The Sanctions against the Russian Federation: International Legal Analysis of Legitimacy

2015 ◽  
Vol 3 (7) ◽  
pp. 0-0
Author(s):  
Мария Кешнер ◽  
Mariya Keshner

In 2014, a number of states and integration entities imposed sanctions and restrictive measures against the Russian Federation. The author analysis acts the measures adopted by the United States, the European Union, some other countries against the Russian Federation, from the point of view of the international law. The author investigates reasonableness of the arguments justifying the sanctions against the Russian Federation; and examines the issues of coercion in the international law, which has its specific features that are primarily predetermined by the nature of interstate relations and methods of their legal regulation. The author provides an update on the problem of “collective counter-measures” or counter-measures in collective interests and classification of activities of the third countries who “have joined” in with the imposed restrictive measures. The author considers the practice and consequences of imposing unilateral sanctions by a number of states, the trends of its development and legitimacy of the existence in light if the modern international law development.

Author(s):  
Larisa Yur'evna Dobrynina ◽  
Anna Viktorovna Gubareva

The authors examine the economic sanctions introduced nu the U.S., EU and their allies against the Russian Federation, as well as the legal mechanism of retaliatory measures taken by Russia on the nationwide scale. The changes in the international legal regulation derailed the vector of global development, which was bringing real freedom of economic activity. Establishment of the sanction regime by the aforementioned parties signifies a struggle for own influence, weakening of the positive trade and economic ties, as well as an attempt to institute a regime of protectionism within the international trade turnover exclusively for their own benefit. Based on the analysis of the normative-legal documents, an assessment is made on the legal legitimacy of the introduced discriminatory measures of the allies from the perspective of the norms of international law. This article presents the analysis of the positions of federal laws and other legislative bills of the Russian Federation, establishing gradual constraining countermeasures for foreign subjects in various spheres of activity. The authors substantiate the fact that introduction of retaliatory economic sanctions by the Russian Federation with regards to the United States, European Union, and their allies is directly related to the implementation of the principle of reciprocity, currently existing within private international law. It is noted that all these actions on protection from illegitimate sanctions are realized by Russia practically without participation of UN, WTO and other reputable international organizations in regulation of the “sanctions” issue. The extraterritorial measures introduced by the United States and the European Union justifies the movement of Russian into a new stage of evolution of legal regulation of the foreign economic activity, and in foreign trade – establishment of new markets in Asia, Africa and Latin America.


2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 374-382
Author(s):  
Vitaly Viktorovich Goncharov ◽  
Tatiana N. Mikhaleva ◽  
Grigory A. Vasilevich ◽  
Evgeny Sergeevich Streltsov ◽  
Aleksandra Alekseevna Milkova ◽  
...  

This article is devoted to constitutional legal analysis of international legal bases of the legislation of the Russian Federation on public control. The work substantiates the position that to understand the constitutional legal mechanism of public control in Russia it is necessary to study the international legal framework of control of civil society over public authority in connection with the implementation of generally recognized principles and norms of international law in the legal system of the Russian Federation as a priority the rules of the legal regulation under Part 4 of Article 15 of the Constitution.


2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
pp. 174-189
Author(s):  
Olga Kiseleva

The article substantiates the necessity of a system analysis of the processes of applicationof the norms of international treaties by commercial courts of the Russian Federation. Thisneed is justified, at least, by the following: an insignificant amount of special research inthis field in comparison with a similar subject within the courts of general jurisdiction, thecreation of a relatively new body of supranational control over compliance with the normsof international treaties in the field of commercial courts’ practice.The purpose of the study is to identify problems of application of international treaties ofthe Russian Federation arbitration courts of Russia.The author uses methodology of formal legal analysis of Russian legislation and courts’ decisions.The results and scope of it’s application. The author, taking into account the specifics ofcommercial proceedings and the nature of disputes heard in commercial courts, proposedlegal grounds in a concentrated form which allow to state the existence of the obligation toapply the norms of international treaties by Russian commercial courts. Two levels of suchgrounds can be stated – international and domestic.Publication of the texts of international treaties as a problematic segment of their applicability.The article highlights one of the problematic segments of the application process ofthe norms of international treaties for the purpose of more detailed reflection. The practiceof commercial courts demonstrates that in both legislative acts and acts of applying law,the concepts of "official publication" and "bringing to the public" are alternated with eachother. Despite the reform, the procedure of official publication has not acquired the characterof a systemic institution of Russian law. This significantly complicates the activity ofadministering justice with respect to the legislative acts of international law.Conclusions. From the point of view of international law, the state, independently determiningthe procedure and methods of implementing international treaties within its legalsystem, is not limited in its ability to burden itself with the need to abide by additional proceduresnot provided by the international legal system of procedures. Official publication,as a necessary procedure for the entry of a legislative act into the force, represents such anadditional procedure designed to protect more effectively human rights and freedoms andto streamline law enforcement practice. In this connection, the author formulated the provisions,the implementation of which can help in matters of systematization of the institutionof official publication of international treaties of the Russian Federation.


