scholarly journals In Scrooge’s boots: Lessons learned on disinformation from the 2019 European elections

European View ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 203-209
Author(s):  
Jonáš Syrovátka

There has been much heated discussion on the possible influence of disinformation campaigns on the 2019 European elections—including those campaigns launched by outside actors (namely the Russian Federation). This is not surprising considering previous election experiences not only in Western states, but globally. As far as we know, the 2019 European elections were fortunately not targeted by a large and coordinated disinformation campaign. Given the significant attention paid to the 2019 European elections by the public, researchers and policymakers, they present an interesting case study that might help us to learn not only how to tackle the issue of disinformation, but also how to understand and analyse it in the future.

Author(s):  
E. V. Blagov

The article considers the reason, adequate cause, justifying exemption from criminal responsibility. In the criminal law literature there are numerous decisions on this issue, but their main body alone can not explain why a person is exempted from criminal responsibility. The author concludes that the basis for such liberation must be sought in the personality of the culprit. Under current criminal legislation, justifying the exemption from criminal responsibility can only be elimination or significant reduction in the public danger of the person who committed the crime. In the future, it is necessary to formulate the relevant provisions of the criminal law so that the basis for this exemption is only elimination of the public danger caused by the individual. Accordingly, Art. 76. 2 and part 1 of Art. 90 are subject to exclusion from the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and, on the contrary, inclusion in the chapter on the exemption from criminal responsibility of the relevant provisions of Art. 80.1 and part 1 of Art. 81 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.


2018 ◽  
Vol Special issue (2018) ◽  
pp. 44-59
Author(s):  
Svetlana KOSTINA ◽  
◽  
Ekaterina ZAYTSEVA ◽  
Galina BANNYKH ◽  
◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 307-322
Author(s):  
Václav Pravda

Summary This article elaborates on the issue of recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in the Russian Federation. It is common knowledge that foreign companies seeking R&E in Russia suffered damage because of the broad interpretation of Russian public policy in the past decades. However, it is uncertain how the present judicial development appears like and where it will lead in the future. The article specifically considers two basic ideas on the issue at hand: one is slightly critical (Karabelnikov) while the second is rather optimistic in regard with the recent development (Zykov). The main goal is to introduce the issue to the respective readers and to try to inflame a discussion.


2020 ◽  
Vol 19 (4) ◽  
pp. 618-632
Author(s):  
A.S. Panchenko

Subject. The article addresses the public health in the Russian Federation and Israel. Objectives. The focus is on researching the state of public health in Russia and Israel, using the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) project methodology, identifying problem areas and searching for possible ways to improve the quality of health of the Russian population based on the experience of Israel. Methods. The study draws on the ideology of the GBD project, which is based on the Disability-Adjusted Life-Year (DALY) metric. Results. The paper reveals the main causes of DALY losses and important risk factors for cancer for Russia and Israel. The findings show that the total DALY losses for Russia exceed Israeli values. The same is true for cancer diseases. Conclusions. Activities in Israel aimed at improving the quality of public health, the effectiveness of which has been proven, can serve as practical recommendations for Russia. The method of analysis, using the ideology of the GBD project, can be used as a tool for quantitative and comparative assessment of the public health.


2021 ◽  
pp. 026732312110283
Author(s):  
Judith Simon ◽  
Gernot Rieder

Ever since the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, questions of whom or what to trust have become paramount. This article examines the public debates surrounding the initial development of the German Corona-Warn-App in 2020 as a case study to analyse such questions at the intersection of trust and trustworthiness in technology development, design and oversight. Providing some insights into the nature and dynamics of trust and trustworthiness, we argue that (a) trust is only desirable and justified if placed well, that is, if directed at those being trustworthy; that (b) trust and trustworthiness come in degrees and have both epistemic and moral components; and that (c) such a normatively demanding understanding of trust excludes technologies as proper objects of trust and requires that trust is directed at socio-technical assemblages consisting of both humans and artefacts. We conclude with some lessons learned from our case study, highlighting the epistemic and moral demands for trustworthy technology development as well as for public debates about such technologies, which ultimately requires attributing epistemic and moral duties to all actors involved.


2021 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 59-83
Author(s):  
Andrey Fursov

Currently, public hearings are one of the most widespread forms of deliberative municipal democracy in Russia. This high level of demand, combined with critique of legal regulations and the practices for bringing this system to reality – justified, in the meantime, by its development (for example, by the Agency for Strategic Initiatives and the Public Chambers of the Russian Federation) of proposals for the correction of corresponding elements of the legal code – make both the study of Russian experiences in this sphere and comparative studies of legal regulations and practical usage of public hearings in Russia and abroad extremely relevant. This article is an attempt to make a contribution to this field of scientific study. If the appearance of public hearings in Russia as an institution of Russian municipal law is connected with the passing of the Federal Law of 6 October 2003 No.131-FZ, “On the general organisational principles of local government in the Russian Federation,” then in the United States, this institution has existed since the beginning of the 20th century, with mass adoption beginning in the 1960s. In this time, the United States has accumulated significant practical experience in the use of public hearings and their legal formulation. Both countries are large federal states, with their own regional specifics and diversity, the presence of three levels of public authority and different principles of federalism, which cause differences in the legal regulation of municipal public hearings. For this reason, this article undertakes a comparative legal analysis of Russian and American experiences of legal regulation and practical use of public hearings, on the example of several major municipalities – the cities of Novosibirsk, Nizhny Novgorod, Voronezh and New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago. A comparison of laws influencing the public hearing processes in these cities is advisable, given the colossal growth in the role of city centers in the industrial and post-industrial eras. Cities in particular are the primary centers for economic growth, the spread of innovations, progressive public policy and the living environment for the majority of both Russian and American citizens. The cities under research are one of the largest municipalities in the two countries by population, and on such a scale, the problem of involving residents in solving local issues is especially acute. In this context, improving traditional institutions of public participation is a timely challenge for the legislator, and the experiences of these cities are worth describing. The unique Russian context for legal regulations of public hearings involves the combination of overarching federal law and specific municipal decrees that regulate the hearing process. There are usually two municipal acts regulating public hearings on general issues of the city district (charter, budget, etc.) and separately on urban planning. In the United States, the primary regulation of public hearings is assigned to the state and municipality level, with a whole series of corresponding laws and statutes; meanwhile, methodological recommendations play a specific role in the organisation of hearings, which are issued by the state department of a given state. It is proposed that regulating the corresponding relationships at the federal subject level will permit a combination of the best practices of legal administration with local nuances, thereby reinforcing the guarantee of the realization of civil rights to self-government. There are other features in the process of organizing and conducting public hearings in the United States, which, as shown in the article, can be perceived by Russian lawmakers as well in order to create an updated construct of public discussions at the local level.


2021 ◽  
pp. 55-62
Author(s):  
I. S. Polyakova

The objective of this research is to consider some controversial issues of the development of public-and-private partnership (and concession agreements as its most common form) in Russia. Some complaints made by Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Russian Federation to some infrastructure projects are reviewed. The author studied dynamics of private investments into infrastructure projects in the conditions of imperfect legal regulation. The assessment of the validity of the position of Federal Antimonopoly Service is given. It is predicted whether the legislative collisions will prevent the growth of private investments into infrastructure. Recommendations on the development of the mechanism of public-and-private partnership with the observance of antimonopoly regulation, as well as recommendation on the improvement of the legislation in this area are developed. The results of the research can be used by both private participants of public-and-private partnership and the federal, regional and municipal authorities, and also by legislators working on the improvement of the legislative regulation in this area.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document