scholarly journals ПРИНЦИП ВЗАИМНОСТИ И ОГОВОРКА О ПУБЛИЧНОМ ПОРЯДКЕ В ИНСТИТУТЕ ТРАНСГРАНИЧНОГО БАНКРОТСТВА ПО ЗАКОНОДАТЕЛЬСТВУ РОССИИ И США

2019 ◽  
Vol 53 (4) ◽  
pp. 108-115
Author(s):  
Natalia G. Prisekina ◽  
Ekaterina E. Zamulina
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
The United States ◽  
Legal Analysis ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
International Private Law ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The One ◽  
Key Aspects ◽  
Domestic Law

Вопрос о разрешении проблем, касающихся проведения процедуры трансграничного банкротства, является одним из самых актуальных на сего-дняшний день в международном правоприменении. С одной стороны, затрагивается сугубо специальная область юриспруденции, вызывающая немалые вопросы даже в отечественном правопорядке, банкротство. С другой стороны, вызывают вопросы ключевые аспекты и понятия международного частного права, в частности принцип взаимности и оговорка о публичном порядке. В предлагаемой статье авторами произведен сравнительно-правовой анализ законодательства и правоприменения Соединенных Штатов Америки (США) и Российской Федерации (РФ), в результате которого выявлены отдельные проблемы трансграничного банкротства, а также смоделированы возможные пути их решения. The discussion of resolving issues to transnational bankruptcy proceedings is one of the most actual subjects in the international enforcement today. On the one hand, it is a broach upon a special sphere of jurisprudence causing a considerable question in domestic law – bankruptcy. On the flip side, key aspects and definitions of the international private law, particularly the principle of reciprocity and public policy clause, raise questions. In the present article the authors produce a comparative legal analysis of legislation and law enforcement practice of the United States of America (USA) and the Russian Federation (RF), the results of which identify certain issues of cross-border bankruptcies and model possible ways of their resolution.

Gangs, Globalization, and Critical Security Studies: Teaching Counternarratives to Public Audiences

2015 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Susan Phillips
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
The United States ◽  
Security Studies ◽  
Department Of State ◽  
Critical Security Studies ◽  
Gang Affiliation ◽  
Former Gang Member ◽  
The Many ◽  
The One ◽  
Domestic Law

Working on gang issues as a whole demands that I, as a scholar, engage different scales that collapse individual and community, local and global, and that make action and study into indistinguishable partners. It is not just that we need to facilitate one woman’s path toward finding an academic who will help her husband and their family; we need to work on the bigger thing and ask the Department of State to hold itself to at least the same (flawed) standards as domestic law enforcement regarding the use of tattoos to determine gang affiliation. I do not know if this particular push will be successful, because of the heightened security that I discuss below. But being involved in the struggle is itself transformative, because it creates new narrative threads and strengthens possibilities and openings that can lead to change. Sanyika Shakur, also known as Monster Kody, is a former gang member who wrote, “I am a gang expert—period. There are no other gang experts except participants.” His assertion raises a bigger question about study and embodied identity. Whether or not expertise exists in the manner that Shakur is talking about, the need for “expertise” as a putative legal category is evident in the many intersections of gang membership and the law, which are increasingly playing out on transnational stages like the one between the United States and Mexico. The question then becomes how an academic can use purported “expertise” without strengthening the oppressive systems that created those categories in the first place.

THE NEW SECURITY CHALLENGES OF INFORMATION WAR

2018 ◽  
Vol 28 (6) ◽  
pp. 1855-1864
Author(s):  
Olga Zoric ◽  
Katarina Jonev ◽  
Ivan Rancic
Keyword(s):  
Information Security ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
The United States ◽  
Practical Aspect ◽  
Information Warfare ◽  
Operational Environment ◽  
Security Challenges ◽  
Information Operations ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Republic

