Suchergebnisse

The article deals with the problem of legal nature of the legal doctrine as a source (form) of law. The article substantiates the idea that the legal doctrine has a twofold meaning, since it has an independent meaning in the system of forms of law of various legal systems, as well as is fully a source of law that forms the foundation, methodological basis for the creation, interpretation and application of legal norms in other legal systems, in particular the Russian state. The author draws attention to the characteristic features inherent in the legal doctrine, analyzes its role in various legal systems, where it acts as a form of law. The author compares the positions of various points of view of Russian scientists on the legal nature of legal doctrine as a form of law. The author identifies and describes the characteristic features of legal doctrine as a source of law in the activity of the mechanism of the Russian state in the sphere of legislative and executive implementation. ; В статье рассматривается проблема правовой природы юридической доктрины как формы (источника) права. Обосновывается идея о том, что юридическая доктрина имеет двуединое значение, поскольку имеет самостоятельное значение в системе форм права различных правовых систем, а также в полной мере является источником права, составляющим фундамент, методологическую основу при создании, интерпретации и применения правовых норм в иных правовых системах, в частности Российского государства. Автор обращает внимание на характерные черты, присущие юридической доктрине, осуществляет анализ ее роли в различных правовых системах, где она выступает формой права. Дается сравнение позиций различных точек зрения отечественных ученых на правовую природу юридической доктрины как формы (источника) права. Выделяются и описываются характерные особенности проявления юридической доктрины как источника права в деятельности механизма Российского государства в сфере осуществления законодательной, исполнительной и судебной власти. В заключение делается вывод о необходимости дальнейших научных исследований, касающихся правовой природы юридической доктрины как источника права в Российском государстве.

Cover -- Half Title -- Title Page -- Copyright Page -- Contents -- Introduction to the Transaction Edition -- Notes to This Edition -- Editor's Introduction -- Preface to the German Edition -- Preface to the Third Russian Edition -- Preface to the Second Russian Edition -- Introduction: The Tasks of General Legal Theory -- 1. The Methods of Constructing the Concrete 65 in the Abstract Sciences -- 2. Ideology and Law -- 3. Norm and Relation -- 4. Commodity and Subject -- 5. Law and the State -- 6. Law and Morality -- 7. Law and the Violation of the Law -- Appendix: An Assessment by Karl Korsch -- Index

"E. B. Pashukanis was the most significant contemporary to develop a fresh, new Marxist perspective in post-revolutionary Russia. In 1924 he wrote what is probably his most influential work, The General Theory of Law and Marxism. In the second edition, 1926, he stated that this work was not to be seen as a final product but more for ""self-clarification"" in hopes of adding ""stimulus and material for further discussion."" A third edition was printed in 1927. Pashukanis's ""commodity-exchange"" theory of law spearheaded a perspective that traced the form of law, not to class interests, but to capital logic itself. Until his death, he continued to argue for the ideal of the withering away of the state, law, and the juridic subject. He eventually arrived at a position contrary to Stalin's who, at that time, was attempting to consolidate and strengthen the state apparatus under the name of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Inevitably, Pashukanis was branded an enemy of the revolution in January 1937. His works were subsequently removed from soviet libraries. In 1954, Pashukanis was ""rehabilitated"" by the Soviets and restored to an acceptable position in the historical development of marxist law. In Europe and North America, a number of legal theorists only rediscovered Pashukanis's work in the late 1970s. They subjected it to careful critical analysis, and realized that he offered an alternative to the traditional Marxist interpretations, which saw law simply and purely as tied to class interests of domination. By the mid-1980s the instrumental Marxist perspective in vogue in Marxist sociology, criminology, politics, and economics gave way, to a significant extent due to Pashukanis's insights, to a more structural Marxist accounting of the relationship of law to economics and other social spheres. In his new introduction, Dragan Milovanovic discusses the life of Pashukanis, Marx and the commodity-exchange theory of law, and the historical lessons of Pashukanis's work. This bo"--Provided by publisher.

Artificial agents – from autonomous cars and weapon systems to social bots, from profiling and tracking programmes to risk assessment software predicting criminal recidivism or voting behaviour – challenge general principles of national and international law. This article addresses three of these principles: responsibility, explainability, and autonomy. Responsibility requires that actors be held accountable for their actions, including damages and breaches of law. Responsibility for actions and decisions taken by artificial agents can be secured by resorting to strict or objective liability schemes, which do not require human fault and other human factors, or by relocating human fault, i.e. by holding programmers, supervisors, or standard setters accountable. 'Explainability' is a term used to characterise that even if artificial agents produce useful and reliable results, it must be explainable how these results are generated. Lawyers have to define those areas of law that require an explanation for artificial agents' activities, ranging from human rights interferences to, possibly, any form of automated decision-making that affects an individual. Finally, the many uses of artificial agents also raise questions regarding several aspects of autonomy, including privacy and data protection, individuality, and freedom from manipulation. Yet, artificial agents do not only challenge existing principles of law, they can also strengthen responsibility, explainability, and autonomy.

There is a growing discrepancy between the output of human rights courts which protect the individual and traditional international institutions which protect the interests of states. This volume provides a systematic analysis of the impact of international human rights courts on more traditional international institutions

This Law regulates the generation, transmission, distribution and marketing of electricity. Articles 5, 13 and 24 state that any project involving the generation of energy with hydroelectric or geothermal means must have written consent from the General Superintendence of Electricity and Telecommunications.