После вступления решения международного суда в силу государство-адресат обязано его исполнить. Но государство может быть им не удовлетворено по причинам правового, политического, социального характера, пересмотреть его и в конечном счете отклонить. Автором сделаны выводы, что решение может быть верифицировано на базе международной организации, через его учредительные органы, иные структуры, способные оказать давление, осуществление организационного контроля. Доказано, что, преследуя цель неисполнения решения, государства применяют следующие способы проверки: обжалование решения в вышестоящую инстанцию с одновременным обращением в исполнительный орган международной организации, изменение действующего международного договора (включая ограничение юрисдикции суда), его денонсация, заключение нового договора, изменение существующей практики толкования ; A state is obliged to comply with the decisions of the international court. However, the state may not be satisfied with it for legal, political, or social reasons; it may review or ultimately reject it. The author concludes that the decision can be verified based on an international organization, its constituent bodies, other structures (that can exert pressure), or through the implementation of organizational control. The states apply the following methods of verification for the decision non-execution: an appeal to a higher instance with simultaneous appeal to the executive body of an international organization; a modification of an existing international treaty (including limitation of the jurisdiction of the court); its denunciation; signing a new treaty; or amending an existing practice of interpretation.
Характеристика влияния решений международных судов на правоприменение исследуется в основном в западной доктрине. Понимание роли данного источника международного права является важной предпосылкой эффективного исполнения Российской Федерацией принятых на себя международных обязательств, участия в отправления правосудия. Все возрастающая роль международных актов в российской правовой системе требует их изучения в целях правильной реализации. Целью исследования является определение роли практики международных судов в выявлении норм международного права, места судебных решений в ряду иных источников международного права. Базовым тезисом является отсутствие у судей правотворческих полномочий, что не исключает возможность интерпретации норм в новых ситуациях с учетом возникающих потребностей. Однако изменения судебной практики должны находиться в пределах допустимого толкования. В ряде случаев источниками международного права следует рассматривать консультативные заключения. Сами решения не могут порождать нормы международного права. Судебные решения следует рассматривать сквозь призму межгосударственного консенсуса, они выступают основным элементом международного обычая. Однако международная юстиция существует как независимый от государств институт, задачей которого является правоприменение и отправление международного правосудия. ; Apart from the western doctrine, not many studies have touched the topic of the influence of international courts' decisions on the enforcement. Understanding of the role of this source of the international law is an important prerequisite for the Russian Federation effective execution of the adopted international obligations and administration of justice. The increasing role of the international acts in the Russian legal system requires their studying for their correct implementation. Thus, the aim of this paper is the definition of a) the role that the international courts take in identifying the rules of the international law, as well as b) the place, which the judicial decisions occupy among other sources of the international law. The main thesis is that the judges lack legislative authorities, which does not exclude the possibility of interpreting the rules in new situations according to arising needs. Yet, the changes in jurisprudence should lie within the existing interpretation. In a number of cases, advisory opinions may serve as the sources of international law. The decisions themselves cannot lead to rules of international law. Judicial decisions should be viewed through the interstate consensus; they shoud act as the key element of the international traditions. Nevertheless, the international justice exists as an independent from states institute, the aim of which is the law enforcement and international justice administration.
The paper explores the execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Having carried out a brief historical analyses and reviewed the normative legal acts governing the execution of decisions of the above-mentioned courts, the authors argue that through the monitoring mechanism of the execution of the courts' decisions is very different, both regional judicial institutions have problems related to the execution of their decisions. The purpose of the study is to determine the problems of non-enforcement of decisions of the European Court of Human Rights and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and to find ways to resolve them. The methodological basis of this study was the provisions of a general scientific dialectical method and a logical method aimed at presenting the material of the article, formulating recommendations and proposals. The method of comparative analysis was also widely used, which makes it possible to identify the general and the difference of both judicial institutions with respect to the monitoring the execution of judgments, and the method of system analysis by which the normative legal acts and the courts' decisions were examined. The European Court of Human Rights, which often applies the method of financial compensation, showed a high level of execution of judgments in contrast to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, which requires states not only to compensate for money, but to make legislative changes, to bring perpetrators to justice, etc. The authors conclude that only dialogue between courts and states and the use of various conciliation mechanisms could positively influence the effectiveness of the execution of judgments. A dialogue should consist in the correct interpretation by courts of the provisions of international human rights treaties and an accessible explanation for states of the content of court decisions. ; Рассматриваются вопросы исполнения решений Европейского суда по правам человека (ЕСПЧ) и Межамериканского суда по правам человека (МСПЧ). Проведя краткий исторический обзор и рассмотрев нормативные правовые акты, регулирующие вопросы исполнения решений вышеназванных судов, авторы определяют, что механизмы контроля за исполнением государствами решений судов сильно различаются. Однако оба региональных судебных учреждения имеют проблемы, связанные с исполнением их решений. Цель исследования - определить причины неисполнения актов ЕСПЧ и МСПЧ и найти пути их решения. Методологическую основу исследования составили положения общенаучного диалектического и логического методов, направленные на изложение материала статьи, формулирование рекомендаций и предложений. Также использовались метод сравнительного анализа, позволяющий выявить общее и различное названных судебных учреждений по вопросу контроля за исполнением государствами их решений, и метод системного анализа, с помощью которого проводилось изучение нормативных правовых актов и решений рассматриваемых судов. Европейский суд по правам человека, нередко применяющий метод денежной компенсации, показал высокий уровень исполнения решений в отличие от Межамериканского суда по правам человека, требующего от государств не только денежной компенсации, но и внесения изменений в законодательство, привлечения виновных к ответственности и т. д. Авторы пришли к выводу, что только диалог между судами и государствами и применение различных согласительных механизмов могут положительно повлиять на эффективность исполнения решений. Диалог должен заключаться в правильном толковании судами положений международных договоров по правам человека и доступном разъяснении для государств содержания постановлений судов.
