Search results

Osmanlı Devleti'ne bağlı Rusçuk kazâsının ceza tarihi hakkındaki bu çalışma, mahkeme kayıtlarının (şer'iyye sicili) analizi üzerine kurgulanmıştır. Ceza kavramının Osmanlı taşrasındaki uygulamasının küçük bir kesitini ortaya koymayı hedefleyen çalışmada, mahkeme hükümleri incelenerek tespit edilmiş ve bu hükümler ceza çeşitlerine göre tasnif edilerek çıkarımlarda bulunulmuştur. Çalışma, giriş, sonuç hariç üç bölümden oluşmuştur. İlk bölümde, Rusçuk şehrinin tarihçesi ve sosyo-ekonomik şartları incelenmiştir. İkinci bölümde İslam ceza hukukunun Osmanlı dönemi uygulamaları genel ve nazari bir bakışla araştırılıp üçüncü bölüme altyapı oluşturmak istenmiştir. Üçüncü bölümde, XVIII. yüzyıl mahkeme kayıtlarında yer alan bilgiler doğrultusunda Rusçuk'ta suçlulara verilen cezalar çok boyutlu olarak araştırılmıştır.
Osmanlı Devleti'nin suç ve ceza tarihi hakkında yazmak, olumsuzlukların hatırda kalıcı ve bu açıdan olması gerekeni daha açık gösteren bir yanı bulunması sebebiyle özellikle önemlidir. Ayrıca günümüzle kıyaslama imkânının bulunması da konu ile ilgili çalışmaların artması gerektiğini gösteren diğer bir işarettir.

Cybercrime or the computer-related crime is the most widespread form of transnational crime, which is in its social and economic characteristics significantly different from traditional and organized crime. Cyberspace offers countless opportunities for economic development, social interaction, and political cooperation, but also provides tools for illegal surveillance, personal data collection, influencing democratic processes, committing crimes, and exchanging numerous ways and methods of warfare. This paper provides an overview of legal documents in the Republic of Serbia related to information security, data security, and deviant behavior in cyberspace, with special emphasis on the analysis of the Strategy for Information Society Development and Information Security in the Republic of Serbia for 2021-2026. Using the criminological approach, this paper focuses on legislation concerning existing criminal offenses related to cybercrime and various forms of other criminal activities, but also on the international cooperation that Serbia achieves in the field of information and cyber security.

The article deals with the issues of implementation & application of EU law can be defined as a complex processes aimed to ensure full respect of the requirements of EU legislation. Implementation often concerns various EU & national legal provisions, individual factual circumstances and, no doubt, differences in their interpretation. Consequently, infringements done by the Member States may take number of forms. To disclose present situation, find underpinning reasons & look for possible solutions for the improvement of the implementation of EU law, it is necessary to identify relevant infringements, establish common features & to proceed with evaluation. General analysis of infringement cases when Lithuania is accused, allegedly or correctly, for not fulfillment of its commitments related to the implementation of EU law is provided in the article. Experience of Lithuania is displayed in the context of ten new Member States of the EU and some comparison with the 'old' Member States is also provided occasionally. Analysis of the particular types of the infringements is focused to establish their nature & character as well as possible actions suitable to reduce their number. Adapted from the source document.

