Search results

In association with transactions involving businesses, acquisitions and mergers, etc., commercial law stipulates the new measurement of business assets and thus also net business assets. Similarly, financial accounting stipulates the new measurement of assets, liabilities and net assets with an impact on the amount and structure of equity. It is a principal question as to whether the new measurement bases required by both commercial law and financial accounting are in principal identical. Practice convinces us that the concepts provided in legislation (both commercial and accounting) differ in many cases and if a principle of precedence of the legal form over legal nature is applied, problems arise in respect to the main purpose of financial accounting, i.e. achieving a true and fair view. By stipulating the new measurement of business assets, commercial law intends to secure value objectivity of the relations between a company on the one side and its shareholders and statutory body members on the other (or between companies forming economic groups). Financial accounting focuses on new measurement at two levels: objective measurement on recognition – the acquisition of an asset, a group of assets or a business, or objective measurement as at the date of financial statements should the original measurement of the recognition of an asset or a liability would be significantly outdated and not reflective of the actual situation. It is essential that the discrepancies between the perspectives of commercial law and accounting legislation be analysed and removed in order to allow financial accounting to fulfil its basic purpose.

Constitutional criminal procedural rights are familiar to contemporary criminal law scholars and practitioners alike. But today, U.S. criminal justice may diverge substantially from its centuries-old framework when all three branches recognize only a core set of inviolable rights, implicitly or explicitly discarding others. This criminal procedural line drawing takes place when the U.S. criminal justice system engages in law enforcement cooperation with foreign criminal justice systems in order to advance criminal cases. This Article describes the two forms of this criminal procedural line drawing. The first is a "core criminal procedure" approach, rooted in fundamental rights, that arises in the exchange of electronic evidence but is related to two prior eras' cross-sovereign criminal procedural articulation—the Warren Court incorporation of the Bill of Rights' criminal procedural protections and engagement with international human rights instruments. Alternatively, courts today may use an ad hoc "outlier" approach, only excluding foreign evidence, convictions, or extradition requests in extreme circumstances that "shock the conscience." This Article argues that the former approach is superior to the latter, and argues for a methodology—rooted in constitutional law, international human rights, and comparative legal functionalism—for evaluating foreign legal systems. To support this argument, this Article draws on political theory concerned with global justice. This Article concludes by considering how core criminal procedure informs U.S. engagement with international criminal tribunals and investigative mechanisms.

The application of the comparative method to the study of two or more legal systems has led a jaded existence in the Soviet Union, for a variety of reasons. As a technique of inquiry, it has been acceptable only insofar as its utilization conforms to the general methodology of dialectical and historical materialism: "It is wrong to think," a Soviet jurist has argued, "that research procedures make up a series of instruments that, from an ideological and political point of view, are neutral."' Marxist jurists consequently have no sympathy for the view that ''comparison" is some type of "objective" or truly "scientific" method, nor, in common with the overwhelming majority of western comparatists, do they look upon comparative law as an autonomous branch of jurisprudence.

Statement of the problem. According to philosophy, the origin, development, functioning and structural construction of any phenomenon are based on their own objective patterns. The legal system, as well as other existing phenomena, has the corresponding patterns. Study of the patterns is the main task, the ultimate goal of any science, including the criminal law. Since in the patterns content of law is revealed most deeply, they directly express the essence of law, the internal logic of legal reality. Insofar as it is impossible to ensure the adequacy, consistency and stability of criminal legislation, if we do not take into account the laws of criminal law. However, for the effective functioning of criminal law, it is necessary to take into account not only the specific patterns of criminal law itself, but, first of all, to ensure compliance of criminal law regulation with the mechanism of action of objective laws in protected spheres of public relations, as well as to take into account the social and psychological laws of the mechanism of criminal law impact. Objectives of the article. This article is devoted to the analysis of patterns of varying degrees of generality, operating in criminal law. Conclusions. In the course of the study, we have identified and formulated the patterns of the criminal law system that consists of special, general legal, social, systemic and universal patterns.

This course investigates the relationships between international criminal law and other branches of international law. It begins by examining four issues of general international law: the principal sources of international law, jurisdiction and immunities, State responsibility, and use of force. It then explores internationalhumanitarian law, focusing on definitions of war crimes and difficulties in linking IHL and ICL. Next, it examines refugee law, paying particular attention to the exclusion of war criminals from refugee protection and to international crimes that may be related to the rights and treatment of refugees. The final chapter explores the relationship between ICL and human rights law, examining the position of human rights within the Rome Statute of the ICC, as well as the human rights aspects of genocide, crimes against humanity, various procedural rights relating to fair international trials and the contribution of human rights fact-finding mechanisms

"American Law and Legal Systems examines the philosophy of law within a political, social, and economic framework with great clarity and insight. Readers are introduced to operative legal concepts, everyday law practices, substantive procedures, and the intricacies of the American legal system. Eliminating confusing legalese, the authors skillfully explain the basics, from how a lawsuit is filed through the final appeal. This new edition provides essential updates to forensic and scientific evidence, contract law, and family law, and includes new text boxes and tables to help students understand, remember, and apply central concepts."--Amazon.

In present article are investigated a modern condition and tendencies of development of the Eurasian economic integration. In these purposes the analysis legal and institutional bases of functioning of the Eurasian union which participants at the present moment are the Republic Belarus, the Republic of Kazakhstan and the Russian Federation will be carried out. In article the author allocates some problems of customs regulation in the Eurasian union.