Resolving disputes of international character by both international commercial arbitration courts and national courts, based on international legal sources and their norms, is an important contribution to legal science. Arbitration practice should harmonize the existing differences between the rules of national legislation, giving a special significance to the interpretation of the sources of international trade law.
УДК 347.73:341.63Subject. This informational article highlights recent changes to the Russian legislation on arbitration.Purpose. To highlight the most important aspects of arbitration law reform, and examines the effects they will have on the development of arbitration in RussiaMethodology. The author uses a formal-legal method.Results, scope of application. The author distinguishes the difference between constantly acting arbitration courts and arbitration courts ad hoc). The special status of a number of arbitration institutions (the ICAC and MAC at the Russian Chamber of Commerce and Industry), is contrary to the constitutional principle of equality under the law. A major achievement of the new legislation on arbitration courts is expanding the range arbitrarily disputes.Conclusions. The new legislation more clearly prescribed the interaction of arbitration and state courts, including requiring the latter to promote the arbitrators, acting under the regulations of the permanent arbitration institutions in obtaining evidence.In addition, the reform of the arbitration law have left aside the problem of improving the quality of judicial control over arbitration decisions.The arbitration law will still be able to improve the arbitration, to enhance its credibility and attractiveness for the participants of civil turnover. ; УДК 347.73:341.63В статье информационного характера освещаются недавние изменения, внесенные в законодательство Российской Федерации о третейском разбирательстве. Автор отмечает наиболее значимые аспекты реформы и анализирует, какое воздействие они окажут на развитие арбитража в России.
DergiPark: 849863 ; klujfeas ; Uluslararası hukukun temel kaynaklarından bir tanesi devletler arasında imzalanan uluslararası antlaşmalardır. Devletler kendi aralarındaki antlaşmalara ahde vefa ilkesi gereği genellikle uyma eğilimi göstermektedirler. Ancak devletlerin kendi aralarında imzaladıkları antlaşmalara zaman zaman uymadıkları da görülmektedir. Anarşik bir uluslararası sistemde devletler arasında uyuşmazlıklar çok sık görülmektedir. Devletler çıkarlarına ters düştükleri durumlarda ister istemez farklı devletler ile uyuşmazlığa taraf olabilmektedirler. Uyuşmazlıkların çözümü için uluslararası hukukta barışçıl çözüm ve yargısal çözüm olmak üzere iki çözüm yolu bulunmaktadır. Yargısal çözüm devletlerin ancak yargı yetkisini kabul ettikleri bir mahkeme veya tahkim ile mümkün olabilmektedir. Barışçıl çözüm yolları Birleşmiş Milletler Antlaşmasının 33. Maddesinde belirtilmiştir. Bu çözüm yollar görüşme, soruşturma, arabuluculuk, uzlaşma, hakemlik ve yargısal çözümdür. Bunun yanında bazı uluslararası antlaşmalar kendi yargısal çözüm mekanizmalarını da oluşturmuştur. 1982 Birleşmiş Milletler Deniz Hukuku Sözleşmesi, Avrupa Birliği'nin yargı organları bu alanda verilebilecek başlıca örneklerdir. Bu çalışmada barışçıl ve yargısal yoldan anlaşmazlıkların çözümü ile uluslararası hukukta uygunluğun sağlanması mekanizmaları karşılaştırılacaktır. ; One of the main sources of international law is international treaties signed between states. States generally tend to comply with the treaties among themselves, as required by the pacta-sunt-servanda principle. However, it is also seen that states sometimes do not comply with the treaties they have signed among themselves. In an anarchic international system, conflicts between states are very common. States may inevitably be a party to disputes with different states when they conflict with their interests. There are two solutions in international law for the settlement of disputes, namely, peaceful and judicial solutions. Judicial settlement can only be possible with a court or arbitration where the states accept their jurisdiction. Peaceful solutions are specified in Article 33 of the United Nations Charter. These solutions are negotiation, investigation, mediation, reconciliation, arbitration and judicial solution. Besides, some international agreements have also created their own judicial solution mechanisms. 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the judicial bodies of the European Union are the main examples that can be given in this field. In this study, the mechanisms of peaceful and judicial dispute resolution and ensuring compliance with international law will be compared.
