3 Bolshoy Trekhsvyatitelsky Pereulok, room 445
Phone: 8 (495) 7729590,
Understanding of public finance as a sphere of social relationships by scholars is no single. It develops depending on increasing role of a state government. In Russia public finance is still understood as a set of economic relations aimed at generation and spending of public funds. This concept of public finance reflects in the current legislature. For example, according to the Russian Federation Budgeting Code, a budget is a form of generation and spending of money aimed at funding of functions and goals of a government unit. The mentioned concept of public finance reflects in the RF Tax Code, too. But in the Anglo-Saxon legal and economic doctrine public finance is understood as a sphere of social relations for resource allocation on a par with private finance. And taxes aren’t considered as payments for government services.
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.
The paper devotes the issue of centralization in public finance in Russia, and highlights one of the problems of interpretation of the Russian Constitution clauses. The Rulings of the Russian Federation Constitutional Court of the period 1997 – 2006 created the legal grounds for the process of centralization and reduction of the regional powers regarding to budgeting and taxation. But all arguments of the Court are debatable. Wherein, the centralization is justified by the constitutional principle of uniform economic area. The author argues that the Russian Constitution does not have clauses establishing the uniform budget and tax systems directly, and any model of intergovernmental relations might comply with the Russian Constitution. Uniformity of economic area does not imply uniformity in taxation and budgeting in the sense of sameness. Study of foreign practices shows different approaches to understanding of uniformity in economy and in taxation and budgeting. The contemporary Russian public finance law forms under the influence of the Constitutional Court’s legal positions, and the process of centralization is still going on. The Russian history of intergovernmental relations (1991 – 1997) shows another model of fiscal federalism – the decentralized federalism. Replacement of the fiscal federalism models is determined by the political considerations, no by the constitutional requirements.
Since the 1970s, scholars have produced a large body of research attempting to establish the mechanisms by which sexual serial killers come to arrive at a life of repeat fatal violence. From the standpoint of developmental psychology, however, the explanations offered are far too limited in scope. Human development is the product of complex reciprocal transactions that occur between an individual and their environment throughout their life span. This present study is meant to encourage a critical reconsideration of past knowledge (mainly static traits) in favor of the recognition of the complexity of human development. Using life span developmental psychology as a guiding framework, this study traces the developmental mechanisms that come together to shape the psychopathology that drives the motivations of sexual serial killers.
Kovler A. I. European Convention in the International System of Human Rights Protection : monograph / A. I. Kovler. — М. : Institute of Legislation and Comparative Law under the Government of the Rus sian Federation : Norma : INFRA M, 2019. — 304 p.
Kovler A. I. European Convention: Problems of Interpretation and Imple mentation : monograph / A. I. Kovler. — М. : Institute of Legislation and Comparative Law under the Government of the Russian Federa tion : Norma : INFRA M, 2019. — 400 p
The article continues a series of scientific and analytical studies on the review of the findings of the European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission) on the issues of judicial power and reforms. This review discusses the results of the 115th and 116th sessions of the Venice Commission, held in October and December 2018, respectively. The article outlines the expert positions of the Venice Commission regarding judicial reforms in Romania, Georgia, Kazakhstan and Malta.
Thus, the transformation of the judicial system in Romania takes place against the backdrop of the fight against corruption. Corruption offenses have led to a number of controversial legislative decisions, including increased control over judges and the expansion of the mechanism of their responsibility. The Venice Commission has come to the unequivocal conclusion that as a result of the reforms being conducted, a threat to the independence of judges is being created.
The authorities of Kazakhstan are reforming the bodies of the judicial community, in particular, the redistribution of powers between the Supreme Court and the Supreme Judicial Council. In general, while positively assessing the changes being made, the Venice Commission nevertheless made a number of recommendations on how to strengthen the independence of judges.
Georgia is undergoing reform of the judicial community. The proposed changes did not provoke lengthy comments from the Venice Commission, and the recommendations set out in the Opinion concerned the need to clarify the conceptual framework.