2019 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 289-304
Author(s):  
Inna D. Novikova

Having adopted the Constitution in 1993 and declared itself a social state, the Russian Federation assumed the duty not to exert power over its citizens, but to provide them with services. However, the provision of services has become a new, previously uncharacteristic area of activity of the state apparatus. Given this, the issue of creating a qualitatively new system of public administration in Russia was of particular relevance. Since the early 2000s. its decision is directly related to the «administrative reform», in which, among other things, the term «public service» was introduced into domestic legal circulation. Currently, the issue of improving the efficiency of public services is still on the agenda, because in the sphere of realization of citizens and organizations of their right to receive public services remains unresolved a number of problems, the main of which is the lack of a full legislative framework governing the institution of public services. The author, having carried out a comparative legal analysis of the administrative legislation of the Russian Federation with the legislation of the United States, which is considered more progressive in this area, attempts to identify the most significant advantages and disadvantages of the current domestic legal framework in the provision of public services. Taking into account the findings, the author formulates proposals aimed at improving the efficiency of management decisions in the provision of public services.


2021 ◽  
Vol 65 (3) ◽  
pp. 269-275
Author(s):  
Diana A. Lebedeva

Introduction. When patenting pharmaceutical innovations, in the context of rapid technological progress, pharmaceutical companies often have to face identifying patentable objects both in the Russian Federation and in the United States of America and the European Union. The aim of the study is to review the possibilities for patenting pharmaceutical innovations in the Russian Federation, the United States of America and the European Union, as well as to identify the advantages and disadvantages of legal regulation of innovative solutions of pharmaceutical companies in the context of the specifics of legal systems. Material and methods. The national legislation in patenting medical innovations was studied, and the relevant experience of the USA and the European Union was analyzed. The methodological basis of the research is made up of both general scientific and private scientific legal methods: systemic, method of concretization, methods of synthesis and analysis, as well as the comparative-legal method. Results. Depending on the legislator’s position, a basis is being formed for the legal regulation of innovative solutions of pharmaceutical companies, which may not yet be named in regulatory legal acts due to their fundamental novelty. Legal gaps and conflicts in the US and the EU are resolved through in-depth analysis and consideration of each specific dispute by the court. In Russia, the settlement of this issue is on the way to solving it through local regulations and the position of the relevant federal executive bodies. Conclusion. Patenting in the pharmaceutical field is mainly of a stimulating nature, since it allows protecting innovative solutions at the stage of their development. However, the legislator has particular difficulties in identifying patentable objects in the context of rapid technological progress.


