Suchergebnisse

Intro -- Foreword -- Foreword: Start with Reality -- What Is Driving Legal? -- People and Leadership -- Designing Tomorrow´s Legal-The Common Legal Platform (CLP) -- Foreword: Reinventing the Legal Profession to Advance Women in Law -- Foreword: En Route to a Common Legal Platform -- Central vs. Decentral-A Paradigm Shift -- Exchange -- Access -- Neutrality -- Trust -- Technical Structure -- Governance -- Preface: The Liquid Legal Journey Continues -- Designing Tomorrow´s Legal-The Common Legal Platform -- Business-The Tragedy of the Commons -- Law-Regulating the Digital Revolution -- Technology-Standards for Solution Interoperability -- The Common Legal Platform -- Acknowledgments -- About the Editors -- Contents -- List of Contributors -- ``Let Me Have Men About Me That Are Fat.´´ Using a Common Legal Platform to Expand the Legal Services Providers´ Pie -- 1 Introduction -- 2 A Common Legal Platform as a Public Utility -- 3 Creating Value and Capturing Value. The Winner Does Not Take It All -- 4 Cui Bono? [Who Benefits?] -- 5 Conclusion -- References -- What Digital Legal Can Learn from Industrie 4.0 Collaborations -- 1 Introduction -- 2 The StreetScooter Experience -- 3 e.GO, Demonstration Factories, McKinsey Partnerships - And How I Became a Business Development Guy for a While -- 4 The Characteristics of Early Industrie 4.0 Collaborations -- 4.1 Technology Is a Trigger -- 4.2 Hubs Are Key -- 4.3 The Right Mix -- 4.4 Raising a Baby with Multiple Parents -- 4.5 Self-Enhancing Effects Through ``Physical Grounding´´ -- 4.6 Eagerness to Learn from Each Other -- 4.7 Equality and Democratization -- 4.8 Organizational Agility and Design Thinking -- 4.9 A Feast for Multi- and Interdisciplinarity -- 4.10 Reaching Out to the Ones That Stayed at Home -- 5 Now: What Can Traditional Legal Learn from Industrie 4.0 Collaborations?.

This article, taking into account the joint will of the spouses and the inheritance contract, examines the grounds for inheritance. The author draws attention to the fact that inheritance under the law is still the most common basis for inheritance, despite the active work of the legislator to expand the rights of citizens to dispose of their property in case of death. Statistics on the execution of joint wills of spouses are provided and it is noted that Russians need time to master new legal institutions. The author points out that in Russia joint wills are based on full trust and mutual consent of the spouses. The main problem seems to be that this approach does not protect the will of the deceased spouse: the surviving spouse has the right to revoke a joint will or make a new will, which has priority in inheritance. Further, the author emphasizes that, unlike a joint will, the parties to the inheritance contract are to a certain extent bound by it. As a result, the inheritance contract is defined as a will with a cancellation clause and is presented as a means of preventing the surviving spouse from treachery in Russia. After analyzing foreign experience, the author insists on eliminating the confusion of the functions of the joint will of the spouses and the inheritance contract: the joint will of the spouses should provide for the possibility of unilateral cancellation only subject to compensation for damages, and the inheritance contract should exclude the possibility of the testator's unilateral refusal from the assumed obligations. ; В данной статье с учетом совместного завещания супругов и наследственного договора рассматриваются основания наследования. Автор обращает внимание на то, что наследование по закону до сих пор остается самым распространенным основанием наследования, несмотря на активную работу законодателя по расширению прав граждан распоряжаться своим имуществом на случай смерти. Приводится статистика по оформлению совместных завещаний супругов и отмечается, что россиянам необходимо время для освоения новых правовых институтов. Автор указывает, что в России совместные завещания основываются на полном доверии и взаимном согласии супругов. Главная проблема видится в том, что такой подход не защищает волю умершего супруга: переживший супруг вправе отменить совместное завещание либо совершить новое завещание, имеющее приоритет при наследовании. Далее автор делает акцент на том, что в отличие от совместного завещания стороны наследственного договора в определенной степени связаны им. В итоге наследственный договор определяется как завещание с оговоркой о возмещении убытков на случай отмены и представляется в виде средства предотвращения вероломства пережившего супруга. В результате анализа зарубежного опыта автор обращает внимание на необходимость устранения смешения функций совместного завещания супругов и наследственного договора: совместное завещание супругов должно предусматривать возможность односторонней отмены лишь при условии возмещения убытков, а наследственный договор должен исключать возможность одностороннего отказа наследодателя от принятых на себя обязательств.