This article examines the provisions of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on Compensation of Damage Resulting from the USSR Occupation (hereinafter -- the Law), which was adopted on 13 June 2000, in the light of customary rules of international law on state responsibility, as codified in the 2001 the UN International Law Commission's Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (hereinafter -- the ILC Draft Articles). The main aim of the article is to deal with the international legal grounds of the responsibility of the Russian Federation for the Soviet occupation of the Republic of Lithuania and, against this background, to identify the role of the Law. The ground of Russia's responsibility is an internationally wrongful act committed as the aggression against the Republic of Lithuania, which was started by the 15 June 1940 incursion by the Soviet armed forces & subsequently continued in the form of the illegal occupation of Lithuania until the restoration of Lithuania's independence on 11 March 1990, however, the illegal presence of the foreign forces on Lithuania's soil ended only in 1993. The fact of the 1940 Soviet aggression & illegal occupation of the Baltic States has been widely recognized by the international community, it was even acknowledged by the USSR & Russia in 1989-1991. Therefore there is no doubt that under international law from 1940-1990 the Republic of Lithuania had been an occupied State. That is why the illegal occupation with its consequences, as the breach of an international obligation not to resort to aggression having a continuing character, constitutes an objective element of an internationally wrongful act being the ground for Russia's responsibility. That also explains why the title of the Law refers to the occupation. Meanwhile the specific feature of subjective element is addressed in the preamble of the Law. That is the continuity of the Russian State & the corresponding identity of its international legal personality with the Soviet Union, which was claimed by Russia & generally recognized by the international community. Therefore under international law the Russian Federation is the State continuing the rights & obligations of the former USSR (ie., it is the same international legal person). Consequently, internationally wrongful acts of the latter, including the Soviet occupation of Lithuania & the other two Baltic States, should be attributable to the Russian Federation. Apart from the ground for Russia's responsibility, the issue of reparation is addressed in the article. In accordance with international law (the ILC Draft Article), the principle of full reparation should be applied to realize responsibility for an internationally wrongful act. The full reparation for the injury can be provided in the form of restitution, compensation & satisfaction, while any financially assessable damage should be covered by compensation when restitution is not practically possible. Responsibility for the Soviet occupation is the latter case. Therefore in this sense the Law concretizes the claim of Lithuania as it lays down the obligations of the Government of Lithuania to calculate the damage & seek its compensation from Russia. In conformity with the principle of full reparation, the provisions of the Law require to calculate the damage for all period of the Soviet occupation as well as to cover all types of financially assessable damage. The third main issue addressed in this article is admissibility of a claim for reparation, ie., the procedural requirements to be observed by the injured State invoking an international responsibility of other State. The main requirement, as follows from Art. 43 of the ILC Draft Articles, is that the injured State should give a timely & proper notice of its claim to the State responsible for an internationally wrongful act; the claim is admissible when it is waived by the injured State or it can be inadmissible when it is not maintained. However, a mere lapse of time without a claim is being resolved, including delay in its prosecution due to refusal of the respondent State, cannot result in loss of the right of the injured State to invoke responsibility. In this regard the Law is a unilateral act of the State of Lithuania which formulates & concretizes the claim for Russia's responsibility. The form of this act was determined by Lithuanian national rather than international law as the former requires that any compulsory rules or instructions for the Government can be laid down by the Seimas (the Parliament) only in the form of (statutory) law. As it is clear from the preamble of the Law, in continuing & consolidating the previous Lithuanian acts invoking Russia's responsibility the Law demonstrates that the claim for responsibility has been raised without any unreasonable delay a long time ago (the first time Lithuania declared about its claim for reparation in 1991) & Russia is aware of that claim from the very beginning. In such a manner the Law also proves a consistent & unchanging position of Lithuania with regard to Russia's responsibility. Therefore, the Law evidences that the claim of Lithuania remains admissible although still being unresolved & notwithstanding that Russia is rejecting it. Under international law the injured State has the right to waive its claim for responsibility of another State. National law may, however, restrict that right in setting up appropriate duties for the authorities of the injured State. In this regard it follows from the preamble of the Law that under Lithuanian constitutional law no State organ or official can declare a waiver of the claim for Russia's responsibility because the Law is based on & aims at implementation of the corresponding decision by the 14 June 1992 national referendum that demanded to seek reparation for the Soviet occupation. Therefore, the waiver can be declared only by other referendum as well as without a referendum the Seimas cannot abolish the provisions of the Law requiring to seek a compensation (such kind of action could amount to the waiver in the sense of Art. 45(a) of the ILC Draft Articles). To keep the claim for responsibility of another State admissible & valid, when it is being unresolved a long time, the injured State should do everything it can reasonably do to maintain the claim. Otherwise it can be questioned, whether the right to invoke responsibility is lost due to conduct of the injured State in the sense of Art. 45(b) of the ILC Draft Articles. Therefore, to avoid similar doubts the Law obliged the Government to seek constantly the compensation for the damage caused by the Soviet occupation. Since Russia used to reject Lithuania's initiatives to conduct negotiations on the matter & any other way of settlement is not available without Russia's consent, it can be stated that as yet, in particular due to the Law, the conduct of Lithuania has not raised any serious doubts with regard to validity of its claim for compensation. Obviously such doubts would be serious if any kind of moratorium on the claim had been announced. To sum it up, it can be concluded that the Law is based on & is consistent with the rules of international law. It also implements the international legal requirements for the proper declaration & maintenance of the claim for reparation. Therefore both under international law & under Lithuanian constitutional law the Law has been necessary to consolidate & consistently maintain the claim to Russia for the compensation of the damages caused by the Soviet occupation. Lastly, it should be noted that a proper settlement of the problem of Russia's responsibility for the Soviet occupation of Lithuania is not a question of self-interest for Lithuania & it should pursue the claim for compensation not only due to the decision by the 14 June 1992 referendum. Not accidentally Art. 1 of the ILC Draft Articles refers that "every internationally wrongful act of a State entails the international responsibility of that State." It is also not accidentally that the preamble of the 1991 Treaty between Lithuania & Russia states that mutual confidence between the people of both Parties is hard to achieve without elimination of the consequences of the Soviet annexation of Lithuania. Like for national law, rule of law & justice cannot be established without realization & inevitability of responsibility for grave breaches of international law. Therefore the realization of responsibility for the 1940 aggression against the Baltic States & its consequences would undoubtedly contribute to general prevention of such grave breaches as well as would assure that similar tragic events never happen again in the history of Lithuania. Such kind of prevention should be at the focus of attention of the whole international community rather than only Lithuania & the other two Baltic States, since a prohibition of aggression is a long-standing rule of jus cogens character & obligation erga omnes towards international community. Adapted from the source document.