2021 ◽  
Vol 30 (3) ◽  
pp. 86-107
Author(s):  
Alexander Merkulenko

Due to the new coronavirus pandemic, high alert regimes were introduced across the Russian Federation in spring 2020. These emergency regimes were established exclusively by the state bodies of the Russian Federation’s constituent units – federal authorities did not introduce their own emergency regimes. This decentralized strategy of fighting the pandemic was also introduced by the USA and Brazil. Their states, without the sanction of the federal government, and in the case of Brazil, ignoring its bans, set emergency restrictions similar to those in Russia. The legal regulation of emergency regimes existed before 2020, when constituent units of the federation (states) actively used their emergency powers. However, the regimes introduced during the fight against the pandemic were slightly different to previous ones. The restrictions on rights and freedoms within these regimes were so severe that not only their proportionality was questioned, but there were also doubts as to whether the regional level of the government had the authority to establish such strict restrictions. In addition, the pandemic exposed old problems and revealed new shortcomings in the legal regulation of emergency regimes: lack of control over the realization of the emergency regime by legislative (representative) authorities, and gaps in legislative regulation – notably in the establishment of possible restrictions and of a mechanism for scrutinizing their proportionality. All this raised questions about the proportionality of the established restrictions. The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation resolved a very insignificant amount of the problems. While the United States and Brazil faced similar issues, the practice of scrutinizing implemented restrictions in these countries was more common. This article takes domestic and foreign experiences into account, while examining certain aspects of the establishment and the operation of regional emergency regimes.


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. 128-133
Author(s):  
Irina G. Smirnova ◽  
◽  
Ekaterina V. Alekseeva ◽  
◽  

The article presents a comparative legal analysis of the norms of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation and the Criminal Procedure Code of the People’s Republic of China, which regulate the rights and powers of the victim within the framework of the stage of initiating a criminal case. The authors highlight several significant differences in the legal regulation of this issue. The differences are: the obligation to comply with the rules of jurisdiction in China at the stage of filing a statement of a crime, which is not required under the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation; compulsory fingerprinting of a person when filing a crime report with a public security agency implemented in China; the existence of several types of preliminary checks (the list of activities carried out as part of these checks in China is open); intensive development of IT technologies and their introduction into the life of society, including for the fight against crime and ensuring law and order in society, in China.


2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (8) ◽  
pp. 118-124
Author(s):  
E. A. Kashekhlebova

The sphere of social and labor rights has undergone a large-scale transformation due to the COVID-19 pandemic and related restrictive measures. Almost all enterprises and organizations during the period of restrictive measures were forced to switch to a remote (remote) mode of operation. Some, and sometimes all, employees of organizations were forced to perform their labor function, stipulated by an employment contract, at home.At the same time, before the introduction of the above-mentioned forced measures and subsequent amendments to the labor legislation regarding the regulation of the work of “homeworkers”, there were no provisions in the domestic labor legislation that would allow establishing legal regulation of the emergence of this kind of relationship between an employee and an employer.In December 2020, the Federal Law “On Amendments to the Labor Code of the Russian Federation regarding the regulation of remote (remote) work and temporary transfer of an employee to remote (remote) work on the initiative of the employer in exceptional cases” was adopted.This article is devoted to a conceptual review of the amendments to the Labor Code of the Russian Federation adopted in 2020, aimed at establishing the regulation of remote (remote) work, as well as the procedure for temporary transfer of an employee to remote (remote) work on the initiative of the employer in strictly exceptional cases.


Author(s):  
Kseniia Antipova

This article explores the main approaches of Russian and foreign authors towards big data definition; reflects the classification of data, components of big data; and provides comparative characteristics to legal regulation of big data. The subject of this research is the legislation of the Russian Federation and legislation of the European Union that regulate the activity on collection, processing and use of big data, personal data and information; judicial and arbitration practice of the Russian Federation in the sphere of personal data; normative legal acts of the Russian Federation; governmental regulation of the Russian Federation and foreign countries in the area of processing, use and transmission of data; as well as legal doctrine in the field of research dedicated to the nature of big data. The relevance of this research is substantiated by the fact that there is yet no conceptual uniformity with regards to big data in the world; the essence and methods of regulating big data are not fully explored. The goal of this research is determine the legal qualification of the data that comprise big data. The task lies in giving definition to the term “big data”; demonstrate the approaches towards determination of legal nature of big data; conduct  classification of big data; outline the criteria for distinguishing data that comprise the concept of big data; formulate the model for optimal regulation of relations in the process of activity on collection, processing, and use of the data. The original definition of big data in the narrow and broad sense is provided. As a result, the author distinguishes the types of data, reflects the legal qualification of data depending on the category of data contained therein: industrial data, user data, and personal data. Attention is also turned to the contractual form of big data circulation.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document