI GATT (‘Security Exceptions’); and 3) lack of legal authority based on the International Law Commission’s Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts. Fidelity to the ‘rule of law’ requires an immediate withdrawal of all economic sanctions. By contrast, the international community ‘ought to’ condemn Ukraine’s indiscriminate killing of innocent citizens living in the Donbass region and support the efforts of the Russian Federation to provide humanitarian aid to the region
No full textThe paper investigates enforcement of criminal sanctions in anti-bid rigging policy in Russia. Although cartels were criminalized in 1997, parties of numerous anticompetitive agreements on tenders are punished by corporate or individual fines, or disqualified. Statistics on sentences for bid rigging are highly controversial although legislative conditions for efficient criminalization are presented not only by criminal norms but also by leniency programmes in administrative and criminal proceedings which were designed to contribute to anticartel enforcement.The aim of this research is to determine factors that have caused the very rare use of criminal sanctions for cartel enforcement with the focus on bid rigging. For the purpose of the research, the paper outlines the regulation of tendering in Russia and the system of sanctions for bid rigging, including leniency. Case analysis of the first custodial sentence for anticompetitive agreement on a public tender highlights specific features resulting in successful prosecution. Since this is one of the first attempts to assess criminalization of bid rigging in Russia, original empirical data including interviews with officials from federal competition authorities and regional representatives constitute the basis of the study.Findings of the research determine the influence of social norms on the enforcement as the main challenge for criminalization of bid rigging which is weighed down by the insufficient political influence of competition authorities. The paper’s findings may be of interest for assessing enforcement in other jurisdictions experiencing the same difficulties
Влияние Устава Гражданского Судопроизводства 1864г. на гражданское судопроизводство в Польше.
No full textThis paper describes the influence, which had already been exerted, and which is still exerted by the Russian Civil Judicial Proceedings Act of November 20, 1864 (CJPA) on the Polish civil proceedings. First, the authors present the history of CJPA’s presence in the Polish territories. Next, they discuss the general significance of this act and its solutions for the process of shaping the Polish civil procedure in the interwar period. Finally, they present selected examples of the regulations and solutions that demonstrate the CJPA’s impact on the Polish civil proceedings. The authors conclude that CJPA exerted a minor impact on the pre-war and present Polish procedural regulations in comparison to the other codes, i.e. the Austrian and German codes. Even today, however, one can find in the Polish Code of Civil Procedure some provisions patterned after the CJPA.Данная статья описывает оказанное и оказываемое до настоящего времени влияние Устава Гражданского Судопроизводства Российской Империи, принятого 20 ноября 1864 года (далее – Устав) на гражданское судопроизводство в Польше. В первую очередь, авторы раскрывают историю применения Устава на территории Польши. Затем, обсуждается общее значение данного Устава и его роль в процессе формирования польского гражданского судопроизводства в межвоенный период. И, наконец, авторы приводят отдельные примеры предписаний, которые наглядно показывают влияние, оказываемое Уставом на гражданское судопроизводство в Польше. Авторы приходят к выводу о том, что Устав оказал на польское гражданское судопроизводство довоенного периода не такое большое влияние, как законодательные акты Австрии и Германии. Однако, даже сегодня в Гражданском Процессуальном Кодексе Польши можно обнаружить положения, перенятые из данного Устава
Споры о критериях защиты авторским правом в России
No full textIn codifying intellectual property rights, Russian legislators have left the issue of what standards of originality and creativity form the criteria for copyrightability amatter of debate. Nevertheless, this issue is crucial to answering questions about where the lower threashold for the copyrightability of a work lies. Indeed, it is essential to determining which intellectual works with an insignificant creative component but of high economic importance (e.g., databases, computer software, advertisement slogans or design work) are to be copyrightable. Analyses of debates in legal literature and court rulings issued over the past few years warrant the conclusion that there is a trend in favor of setting more relaxed standards of originality and creativity and granting copyright protection to works of low authorship. This article addresses the problem of identifying criteria for copyrightability and noncopyrightability in the Russian legal system. It models various types of demarcation criteria, and analyzes their strengths and weaknesses. It also describes the trend in Russian judicial practice of granting copyright protection to works of low authorship, whilst outlining some of the problems and contradictions that this entails. The article compares principles that have evolved under Russian law with similar principles used abroad, mainly in Germany.При кодификации прав интеллектуальной собственности российский законодатель оставил проблему стандарта оригинальности и креативности, формирующего критерии охраняемости авторским правом, весьма спорной. Тем не менее, эта проблема крайне важна для ответа на вопрос о том, какой же существует критерий охраняемости. Это действительно важно для определения того, какие объекты с незначительным творческим компонентом, но высокой экономической важностью (например, базы данных, программное обеспечение, рекламные слоганы или дизайнерские работы) подлежат охране.Анализ споров в юридической литературе за последние несколько лет позволил прийти к следующему выводу. Сейчас существует тенденция в пользу установления более лояльных стандартов оригинальности и креативности, а так же в пользу предоставления защиты работам сомнительного авторства.Данная статья выявляет проблему идентификации критериев охраняемости авторским правом в российской правовой системе. Существует много различных типов критериев установления границ, и анализа достоинств и недостатков. В статье также описываются тенденции судебной практики предоставления защиты авторских прав работам сомнительного авторства, обрисовывая в общих чертах некоторые проблемы и противоречия, которые это влечет за собой. Статья сравнивает принципы, развивающиеся в российском праве с принципами, используемыми за границей, главным образом в Германии.Примечание: Данное исследование было выполнено в Национальном Исследовательском Университете Высшей Школы Экономики, Академическая Программа Фонда в 2012–2013, грант на проведение исследований № 12-01-033
Legal Regulation of Civil Servants in Russia and Germany Receiving Gifts
Full text linkThe article deals with the conflict between the provisions of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, where the minimum amount of the bribe is not defined, and the provision of the Federal Law ‘On State Civil Service of the Russian Federation,’ which, on the one hand, contains an absolute ban on civil servants receiving gifts and other types of remuneration, while, on the other hand, Art. 575 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation admits a possibility for civil servants to receive gifts of an amount not exceeding 3,000 rubles in the performance of their official duties. This legal conflict necessitates conceptual clarification of such notions as ‘gift’ and ‘bribe.’The authors underline that a determining factor for establishing the legitimacy of the customary gifts given to government officials is whether the gifts were accepted by the officials, while executing their duties, without a prior agreement for an action or inaction. It is noted that the limitation of a gift’s maximum value to 3,000 rubles, as stated in the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, creates an opportunity to abuse or evade the law.The article presents a comparative study of European laws, more specifically dealing with the institute of donation, and Russian legislation regarding the possibility of civil servants receiving gifts. German law does not single out ‘customary gifts;’ it simply does not admit the possibility of giving gifts or the right to receive gifts by German civil servants.The authors have developed proposals to improve the legal regulation concerning the giving of gifts to government officials in Russia