The author starts from the informational dimension of the operational environment in a strategic reality and deal with the problem of defining informational power from the theoretical and practical aspect of information warfare.The deliberations in the work are aimed to initiate a procedure for auditing of the security documents in order to create a legal basis for the operationalization of the content of information security, as one of the aspects of integral security of the Republic of Serbia. The paper deals with the conceptual determinations and importance of information, information warfare and information operations, as well as the content of information warfare, pointing out the strategic and doctrinal definitions of the information warfare of the United States of America, the Russian Federation and the Republic of Serbia. It is necessary to accurately and objectively observe world achievements in the field of national security and the relation of the most powerful world powers to the problem of information warfare. Based on a comparative analysis of world trends and the state of the theoretical and practical aspects of information security of the Republic of Serbia, the focus is on work, where measures are proposed to improve the security function in the fourth unit of work.

scholarly journals Current Nuclear Strategies and Arsenals of the United States of America and the Russian Federation

2021 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 23-44
Author(s):  
Adam Potočňák
Keyword(s):  
Cold War ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Other ◽  
Nuclear Forces ◽  
Nuclear Strategy ◽  
The Usa ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Cold War ◽  
The U.S

The article holistically analyses current strategies for the use and development of nuclear forces of the USA and Russia and analytically reflects their mutual doctrinal interactions. It deals with the conditions under which the U.S. and Russia may opt for using their nuclear weapons and reflects also related issues of modernization and development of their actual nuclear forces. The author argues that both superpowers did not manage to abandon the Cold War logic or avoid erroneous, distorted or exaggerated assumptions about the intentions of the other side. The text concludes with a summary of possible changes and adaptations of the American nuclear strategy under the Biden administration as part of the assumed strategy update expected for 2022.

scholarly journals When crises collide—Policing a pandemic during social unrest

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 97-103
Author(s):  
Marie C. Jipguep-Akhtar ◽  
Tia Dickerson ◽  
Denae Bradley
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Law Enforcement ◽  
The United States ◽  
Racial Equality ◽  
Police Legitimacy ◽  
Social Unrest ◽  
Police Powers ◽  
Disparate Treatment ◽  
The Government ◽  
The One

In 2020, the United States was shaken by concurrent crises: the COVID-19 pandemic and protests for racial equality. Both crises present significant challenges for law enforcement. On the one hand, the protests for racial equality drew the public’s attention to the criminal justice system’s disparate treatment of Blacks and other people of colour. On the other hand, the pandemic required the expansion of police duties to enforce public health mandates. To ensure compliance, law enforcement may arrest, detain, and even use force to prevent the transmission of communicable diseases that may have an irreversible impact on human health, such as COVID-19. Policing, however, is at a critical point in America. The government is expanding police powers for the sake of public health; all the while, public indignation about police (ab)uses of power has fuelled calls for its defunding. It is therefore important to explore Americans’ views of policing pandemics during periods of social unrest, focusing on the recognition that socio-economic and racial inequities shape perceptions. The data from this project derives from surveys with Americans on the specific topics of race, policing, racial protests, and COVID-19. The study finds that Americans perceive the police as legitimate overall; however, there are divergences based on race, gender, and marital status. These differences may contribute meaningful insights to the current discourse on police legitimacy in America.

scholarly journals The Potential of Criminal Law in Protecting Labor Rights of Citizens (Using the Example of Article 136 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)

2018 ◽  
Vol 12 (6) ◽  
pp. 836-844
Author(s):  
Michail Sagandykov ◽  
Galia Shafikova
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Theoretical Research ◽  
Labor Rights ◽  
Labor Legislation ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The One ◽  
Criminal Legislation

The relevance of the study is based, on the one hand, on high public danger of crimes in the sphere of labor relations and, on the other hand, on a very low interest of law enforcement, control and supervision bodies in these crimes. The authors show that modern criminal legislation in the sphere of protecting labor rights has a high potential in comparison with both Soviet and foreign criminal law norms. At the same time, this potential, primarily expressed in Chapter 19 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, remains untapped. Many norms, including Art. 136 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation «Violating the Equality of Rights and Freedoms of Man and Citizen», are virtually never used against discrimination in the labor sphere, although such discrimination is quite common. No such cases have been found in court statistical data, thus it is impossible to provide a comprehensive criminological description of these crimes. The norm of Art. 136 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is seldom used by law enforcers because it is legally ambiguous. In this connection the authors suggest complementing the disposition of Art. 136 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation with such factors of discrimination as «age» and «marital status». The latter factor will make it possible to provide extra protection to pregnant women and women with children under three years old against unmotivated refusal of employment and firing. The authors argue that such actions of the employer should constitute an aggregate of crimes and should be punished simultaneously under Art. 136 and 145 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. At the same time, the authors think that it is not appropriate to make the disposition of Art. 136 a blanket one due to vague grounds for discrimination in special legislation, including labor legislation. The obtained results could be used for the improvement of Russian legislation based on theoretical research and the practice of law enforcement.