The article substantiates the necessity of a system analysis of the processes of applicationof the norms of international treaties by commercial courts of the Russian Federation. Thisneed is justified, at least, by the following: an insignificant amount of special research inthis field in comparison with a similar subject within the courts of general jurisdiction, thecreation of a relatively new body of supranational control over compliance with the normsof international treaties in the field of commercial courts' practice.The purpose of the study is to identify problems of application of international treaties ofthe Russian Federation arbitration courts of Russia.The author uses methodology of formal legal analysis of Russian legislation and courts' decisions.The results and scope of it's application. The author, taking into account the specifics ofcommercial proceedings and the nature of disputes heard in commercial courts, proposedlegal grounds in a concentrated form which allow to state the existence of the obligation toapply the norms of international treaties by Russian commercial courts. Two levels of suchgrounds can be stated – international and domestic.Publication of the texts of international treaties as a problematic segment of their applicability.The article highlights one of the problematic segments of the application process ofthe norms of international treaties for the purpose of more detailed reflection. The practiceof commercial courts demonstrates that in both legislative acts and acts of applying law,the concepts of "official publication" and "bringing to the public" are alternated with eachother. Despite the reform, the procedure of official publication has not acquired the characterof a systemic institution of Russian law. This significantly complicates the activity ofadministering justice with respect to the legislative acts of international law.Conclusions. From the point of view of international law, the state, independently determiningthe procedure and methods of implementing international treaties within its legalsystem, is not limited in its ability to burden itself with the need to abide by additional proceduresnot provided by the international legal system of procedures. Official publication,as a necessary procedure for the entry of a legislative act into the force, represents such anadditional procedure designed to protect more effectively human rights and freedoms andto streamline law enforcement practice. In this connection, the author formulated the provisions,the implementation of which can help in matters of systematization of the institutionof official publication of international treaties of the Russian Federation. ; В статье обосновывается необходимость системного анализа процессов применения норм международных договоров арбитражными судами Российской Федерации. Автором с учетом специфики арбитражного судопроизводства и характера споров, рассматриваемых в арбитражных судах, в концентрированной форме предложены правовые основания, позволяющие констатировать наличие обязанности применения норм международных договоров арбитражными судами России.
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.
Civil law States that the legal capacity of individuals is defined as the ability of the individual to have rights and obligations. This legal category arises from birth and ceases with death, it characterizes a person as a living being and does not depend on age and health. However, it is necessary to pay attention to the fact that it can be limited by a court decision, in particular in criminal proceedings it can be expressed in deprivation of the right to engage in certain activities, to occupy certain positions. The article reveals the content of legal capacity in private international law, the basic powers included in the legal capacity, in particular, the right to a name, its use and protection, analyzes the foreign legislation concerning the procedure of recognition as missing and the Declaration of a person as dead. The article deals with the conflict issues arising in the foreign and Russian legislation in the regulation of relations included in the content of legal capacity, the study of international legislation characterizing the legal status of the person.
The object of this master's thesis is the right to strike at the International Labour Organization, the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights. The main aim of the work is to identify the main problems associated with the recognition of the right to strike in the International Labour Organization, the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights. The main objectives of the work: To study the regulation of the right to strike in the International Labour Organization, the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights. Analyze the current problems associated with the recognition of the right to strike in the above-mentioned international organizations. Determine the potential and possible prospects for the development of the right to strike in modern international law. The implementation of the tasks led the author to the conclusion that, despite the wide recognition of the right to strike in the regulating international bodies and national laws of most countries in the world, the right to strike is now in a precarious position when it comes to practice. The stable position of right to strike in ILO standards, which has long allowed regulatory bodies to protect and promote trade union rights, has been replaced by a "controversial consensus" following a conflict between employers and workers at the 2012 International Labour Conference. As will be discussed in this master's thesis, this consensus was reached rather as a quick and temporary solution to the problem, and not as a joint solution to the conflict by the ILC participants. At the same time, the issue of confrontation between the freedom of movement of businesses and collective labor rights, including the right to strike, has not yet been resolved in the international bodies of the European Union. More generally, the confrontation between the economic and social values of the European Union.
