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.

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.

COLLODIZING LINKS IN PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW

2021 ◽  
pp. 19-21
Author(s):  
Н.Д. Эриашвили ◽  
Г.М. Сарбаев ◽  
В.И. Федулов
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Present Article ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
International Treaties ◽  
Public Interests ◽  
National Legislation ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Russian Federation

В представленной статье рассмотрены проблемы коллодирующих привязок в международном частном праве и особенности их правовой регламентации в законодательстве Российской Федерации. Автором проанализированы особенности нормативного закрепления данного типа привязок в системе международных договоров, а также механизм имплементации этих норм в национальном законодательстве различных государств. На основе сложившейся практики применения коллодирующих привязок национальными органами государственной власти обоснована необходимость учета публичных интересов государства в данных правоотношениях. The present article examines the problems of collodizing links in private international law and the peculiarities of their legal regulation in the legislation of the Russian Federation. The author analyzed the peculiarities of this type of binding in the system of international treaties, as well as the mechanism for implementing these norms in the national legislation of various states. On the basis of the established practice of applying collodial links by national authorities, the need to take into account the public interests of the State in these legal relations is justified.

Legal Regulation of Adjudication in Civil Code of the Russian Federation (Issues of Conflict Rules)

2015 ◽  
Vol 3 (5) ◽  
pp. 0-0
Author(s):  
Татьяна Лазарева ◽  
Tatyana Lazaryeva
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Civil Code ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
Conflict Of Laws ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Law ◽  
Contractual Obligations ◽  
Rome I

The article deals with conflict of laws regulation of transfer of creditor’s rights to another person (assignment of claims (cessions) and transfer of rights under the law) in terms of amendments to Part III of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. The author notes that though amendments to the separate article on cession are not fundamental, the amendments of other articles of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, concerning contractual obligations, do influence regulation of relations between the parties in assignment. The article pays special attention to the new conflict of law rule regulating the transfer of the creditor’s rights under the law. Relevant court practice is analyzed. On the basis of comparing legislations of specific countries, as well as norms of EC No. 593/2008 (‘‘Rome I’’) Regulation and EC No. 864/2007 (‘‘Rome II’’) Regulation the author draws the conclusion that despite some differences in conflict of laws regulation of the transfer of the creditor’s rights, in general the Russian rules comply with modern trends in private international law in the majority of European countries.

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.

scholarly journals THE CRIMEA, ISKANDER MISSILES, NOVICHOK. ACTIONS OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION AIMED AT THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND EUROPEAN UNION

2018 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 259-268
Author(s):  
Magdalena SKWARSKA
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
The United States ◽  
Information Warfare ◽  
Political Landscape ◽  
The Crimea ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Military Development

The article presents the development of Russian foreign policy towards NATO and EU over the course of last few years. Special attention has been given to the most aggressive measures implemented by Moscow in order to preserve its importance in world political landscape. Author appeals to the Crimea case, military development, hybrid and information warfare and cases of assassinations of Russian emigrants linked to the opposition and business.

scholarly journals Peculiarities of the Contemporary State Youth Policies in Russia and the United States: Comparative Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 186-199
Author(s):  
Alexey S. Butorov ◽  
Roman A. Adlov
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
The United States ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Public Institutions ◽  
Youth Policy ◽  
Contemporary State ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Local Levels

This article examines the main causes and processes for the development of US public youth policy due to legal regulation of governmental and public institutions. The research identifies the main legal terms used by American and Russian legislators and the systems of youth policy, analyze the mechanisms of functioning of state and public institutions for working with youth. In addition, the study provides examples of the implementation of youth policy in the United States and the Russian Federation at the federal, regional and municipal (local) levels.

scholarly journals GENOMIC RESEARCH LEGAL REGULATION SYSTEM: EXPERIENCE OF RUSSIA AND THE USA

2019 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 546-564
Author(s):  
Emil V. Alimov
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Self Regulation ◽  
The United States ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Genomic Research ◽  
Regulation System ◽  
Scientific Institutions ◽  
The Usa ◽  
The Russian Federation

This article is devoted to the analysis of the genomic research legal regulation in the Russian Federation and the USA. In the United States, in addition to the legislation great importance is attached to medical and scientific institutions self-regulation, and such information is usually open. It is concluded that in Russia, despite the presence of both state and non-state scientific institutions engaged in genomic research, the mechanism of self-regulation as a whole is fragmented. It is also noted that Russia and the United States have specific legal regulation of these relations, which is reflected in the text of the article. For example, in the United States, unlike Russia, most organizations conducting genomic research, including genomic testing, are non-governmental. Currently, the general trend in the legal regulation of genomic research in Russia and the USA is the active development of normative legal regulation. Moreover, a significant difference in the approaches of these countries is the active role of the US states in the development of regional legal regulation on these issues. Despite the fact that Russia is a federal state, the subjects of the Russian Federation are significantly limited in the genomic research legal regulation possibilities. This is largely due to both legal and political reasons that were given in this article. In the United States, a number of statutes have been adopted at the state level that regulate genomic research in such aspects as health insurance, confidential of personal information, the prohibition of discrimination, screening of newborns, and certain types of clinical and scientific research. It should be noted that the genomic research regulation in the United States is not integrated into a single national consolidated act, which is a feature of this legal system. A comparative legal study of the fundamentals of legal regulation and self-regulation of genomic research in Russia and the USA made it possible to understand the specifics of regulation of these issues in different legal systems. The positive regulatory experience in conducting genomic research in the United States can be used to improve the regulatory framework of the Russian Federation in this area.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document