Tomasz Gałkowski CP, Ogólne zasady prawa w prawie kanonicznym [General Principles of Law in the Canon Law] Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu Kardynała Stefana Wyszyńskiego, 2020, 221 pp.

Tomasz Gałkowski CP, Ogólne zasady prawa w prawie kanonicznym [General Principles of Law in the Canon Law] Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu Kardynała Stefana Wyszyńskiego, 2020, 221 pp.

Legal Certainty

Legal certainty is considered in the paper not only as one of the general principles of law and one of the requirements of the Rule of Law, but also as a fundamental feature and condition of the significance of law and its instrumental value in general. In this regard, the definitions of the Rule of Law conception and the lists of its components proposed by Western philosophers and theorists of law and by the Venice Commission are analyzed. Elements of the principle of legal certainty such as legislation and case law accessibility, legal acts’ predictability, principles of case law unity, legitimate expectations, res judicata, the European concept of autonomous interpretation and the American doctrine of uncertainty of law are covered. By analyzing and synthesizing theoretical concepts of the principle of legal certainty, the practice of its interpretation and application by European and national courts, the connections between it and other general principles of law (in particular – principles of legality and reasonableness), this principle plays a key role in the Rule of Law implementation in the national legal system.

On the matter of retroactivity of the rulings of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine

The article focuses on the problem of the temporal effect of the rulings of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine declaring the unconstitutionality of legislation, in particular on the matter of retroactivity of such rulings. Based on the existing standpoints in the legal doctrine, the author has analyzed the legislation and legal practices of Ukraine, notably the practice of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine and the Supreme Court. In particular, the highest consideration is given to the established legal positions of the courts, which set up the non-retroactivity of the rulings of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine on unconstitutionality of an act of legislation. This position is based on the courts' interpretation of Art. 152 of the Constitution of Ukraine as such, which makes it impossible for these rulings of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine to be retroactive. The article also examines the exceptions to this rule. The author notes the fundamental shortcomings of this position, whose categorical approach contradicts a number of fundamental legal principles. It unjustifiably prefers legal certainty, ignoring the requirements of justice, protection of human rights, equality, as well as a number of components of legal certainty or similar requirements of supremacy and direct effect of the Constitution of Ukraine, consistency of law, legality. The inconsistency of such position is also highlighted from the standpoint of the legal dogmatics and argumentation. In general, the decisions of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine and the Supreme Court on this matter do not contain any detailed or proper arguments. Meanwhile, there is a misinterpretation of the relevant provision of the Constitution of Ukraine as determining the direction of the temporal effect of the ruling of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine on the rights and obligations, when in fact this provision directly sets only the dates of invalidation of unconstitutional provisions. Under such conditions, the author states that the general principles of law, the current Constitution and legislation of Ukraine generally do not prohibit the retroactivity of rulings of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine on unconstitutionality of an act of legislation. Rather, they point at its necessity in many cases. At the same time, the author emphasizes the need for a more flexible approach to determining the directions of the temporal effect of rulings of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine

Administrative Justice and Globalization

This chapter, a discussion of administrative justice beyond the borders of the states, has three related objectives. The first is to point out the growth of this dimension of administrative justice, either within regional organizations or within global regulatory regimes. The second is to examine the challenges facing the new institutions and the commonalities and differences between their foundations, particularly with regard to the general principles of law aiming at promoting sound governance, such as due process, impartiality, and proportionality. The third objective is to examine the role of law. Judicial review and judicial doctrines are part of the story, but are not the whole story. It will be seen that law, both hard and soft, plays several roles in this area and variably impinges on the interest at stake.

Russia and International Law in 2000–2020: 100 Theses About Facts and Trends

The paper is an overview of the international legal stances of Russia, which were formed in the period from 2000 to 2020. The application of international law within the legal order of Russia is complicated by inconsistency of the Russian monistic concept, unclear status of customary law and general principles of law; lack of a developed judicial tradition. The Russia’s treaty policy comprises wide participation in general U.N. treaties, as well as bilateral treaties in the field of economic cooperation and legal assistance; unwillingness to participate in treaties, if this may entail negative political consequences. Russia backs down from some minor territorial claims in order to ensure stability; in some cases, she does not formulate a clear legal stance, limiting herself to political statements; she refuses to use judicial mechanisms, preferring bilateral negotiations and/or maintaining the status quo, and does not make efforts to create coalitions that support its claims. Russia uses international organizations rather as political fora, and not as a mechanism to create new legal order; she often takes a passive position when considering issues that do not affect its interests; she makes efforts to use the U.N. mechanisms, but sometimes lacks allies and trust from other members of international community. Russia recognizes the jurisdiction of international courts, but takes a passive position by rarely filing suits, objecting to jurisdiction and refusing to participate in the proceedings. The postSoviet international courts are politicized and do not make a serious contribution to the development of integration law. Russian doctrine is experiencing a serious crisis, which is caused by various reasons and can hardly be overcome by the efforts of the corporation itself

On controlling persons of a legal entity as subjects of the use of coercion in russian civil law

This article is devoted to the problem of possibility of applying civil coercion to persons who are not directly violators of someone's rights or legitimate interests, but can influence the behavior of participants in civil legal relations and give them mandatory instructions for execution that are illegal. This is the focus of this exploratory, qualitative research. The highlighted results indicate that based on the general principles of law, these persons cannot remain outside the scope of civil coercion, since this circumstance will contribute to the abuse of rights and violation of the balance of interests of all subjects of civil law.

6. General principles of law and the Charter of Fundamental Rights

This chapter discusses the overarching principles of the Union legal order, e.g. subsidiarity, proportionality, sustainability and equality; fundamental human rights in the Union (Court of Justice jurisdiction over Member State acts and rights against Union institutions or agents); and principles of administrative justice and good governance (legal certainty, non-retroactivity and legitimate expectations, rights of process and natural justice, transparency and legal professional privilege).

2. Sources of international law

This chapter examines the sources of international law, ie the norms of international law that give validity to all the other international legal norms. These are enumerated in Art 38 ICJ Statute. Although quite dated, this Article is still considered as enunciating an authoritative list of the sources of international law. These are treaties; custom; general principles of law recognized by States; judicial decisions; and international theory as subsidiary sources. Particular emphasis is placed on custom, consisting of an objective element, the general practice of States, and a subjective element, the opinio juris, ie consisting of a legal conviction. There is no hierarchy between the sources of international law and both treaties and custom may exist alongside each other.