Suchergebnisse

We have analyzed the political legitimacy of democracy in Latin America with Latinobarometro's data, which is a survey about attitudes and values that has been applied annually since 1996 in 18 countries of the region, in two axes: one methodological and the other theoretical. On the one hand, we contribute to the empirical validation of the concept and its differents operationalizations, while aligning our results to the wider debate. And, in the theoretical field, our results allow us to broaden the debate on the relationship between legitimacy and democratic stability.

The article deals with legitimacy in historical and social aspects, paying attentionto the connection of legitimacy with the law-making activities of the state. The problemsof legality of the country's history are consistently investigated: in the Old Russianstate (IX–XII centuries), the Sobornoye Ulozheniye of 1649, legislative acts of the RussianEmpire until the end of XVII – beginning of XX centuries. ; В статье рассматривается законность в историческом и социальном аспектах.Обращается внимание на связь законности с правотворческой деятельностью государства. Последовательно исследуются вопросы законности в отечественнойистории: в Древнерусском государстве (IX–XII вв.), Соборном Уложении1649 года, законодательных актах Российской Империи вплоть концаXVII – начала XX вв.

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.

DOI 10.15826/tetm.2020.1-2.008This article aims to discuss the reasons and consequences of the recent historical monuments' destruction in the United States. The author uses the concept of Foundation myths as well as opinion polls' results and cases from modern history to provide argumentation for the idea of ongoing polarization in American society. The results show that, although the political elites are relatively united on the issue of historical memory, there is a certain division among ordinary citizens. The causes for the recent attacks on the monuments and the historical figures they represent lies in the crisis, caused by the COVID-pandemic, economic downturn and protests over racism. However, the fundamental reason lies in the chronic socio-economic, cultural, and political difficulties, particularly income inequality, political polarization of elites and mass publics of American society. In the conclusion of the article, the author discusses how the discourse over historical figures and foundation myths shaped 2020 Presidential elections in the US and how specific agenda related to Founding Fathers was used by the US President Donald Trump during his campaign.For citation: Sherlock, T. (2020). Evaluating the Legitimacy of the American Foundation Myth. Tempus et Memoria, 1, 1–2, 76–81.Submitted: 30.10.2020Accepted: 02.12.2020 ; This article aims to discuss the reasons and consequences of the recent historical monuments' destruction in the United States. The author uses the concept of Foundation myths as well as opinion polls' results and cases from modern history to provide argumentation for the idea of ongoing polarization in American society. The results show that, although the political elites are relatively united on the issue of historical memory, there is a certain division among ordinary citizens. The causes for the recent attacks on the monuments and the historical figures they represent lies in the crisis, caused by the COVID-pandemic, economic downturn and protests over racism. However, the fundamental reason lies in the chronic socio-economic, cultural, and political difficulties, particularly income inequality, political polarization of elites and mass publics of American society. In the conclusion of the article, the author discusses how the discourse over historical figures and foundation myths shaped 2020 Presidential elections in the US and how specific agenda related to Founding Fathers was used by the US President Donald Trump during his campaign.For citation: Sherlock, T. (2020). Evaluating the Legitimacy of the American Foundation Myth. Tempus et Memoria, 1, 1–2, 76–81.Submitted: 30.10.2020Accepted: 02.12.2020

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 article researches the connection between estate and judicial systems of the Russian Empire from the birth of estates in times of Peter the Great to their liquidation in 1917 by the decree of the Soviet regime. As a part of fundamental basis of the Empire estate system determined social relations and legal status of the subjects, influenced the form of rule and system of governmental bodies. In the same way estate system with its privileges and restrictions affected the Imperial judicial system. Principle of equality of subjects before law and court proclaimed by Alexander II in Court Statutes of 1864 meant establishment of all-estates court in Russia. But during the judicial reform of 1864 peasant volost' courts were preserved, and in 1889 after the abolition of justice of the peace in the most part of territory of the Empire offices of district captains with administrative and judicial functions for peasants were established. Volost' courts kept working even after the reform of local justice of 1912. The authors emphasize existence of elements of the estate system inside organisation and work of the Russian courts even in the beginning of the XXth c. that disturbed the judicial system. Local courts in Russia were finally not integrated into all-estates court system because of traditional relations existed in the Russian villages for ages. Copyright © 2017 by Academic Publishing House Researcher s.r.o. Copyright © 2017 by Sochi State University.