The subject. This informational article is devoted to the peculiarities of recognition and enforcement of international commercial arbitration awards according to different countries' legislation and international legal regulation.The purpose of the article is to identify legal patterns of recognition and enforcement of international commercial arbitration awards in different countries.Methodology. The study is based on comparative law and formal law methods, analysis and synthesis.Results, scope of application. Enforcement of arbitral awards in foreign countries is ensured and guaranteed by multilateral conventions, bilateral treaties and national legislation. The New York Convention 1958 in a certain way limits the scope of legal protection of arbitral awards and leaves the procedure for recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards for consideration of the state court. The author analyses of differentiation of the recognition and enforcement regime of so-called "domestic" and "foreign" solutions of international commercial arbitration in terms of doctrinal approaches and practice of foreign countries. Special attention is given to the analysis of foreign arbitral awards of recognition and enforcement procedures is given to a denial of recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards and their reasons. In spite of the explicit grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in New York Convention 1958, some countries try to establish certain exceptions to the rule in the national legislation. Results may be applicable in improvement of international legal regulation.Conclusions. The courts of the countries – participants of the New York Convention 1958 cannot cancel the foreign arbitral award or revise it substantially. The refutation of this award is possible only in the court of the state in whose territory the relevant arbitral award was made, and such court is not formally bound by the rules of the New York Convention 1958, when deciding whether to cancel or modify the award. ; УДК 347.73:341.63Статья посвящена характеристике порядка признания и исполнения решений международного коммерческого арбитража через призму международно-правового регулирования. Дается анализ разграничения режима признания и исполнения так называемых «внутренних» и «иностранных» решений международного коммерческого арбитража с точки зрения доктринальных подходов и практики применения иностранных государств. Особое внимание при анализе процедур признания и исполнения иностранных арбитражных решений уделяется отказу в признании и приведении в исполнение иностранных арбитражных решений и их причинам.
This article deals with the issues of regulation of property relations of spouses in private international law. The article deals with the conflict issues of marriage, as well as the contractual regime of a property of spouses. The article reveals the content of the Minsk and Chisinau conventions on property relations between spouses. In particular, the conventions say that the property relations between spouses are determined by the legislation of the Contracting Party in whose territory they live together. If the husband lives in one Contracting State and the wife in the other and both have the same nationality, the law of the country of which they are nationals governs their property relations. Attention is paid to bilateral agreements on legal assistance to States in the field of property relations between spouses. For example, such an agreement exists between Russia and Estonia, and it helps to resolve various property issues between spouses. The domestic legislation of different States regulates the issue of determining the regime of matrimonial property in different ways. For example, in the States of the Anglo-Saxon legal system and in most Muslim countries there is only a regime of separate property. On the contrary, in the States of the Romano-German legal system, preference is given to the regime of the common property of spouses, and it is possible to establish a different regime of property relations by agreement of the spouses. According to this principle, and developing family law in Russia.
The relevance of the topic of a scientific article is related to the frequent cases in practice when there is a dispute over the application of the law of a particular state. With the help of the analysis of family law and private international law, a circle of subjects of legal relations is established that is connected with maintenance obligations complicated by a foreign element. In modern times there are many problems, in particular, the consequences of the dissolution of a marriage between spouses (one of whom is a foreign citizen) in the presence of minor children are poorly regulated internationally. The main problem in resolving issues related to alimony relations is the definition of applicable law. That is the law of which country (the right of citizenship of the husband's state or the right of citizenship of the wife's state) will be applied to resolve the dispute. In this paper, we will consider existing problems and offer our own vision of ways to solve such problems.
The Russian officials extensively apply antitrust prohibitions in the domestic markets. Therefore, it is necessary to correctly determine the presence of dominant companies in the market. The article examines the signs of collective dominance in the antimonopoly practice in Russia. For this purpose, the author examines judicial acts for cases on cancellation of decisions of the Russian Antimonopoly authority concerning collective dominance for 2007-2017, and considers type I and type II errors arising in establishing collective dominance. The empirical analysis of the factors influencing judicial reviews shows that the predictions of economic theory are not sufficiently taken into account in law enforcement.
Russian scientists attach great importance to one of the fundamental principles of private international law – the principle of the closest connection. The concept of the closest connection was developed in England on the basis of case law, the rules of which were created by judges in court decisions on specific cases. The legislator has included the principle of closest connection to the civil code, however, in light of the changes it made in the reforms of 2013, the closest connection principle was assigned a secondary role in relation to the principle of characteristic performance. The main purpose of the principle of the closest connection is to find the law and order that can most effectively regulate cross-border relations. The court will have to determine the will of the parties to the contractual relationship, aimed at choosing the right. Therefore, a close relationship is established based on the court's assumption of what right the parties would have chosen if they had considered this issue. The principle of the closest connection, in connection with this approach, often loses its independent significance. Article 1187 of the civil code of the Russian Federation does not specify the conditions of its application, as well as the scope of its action. For this reason, the category of the closest relationship is universal and applies regardless of the nature of the cross-border civil relationship. Russian legislation does not have clear criteria for determining the closest relationship, which may lead to a subjective decision by the court. In this regard, the study of problems related to the application of the principle of the closest connection in judicial practice is undoubtedly relevant.
