Experimental legal regimes of mobilization type as a method of legal regulation in the context of COVID-19 spread

Experimental legal regime; COVID19; legal regime; legal experiment; “regulatory sandboxes”; legal technique; classification of legal experiments; legality; experimental legal regimes of mobilization type on legal forecasting and legal interpretation methods. The theoretical basis of the research includes well-known legal science categories, i.e. legal regime and legal experiment that get a new interpretation with the appearance of experimental legal regime institute. The main results of the research, scope of application. Experimental legal regime is a broader legal phenomenon than regulatory sandboxes, which includes not only regulation of the digital innovation sphere, but also other rules that are limited in time and space. There are legal regimes with signs of experimentation that are not officially identified by the state as experimental legal regimes. The work studied the experience which arose due to modern changes in state and legal regulation caused by the global epidemic of COVID-19. It is suggested to divide the legal experiments according to the purpose of experimental legislation into the following groups: optimizing, progressive and mobilization ones. The aim of the first group named “Optimizing legal experiments” is to test using of new regulation applied to a large and complex object. The second group named “Progressive legal experiments” is intended to check whether the abandonment of old laws is beneficial in the innovation field. The result is creation of a smart regulation for economic and technological development. The third group named “Mobilization legal experiments” is aimed at maintaining of the existing level of resources, security, and infrastructure in the event of critical situations. It is being proved that the legal restrictions aimed at preventing of COVID-19 viral infection spreading can be classified as experimental legal regimes of mobilization type. The criterion for distinguishing of mobilization experimental legal regimes from others is the voluntary participation in the legal experiment and the goal of the experimental legal regime.Conclusions. The development of mobilization experimental legal regimes implies raising of their legality. It can be achieved by the provision of legal guarantees such as the goals of the legal experiment and the evaluation of their consequences. This will allow identify whether the consequences of the experiment correspond to the goals of the new legal regulation. There must be grounds for limitations to legal certainty caused by legal experimentation. Their manifestation is the goal and evaluation criteria, with the help of which it is possible to determine whether the consequences of the establishment of the experiment correspond to the goals of the new legal regulation. Otherwise, there is a risk of unjustified infringement of the rights and legitimate interests of citizens.

Regulating Occupational Health and Safety in EU and China

Occupational health and safety (OHS) is an important aspect of the labour protection field. This chapter compares OHS legal regimes of China and EU. Comprehensive workplace health and safety legislations of the two systems are described, and the different aspects, including for example, legislative aim, the legislation structure, general obligation, OHS insurance, moral harassment, law enforcement, etc., are detailed. Based on the analysis, conclusions are made and policy recommendations from both legislation aspect and enforcement aspect are provided.

About the Pros and Cons of Democratic State – Legal Regimes

This scientific article is devoted to the characteristics of the liberal-democratic and proper democratic state-legal regimes, which have both positive and negative properties. Speaking about a proper democratic state-legal regime, it is argued that this is an ideal that any society and state strives to achieve.

Regulation of Ordinary Partnership under Ethiopian Law: A Comparative Analysis of Selected Legal Issues with the French Civil Partnership and the Thai Ordinary Partnership Regimes

Civil/ordinary partnerships as non-commercial entities play a vital role as an alternative form of doing business in various jurisdictions. Though the issue of where they should be regulated is becoming nonsensical in recent times, it is wise to have a well-structured legal framework which regulates these entities. This article aims to conduct a comparative analysis of the regulation of Ethiopia’s ordinary partnership with the French civil code partnership and the Thai ordinary partnership only on issues of formation, transfer of share, management, liability of partners, dissolution of partnership, distribution of profit and loss, and expulsion of a partner. The comparative analysis shows that in many areas of regulation, the Ethiopian law has more commonalities with that of Thai ordinary partnership and French civil code partnership legal regimes. This article also finds that the Ethiopian law of ordinary partnership ought to be improved as regards the issues of the transfer of shares related to ascendants and descendants, on the distribution of profits and losses, on the role of partners in a dissolution of the partnership, and on the expulsion of a partner.

A jurisdictional collision? Responses to family violence and family law in the ACT

There has long been concern about the dynamics and inadequacies that may arise when the federal family law system intersects with state and territory civil responses to family violence. We explore the intersection of these two legal regimes in this article. Our findings are part of a larger project examining the Family Violence Act 2016 (ACT) that included interviewing both professional stakeholders and those with lived experience. Findings include a number of ways in which the safety of victim/survivors and their children could be jeopardised (or placed at risk) due to disharmony and communication issues between the two regimes.

Towards Combatting Violence against Women’s Access to Land Ownership in Morocco

Assorted kinds of violence and discrimination against women’s access to land ownership seem to be the most criticized the moment their dismissal is no longer a necessity for the Moroccan Legislator. It is hard to deny that all rights and obligations related to access to land, seen as a tangible resource, constitute the first-rate concerns of citizenship. As such, women not only call for an austere equality to men in the broadest sense of the term, but also for access to key positions in the society mainly through access to the means of production1 (El Yaagoubi, 2012: 33). The idea that women are landowners has become an in-vogue question. It is possible to say that women are heading towards building a social class that is becoming more voluble and visible. A reform of their tenure status is imperative bearing in mind that land property is directly associated with power. It is therefore appropriate that legal regimes of different land statuses take into consideration the benefits of this category given the fact that women constitute more than half of the population.

Prosecutor’s supervision in the field of transport security

The article analyzes the issues of prosecutors supervision in the field of transport security from the standpoint of an integrated approach. The material was prepared in the wake of the All-Russian research and practical conference held on May 14, 2021, dedicated to the 300th anniversary of the Russian prosecutors office. Transport security as a subject of prosecutors supervision covers a variety of areas of relations related to administrative, criminal, civil and procedural branches of law. Railway, water and air communication is subject not only to special socio-economic laws, but also requires special legal regimes dictated by the significant remoteness and dynamics of the subjects under supervision, the increased risk of harm to legally protected relations, the need for constant and uninterrupted functioning of transport facilities, the importance of the transport segment for the entire economic life of the country. All this determines the need for very prompt and at the same time balanced supervisory decisions, which is possible due to the close cooperation of science and practice.

Regulatory sandboxes: comparative-legal study on the institution of experimental legal regimes in the Russian Federation and regulatory laboratories in Georgia

This article carries out a comparative-legal study of the institution of regulatory sandboxes in the Russian Federation and Georgia. Based on the information acquired upon the request of the National Bank of Georgia, the author examines the normative regulation of regulatory laboratories of Georgia – Decree of the President of the National Bank of Georgia No. 110/04 of May 25, 2020 “On the Approval of Establishment of Regulatory Laboratories by the National Bank of Georgia and their Use", as well as its comparison with the federal law and normative acts that regulate experimental legal regimes in Russia. The application of comparative-legal methods allows determining the similarities and differences in legal regulation and practice of implementation of such institutions in the Russian Federation and Georgia. Description is given to the terminological differences in legislation on legal experiments of the two countries, as well as the differences in the model of legal regulation of the institution of experimental legal regimes: comprehensive regulation by means of the federal law and normative acts in the Russian Federation, and overall regulation solely by the Decree of the President of the National Bank of Georgia. Georgia allows experimental regulation applicable exclusively to financial technologies, while the Russian Federation allows for a broader scope of implementation. This substantiates the differences in the requirements of initiators and authorities that regulate such legal experiments. The conclusion is made on the more successful practice of implementation of legal experiments in the sphere of financial technologies in Georgia, despite the absence of special law or large array of developing legislation.