Selon la Legal Origins Theory, les origines juridiques d'un État ont une influence significative sur sa croissance économique. Née dans l'orbite du droit des sociétés, elle a d'abord été défendue par un collectif d'auteurs à l'occasion de l'étude du niveau de protection accordé aux actionnaires minoritaires dans différents États à travers le monde. Ils en ont tiré la conclusion que les États appartenant à la culture juridique de Common Law accordaient le plus haut degré de protection, source d'un marché financier efficace et synonyme de croissance économique. La Legal Origins Theory s'est ensuite étendue à d'autres domaines juridiques et s'est attachée à démontrer plus globalement l'efficience générale du modèle de Common Law. Dans la foulée, elle fut au cœur des rapports Doing Business de la Banque mondiale. Cette théorie a suscité de nombreuses critiques que la présente contribution a pour ambition d'exposer. Après l'analyse de la théorie et des critiques émises à son encontre, l'étude tente de dégager les présupposés philosophiques sous-jacents à la Legal Origins Theory, à travers la pensée de deux auteurs : Friedrich von Hayek et Bruno Leoni. ; The Legal Origins Theory argues that the legal origins of a state have a significant influence on its economic growth. This theory originated mainly and prospered in the field of company law. A group of researchers has enquired about the degree of protection granted to minority shareholders in various states throughout the world. They concluded that states belonging to the legal family of common law granted the best protection, sourcing an efficient market and easing their economic growth. The Legal Origins Theory spread out widely and expanded to several other legal domains, while continuing to emphasize and highlight the efficiency of the common law. It was furthermore at the heart of the "Doing Business" reports of the World Bank. This theory has led to many critiques, which the present paper aims to show. Beyond this analysis and the review of criticisms, our study finally attempts to identify the philosophical assumptions that support the Theory of Legal Origins, through the review of the developments authored by Friedrich von Hayek and Bruno Leoni. ; Peer reviewed

SummaryThis article argues that since the Tadić case before the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, a new category of armed conflict has migrated from international criminal law to international humanitarian law: that of armed groups fighting each other within the borders of a state without the intervention of the armed forces of the latter. However, the extent to which the rules of this category of conflict cover issues that may arise in such a conflict has not been comprehensively examined. One may infer, from the war crimes that the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court criminalizes in this type of conflict, a dozen rules of international humanitarian law. After giving an historical account of the codification of this category of armed conflict, the author argues that there is a need to further develop these rules in order to provide a more comprehensive humanitarian law regime applicable to conflict exclusively between non-state armed groups. The absence of such a comprehensive regime should not, however, be taken as evidence of a legal vacuum. The author suggests that a law enforcement regime resting on international human rights law should be applied to relations between the armed groups and the territorial state, while the warring relationship between the armed groups should fall under the law of armed conflict, including those core customary rules that are now recognized as being equally applicable to international and non-international armed conflict.

The paper deals with the problem of imposing a suspended sentence in terms of statistical indicators in law enforcement practice of Russia and Germany. Suspended sentence models in the criminal law of both countries are comparable and have common historical backgrounds of the Franco-Belgian system of suspended sentence known as sursis. A comparative analysis of the national approaches to the legislative regulation of suspended sentence and statistics of imposing this kind of sentence as a form of criminal responsibility implementation allows one to clarify the value of suspended sentence in the priority system of criminal policy in both countries. The author concludes that within the narrow legislative framework for imposing a suspended sentence stipulated in German criminal law, this penal measure is more typical for Germany when the criminals are sentenced to short terms of imprisonment.