The judicial authority of Malta has also become the subject of attention of the Venice Commission. In general, while commending the development of the institutions of justice, the Commission strongly recommended reducing the remaining excessively high level of influence of the Prime Minister of Malta.
The article is concerned with unclear words in definition of bribery under Russian Criminal Code. The authors try to reconstruct their meaning on a basis of a scarce case law. Their approach is twofold. The first element in interpretation of the words is related to representative relations between a bribe-giver and represented persons. The second element is related to understanding of ‘favour’ in case of bribe-giving. The article proposes some specific legal rules for qualifying such cases.
The article is devoted to the problem of comparison between the international human rights law and the international humanitarian law. It is demonstrated on the basis of particular cases from the European Court of Human Rights practice that all attempts to erase the boarders between two spheres of international law are dangerous and counterproductive.
The research focuses on the influence of the legal positions of the European Court of Human Rights concerning the right to a tribunal established by law on the development of the Russian procedural law. The article reveals the main elements of the right to a tribunal established by law, and considers the main problematic issues of the implementation of these elements to the national law. The study is based on the most significant legal positions of the ECHR on the issues of concern. Thus, in the Posokhov v. Russia case, the ECtHR concluded that the Russian legislative norms governing the formation of the tribunal are imperfect. In the Moiseev v. Russia case the ECHR pointed out that the frequent replacement of the composition of judges provokes doubts about the independence and impartiality of the court and the trial as a whole. Then the article proceeds to study Russian legislative regulation and law enforcement in order to compare Russian approaches with the requirements of the ECtHR case-law. It is concluded that the Russian commercial courts and the Russian commercial procedural legislation, which provides for the most detailed rules on trial formation, are closest to the standards of the ECHR. In the case-law of commercial courts there are occasions of reversals of judgment because of violation of the procedure trial formation. At the same time, in the courts of common jurisdiction, some unsolved problems remain, associated with the lack of sufficient transparency in the trial formation in specific cases. In conclusion it is alleged that despite the progress achieved in the implementation of the legal positions of the ECHR the right to a tribunal established by law, into Russian legislation and law enforcement practice, the implementation process is not yet completed and requires continuation.
The article reviews a comparative analysis of approaches to the legal regulation of primary elections (primaries) procedure in the USA, Argentina, Uruguay, France, Israel and Russia. Even though in the USA parties began to hold primaries since the middle of the XIX century, Russian parties drew attention to this institution only in the early 2010s. The author concludes that primaries could have a positive impact on development of party system in the country. However, for a competent implementation of this institution in the Russian legal system, it is necessary to examine and compare different existing models of the legal regulation of primaries. The author identifies three models of legal regulation of primaries: regulation of primaries by state authorities; regulation of the process of primaries based on internal local acts; a mixed model combining both legislative (general principles) and more detailed intraparty regulation. The article will also consider the issue of judicial protection of the rights of candidates and electors during the primaries. If in the United States an extensive judicial practice of protecting the rights of voters had been developed, Russian courts refuse to consider complaints of violations in the course of preliminary intraparty voting. Separately, decisions of the US Supreme Court on "Texas Processes" to appeal against the practice of "white-only primaries" and verification of state law for compliance with Amendment 15 to the US Constitution will be considered. The article will also consider the question of what risks exist in the obligation of parties to hold primaries. Considering the experience of foreign countries, the author will point out those features that should characterize the inner-party elections in Russia. Political parties in Russia cannot be considered as strong and independent institution. So, establishment of mandatory primaries can lead to regress of the party system. Law that may regulate primary elections in Russia should concentrate only on basic principles of this institution. Political parties must be guaranteed the right to decide to hold primaries or not. Voters and candidates should have right to appeal any violation of their rights both in parties’ arbitration body and in the state judicial system. Primaries can be a part of the procedure for nominating candidates by political parties.