В настоящее время при рассмотрении демократических начал российской государственности на первый план выходят проблемы легитимности осуществления публичной власти. Провозглашая народный суверенитет и принципы народовластия, возникают определенного рода трудности в реализации конституционных положений при осуществлении органами публичной власти принадлежащих им полномочий. В статье сопоставляются между собой взаимосвязанные категории «легитимность», «суверенитет» и «народовластие». Анализируется понятие «народ», дается конституционно-правовой анализ его содержательной характеристики. Автор приходит к выводу, что понятие «народ» многоплановое и может рассматриваться не только с социологических и политологических позиций, но и с юридической. При этом следует различать участие народа в осуществлении публичной власти на различных уровнях: на федеральном, региональном и местном. Это, в свою очередь, позволяет говорить о различном конституционно-правовом статусе носителей власти – граждан. Эффективное функционирование органов власти возможно не только в случае их легального образования, но и, самое главное, образования их на основе воли большинства граждан, что придает им свойство легитимности. В статье исследуются конституционные основы легитимности органов государственной власти, делается вывод о соответствии осуществляемой ими деятельности политическим интересам российских граждан. Автор использовал метод анализа и синтеза, формально-юридический метод и исторический метод исследования. В статье анализируются особенности порядка формирования органов публичной власти в Российской Федерации. Автором рассматриваются возможности избирателей выражать свою политическую волю посредством институтов прямой (непосредственной) демократии. На основе чего делается вывод о соответствии российского законодательства представлениям демократического устройства общества. ; Nowadays, when considering the democratic principles of Russian statehood, the problems of the legitimacy of the exercise of public authority come to the fore. Declaring people's sovereignty and the principles of democracy, some difficulties arise in the implementation of constitutional provisions when public authorities exercise their powers. This article compares interrelated categories of «legitimacy», «sovereignty» and «demo-cracy». The author analyzes the notion «people» and provides the constitutional legal analysis of its content characteristic. He concludes that the concept «people» is multifaceted and can be viewed not only from sociological and political positions, but also from the legal one. At the same time, it is necessary to distinguish between the participation of the people in the implementation of public power at various levels: at the federal, regional and local. This, in its turn, allows to talk about the different constitutional and legal status of the holders of power – the citizens. Effective functioning of government bodies is possible not only in the case of their legal formation, but also, most importantly, in the case of their formation based on the will of the majority of citizens, which grants them the legitimacy. This article explores the constitutional foundations of the legitimacy of public authorities and concludes that their activities are in line with the political interests of the Russian citizens. The author has used a method of analysis and synthesis, formal-legal method and historical method of research. This article has analyzed peculiarities in forming bodies of public power in Russian Federation. The author considers the problem of electorate's possibility to express its political will by institutes of straight (immediate) democracy. According to these matters, the author makes a conclusion of conformity of the Russian legislation to the conception of democratic society system.

The article is devoted to the problem of the revolution impact on the government legitimacy. Revolutions in modern times have become a synonym of a legitimate way of overthrowing the existing government. If in previous historical era in politics the people´s right to riots and uprisings was denied, the current policy recognizes their right to revolution. Without recognition of this right, the revolution is not only deprived of legitimacy, but also the institutions which arise in the process of its implementation lose credibility. ; Посвящается проблеме влияния революции на легитимность власти. Революции в Новое время стали синонимом легитимного способа свержения существующей власти народом. Если в предшествующие исторические эпохи в политике отрицалось право народа на бунты и восстания, то современная политика признает право народа на революцию. Без признания этого права революция не только лишается доказательств ее закономерного характера, но и доверия к институтам власти, которые возникают в процессе ее осуществления.

