scholarly journals From Struggle for Law to Struggle for Sovereignty

2019 ◽  
pp. 11-20
Author(s):  
A. A. Klishas
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Cooperation ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
System Analysis ◽  
The United States ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Modern Trend ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Constitutional Identity

Introduction. The article deals with the problems of sovereignty of modern states in the context of political confrontation at the beginning of the 21st century. The author performs a legal analysis of the issue of a state’s constitutional identity limitation by supranational interstate associations and the issue of inter-ference of some states in the affairs of others as a modern trend of interstate communication.Materials and methods. The theoretical basis of the research is the views of the German jurisprudent R. Jhering on the correlation of objective law and subjective law, as well as on the conditions that are necessary for the existence of the rule of law. The empirical basis of the research is represented by the current legal regulation of the Russian Federation and the United States of America, as well as by legislative initiatives being under consideration in the Congress of the United States of America. The methodological basis of the research is the formal logical method, the method of system analysis, structural and functional method.Results. On the basis of the analysis of modern trends in the interstate in-teraction and after consideration of individual domestic political decisions taken in the Russian Federation and the United States of America the author con-cludes, that the international cooperation is impossible without adopting sover-eignty ensuring government measures which measure up both to the violation of the state’s constitutional identity by interstate associations and to the interference of states into the internal affairs of others.Discussion and conclusion. Interference of interstate associations in a state’s constitutional identity and states’ consistent interference in the internal af-fairs of other states are an absolutely unacceptable practice from the standpoint of international law. Such a practice prevents the construction of international cooperation on the basis of consensus and mutual respect and brings to naught the effectiveness of interstate cooperation.

Legal Regulation of Cooperation between the Russian Federation and the United States of America in Science and Technology

2019 ◽  
pp. 115-122 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. G. Barabashev ◽  
D. V. Ponomareva
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
Science And Technology ◽  
Space Station ◽  
The United States ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Cooperation Agreement ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Government

The paper is a review of the regulatory framework of the Russian-American cooperation in science and technology. The authors analyse the interstate and intergovernmental agreements concluded by Russia and the United States in this field (1992 Agreement between the Russian Federation and the United States of America on Cooperation in the exploration and use of outer space for peaceful purposes, 1993 Science and Technology Cooperation Agreement between the Government of the Russian Federation and the Government of the United States of America, 2013 Agreement between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Russian Federation On cooperartion in nuclear- and energy-related scientific research and development). The paper highlights the key problems of legal regulation and provides specific examples of the implementation of the provisions of bilateral agreements, in particular, joint Russian-American projects in the area of space, scientific, technological and educational cooperation (the program «Soyuz-Apollon», international project «International Space Station», the Russian Academy of Sciences and the US scientific institutions cooperation agreements). In conclusion, an attempt is made to identify the main trends in the development of the legal framework for cooperation between Russia and the United States in the scientific and technological field.

scholarly journals Pharmaceutical innovations patenting: the experience of the Russian Federation, the United States of America, the European Union

2021 ◽  
Vol 65 (3) ◽  
pp. 269-275
Author(s):  
Diana A. Lebedeva
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
The United States ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Pharmaceutical Companies ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Innovative Solutions ◽  
The Russian Federation

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.

Public hearings as an institution of deliberative democracy in major Russian and American cities

2021 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 59-83
Author(s):  
Andrey Fursov
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
The United States ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
The State ◽  
Legal Regulations ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
The Public ◽  
Public Hearings ◽  
The Russian Federation

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.

scholarly journals Legal substantiation of retaliatory measures of the Russian Federation to economic sanctions of the United States, European Union, and their allies

2020 ◽  
pp. 24-37
Author(s):  
Larisa Yur'evna Dobrynina ◽  
Anna Viktorovna Gubareva
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
International Law ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Economic Activity ◽  
Economic Sanctions ◽  
The United States ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
The Russian Federation

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.

Territories with special status within Federal States (constitutional and legal research)

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Игорь Ирхин ◽  
Igor Irkhin
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
The United States ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Legal Research ◽  
Federal States ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Russian Federation

This monograph comprehensively examines the constitutional and legal status of territories with a special status within the Federal States in the context of the Institute of territorial autonomy. The study is based on the experience of constitutional and legal regulation of the status of Autonomous districts in the "composite subjects" of the Russian Federation, administrative-territorial units with a special status in the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, Autonomous districts in India, Nunavut territory in Canada, unincorporated territories of the United States This monograph is one of the first works in the domestic jurisprudence, in which the study was conducted from the perspective of territorial autonomy. The publication is intended for researchers, postgraduates and students, all readers interested in constitutional (public) law, theory of state and law.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document