Immigrants who came to Türkiye in masses after the internal conflicts in Syria in 2011 were put under temporary protection, a status in international law, and started to live with the Turkish people. This temporary status has transformed into de facto permanent co-living after the past ten years. This situation necessitated the implementation of policies that require social cohesion between Syrians and Turks. Education is the most important tool in ensuring social cohesion. In this study, it is aimed to reveal the policies implemented for the inclusion of Syrians under temporary protection in to the Turkish education system and what the results of these policies are. In the study, the statistical data of state institutions, legal regulations, academic research and news in the media were handled and the document analysis method was used. In this context, all dimensions of the subject from primary education to higher education were categorized and the findings were shared with the reader in a systematic way. The findings show that the Syrians, who were thought to be temporary at first, were planned to continue their education in the camps without obtaining a diploma or document, but with the prolongation of the war, necessary legal arrangements were made for their inclusion in the Turkish National Education System and Higher Education. In the field studies made, it was observed that Despite the arrangements technical and social problems continued in practice and the desired level of participation in post-primary education could not be achieved. In addition, it has been revealed that the results of education policies for Syrians under temporary protection are related to the cultural structure of the cities where Syrians live in Türkiye, their geographical proximity to Syria, the population of Arab origin in the city, the status of schools, and the qualifications and experiences of teachers. In this context, it has been evaluated that effective language learning in all age groups, ensuring school attendance and increasing the number of academicians and students in the academy should be priority policy issues to ensure social cohesion.

Although the correlation of welfare & democracy is not direct, it is possible to sustain that the problems related with democracy satisfaction could be solved by public policy measures. Lithuanian's who reflect themselves as the losers of the transition reforms are unsatisfied with their socio-economic status & their anticipation of the prompt life improvement is rather high. If such tendencies start to dominate in the society of Lithuania, the question of political stability arises. Therefore social security, welfare network & infrastructure development as well as the increase of the redistribution amounts look like inevitable reforms in nowadays Lithuania. All appropriate compensatory measures could be related to the development of the welfare state in Lithuania. The liberal model of the welfare state should be the most suitable option for Lithuania at first sight. The Lisbon Strategy is implicitly based on this kind of welfare state model. Lithuania was trying to apply active labor market policy nevertheless the efforts were restrained by the small resources. The structural policy of the EU, mainly the measures financed by the European Social Fund, should increase the amount of funds allocated to the active labor market policy. Considering public policy in Lithuania an exclusive attention should be paid to the reduction of regional inequalities, establishment of the workplaces & social security infrastructure. Due to the Lithuanian budget restrictions it's necessary to develop a tax base & to improve tax administration. The second important component is partial decentralization of programming & implementation of the EU funds by means of the EU Cohesion policy reform. The third component is the implementation of horizontal regional policy in Lithuania. Legal & organizational premises for the aforementioned steps are already established. Adapted from the source document.

Reaction through art, observed among the 20th century artistic movements, can result in artistic works in which animals are made the object of violence. The objections caused by these works sometimes make people question what art is and its value, and sometimes result in legal interventions. It is the forms of expression in contemporary art where idea gets ahead of physical production. In such an atmosphere, 'philosophy of art activities that question what art is' have become almost equivalent to artistic production. However, the controversial works make the concepts of ethics, law or public influence determine what art can or cannot be. In the background of all these developments, advances in the field of biology blurred the boundaries between animals and humans. After such developments, through which the anthropocentric thought system has lost its power, the position of animals in the system will also change. The reappraisal of animals will fundamentally affect the behavior of the human species towards them, undoubtedly. In such a system where the determinants of the concept of ethics are redefined, objectification of animals will not be ethical as before. In this regard, art can no longer be separated from other fields. When the determinant of the boundaries of art is a non-art field, the discussions within the field lose their meaning. This study aims to investigate the limits of contemporary art by examining the reactions to the selected examples of artists whose ways of including animals in their productions are criticized.