Mandatory Pre-trial Procedure for the Settlement of Disputes in Civil Procedure (Analysis of the Application of Part 5 of Article 4 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation)

2021 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 35-47
Author(s):  
D. V. Kniazev ◽  
◽  
A. N. Kukartseva ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Judicial Process ◽  
Trial Procedure ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Arbitration Procedure ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The One ◽  
Commercial Organizations ◽  
Settlement Of Disputes ◽  
Overall Effectiveness

The provisions of the arbitration procedural legislation on the pre-trial procedure for the settlement of the dispute are additional requirements to the filing to the court in comparison with civil procedural legislation. According to the legislator, on the one hand, these requirements encourage the independence of commercial organizations and individual entrepreneurs in the settlement of economic disputes, on the other hand, indicate the desire of the legislator to reduce the number of arbitration disputes and increase the effectiveness of justice. About three years have passed since the appearance of the norm in question and some conclusions can be drawn regarding its application by the courts. The authors of the article draw attention to the problematic aspects of law enforcement practice: categories of disputes when the application of pre-trial procedure is mandatory; compliance with the form, content, deadlines for submitting a claim; assessment by the court of the actions of the parties to resolve the dispute before going to court; overall effectiveness of the existing order. The authors conclude that the goal set by the legislator before the pre-trial procedure (an alternative pre-trial method for the resolution of disputes, designed to provide faster, less formalized and costly dispute resolution in comparison with the judicial process) is not achieved.

MIDDLE EAST POLICY COMPONENT OF THE USA, CHINA AND RUSSIAN FEDERATION: RUSSIAN POLICY

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 124-145
Author(s):  
D. V. GORDIENKO ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Middle East ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
The United States ◽  
Republic Of China ◽  
The Usa ◽  
East Component ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Military ◽  
Middle East Policy

The paper considers the assessment of the influence of the Middle East component of the policy of the United States of America, the People's Republic of China and the Russian Federation on the national security of these countries. An approach to comparing this influence is proposed, which allows us to identify the priorities of Russia's policy in the Middle East and other regions of the world. Compare the middle East policy of the States strategic triangle Russia – China – US can be used to justify recommendations to the military-political leadership of our country.

Cloudy days ahead: Cross-border evidence collection and its impact on the rights of EU citizens

2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 227-250
Author(s):  
Lawrence Siry
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Cloud Storage ◽  
The United States ◽  
Legal Assistance ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Law Enforcement Agencies ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Use Of Data ◽  
Evidence Collection ◽  
The Impact

In recent years, the development of cloud storage and the ease of cross-border communication have rendered the area of evidence collection particularly difficult for law enforcement agencies (LEAs), courts and academics. Evidence related to a criminal act in one jurisdiction might be stored in a different jurisdiction. Often it is not even clear in which jurisdiction the relevant data are, and at times the data may be spread over multiple jurisdictions. The traditional rules related to cross-border evidence collection, the mutual legal assistance treaty (MLAT) regimes, have proved to be out-dated, cumbersome and inefficient, as they were suited for a time when the seeking of cross-border evidence was more infrequent. In order to tackle this problem, the United States has enacted the Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data Act, which gives extraterritorial e-evidence collection powers to US courts. Simultaneously, the European Union (EU) has proposed similar sweeping changes which would allow for LEAs in Member States to preserve and collect cloud-based evidence outside of the MLAT system. This article critically evaluates these developments from the perspective of the impact on the rights of EU citizens.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document