The aim of this study was to clarify the concept of "legitimacy" used in theory of state and law, as the term often leads to confusion due to the plurality of its meanings in different contexts. Based on the analysis, it was concluded that the usage of legitimacy can be still be primarily categorized into two directions: legal legitimacy and moral legitimacy. Legal legitimacy represents the normative side of the concept and seeks to establish a hierarchy of legal orders, with the juspositivists like Kelsen and Hart advocating for grundnorm and rule of recognition and jusnaturalists like Aquinas and Sir Blackstone defending the supremacy of the natural law. Moral legitimacy discusses the sources contributing to the "right to rule" from the perspectives of consensus that derive from Aristotle's advocacy for political stability and Rousseau's social contract, and perspective of conflict that roots in Maciavelli's distrust of human nature and Marx's class struggle. By contrasting the theories of a variety of legal and political philosophers, this paper produced an overview of the evolution of legitimacy, which allows the readers to form a cohesive understanding of the concept and its usage.

The article deals with the problems of family mediation in the judicial process. Currently, the settlement of family law disputes is an urgent problem of theory and practice. The development of legislation, social, legal and economic relations, as well as various crisis phenomena, contribute to an increase in the number of civil cases in the courts. Resolution of disputes, the participants of which cannot independently come to a compromise, rests with the courts, but also the fact that the decisions taken by the court are not always the most suitable for the parties to the dispute. The importance of family mediation is that the mediator – a specialist with expert knowledge in the field of family psychology and law, helps to minimize the negative consequences of such disputes or to resolve the conflict and achieve reconciliation of the parties to the dispute. Despite the growth of conciliation procedures in recent years, their demand is still quite low for a number of subjective and objective reasons.

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.

The subject. The article is devoted to the legal analysis of the legitimacy of the activities of public authorities and the process of their legitimation in the Russian Federation, as well as other problems of national democracy. The legal understanding of the concept of "people" as the only source of power and the bearer of sovereignty is considered, a distinction is made between these properties.The purpose of the article is to identify its essential features the category of legitimacy, identify problems related to the reflection of the political will of Russian citizens in the organization and activities of state authorities and local self-government. The purpose of the article is to substantiate also the differences in the characteristics of the people as the only source of power and the bearer of sovereignty, which has a significant impact on the processes of legitimation of public authorities in the Russian Federation.The research methodology consists of general scientific methods (analysis, synthesis, dialectics) and legal methods (formal-logical, comparative-legal, historical-legal, forecasting method).The main results and their area of application. The author considers legitimacy not only as the consent of the people with the normative legal acts adopted by public authorities, but also as universal approval and recognition of their organizational activities, expressed by citizens through the institutions of direct democracy. The legitimacy of public authority is an attribute of a constitutional state with a social orientation. The article notes a few features characteristic of the domestic process of legitimizing public authority. The procedure for the formation of the Federation Council of the Federal Assembly, in which Russian citizens do not participate directly, starting from 1995 to the present. The cancellation and return of direct elections of heads of constituent entities of the Russian Federation, the impossibility of electing the heads of municipalities directly by the population (in many cases). A complicated procedure for the implementation of active and passive electoral rights in the Russian Federation, expressed in the establishment of several formal require ments. Constant changes in electoral legislation before election campaigns are among these characteristics.Conclusions. The results of research are summarized and conclusions are drawn about the current state of legitimacy in the Russian Federation. A few measures are proposed to improve the process of legitimizing public authority. The author proposes to distinguish between the legal characteristics of the people as the bearer of sovereignty, understanding by it all Russian citizens and as the only source of power, which is formed by the voters. ; Исследуется легитимность как свойство публичной власти, анализируется процесс легитимации деятельности органов публичной власти в Российской Федерации, в связи с чем выделяется ряд ее характерных особенностей. Рассматривается юридическое понимание народа как источника власти и носителя суверенитета. Выделяются основные проблемы обеспечения легитимности деятельности органов государственной власти и местного самоуправления в Российской Федерации и предлагаются меры, направленные на их решение.