Suchergebnisse

The article is devoted to the search for the possibilities of implementation in the domestic legal practice of one of the fundamental modern law principles – the principle of the rule of law. To clarify this principle, which is nowadays actively used in the legislation of Ukraine, its study was conducted through the prism of the rule of law elements proposed in the conclusion of the Venice Commission from March 25–26, 2011. First of all, it should be noted that nowadays the axiomatic nature was acquired by the assertion that the rule of law should include the legality, including a transparent, accountable and democratic process of the law principles enforcement; legal certainty; prohibition of arbitrariness; access to justice submitted by independent and impartial tribunals, including those, who exercise judicial control over administrative activities; observance of human rights; prohibition of discrimination and equality before the law. In addition, the Venice Commission details the elements of the rule of law in the «Control checklist of the questions assessing the rule of law condition in separate states» It is established that according to the degree of certainty and desirable implementation in practice, these issues, in our opinion, can be distinguished into several types, in particular: evaluative, semi-evaluative, blanket, complex for use (rather political than legal) and formally outlined. By way of reflection, these peculiar criteria are divided into those that are fixed (directly or indirectly) in specific normative-legal acts and fulfil the tasks of legal norms and those that serve as the principles of right-realization, enforcement and law-interpreting activity in general or in relation to certain sources of law. Some of them are more connected with illegal forms of the state execution of its functions.Due to the formal and informative diversity of the rule of law criteria, the system of means of their legal technically-technological support should be specially oriented towards each of them. There were determined the specific means of legal technics and the stage of law-making technology, which are expedient to operate with during the implementation of the rule of law principle in the national legal practice.Thus, there was developed a methodology of usage of the legal technically-technological tooling that is necessary for implementation and ensuring the supremacy of the rule of law principle in the legal system of Ukraine. ; Розглянуто пошук можливостей імплементації у вітчизняну юридичну практику одного із основоположних принципів сучасного права – принципу верховенства права. Для конкретизації цього принципу, який нині активно використовують у законодавстві України, обрано його дослідження крізь призму переліку компонентів верховенства права, запропонованого у висновку Венеціанської комісії від 25–26 березня 2011 року. Встановлено, що за ступенем визначеності та бажаної реалізації на практиці їх, на нашу думку, можна розмежувати на декілька видів, зокрема: оціночні, напівоціночні, бланкетні, складні для застосування (радше політичні, аніж правові) та формально окреслені. Для дієвого впровадження принципу верховенства права у правотворчу, правозастосовну, правореалізаційну та правотлумачну практику, за умови значної неформалізованості його складових, запропоновано використати арсенал юридичної техніки та технології. Визна­чено конкретні засоби юридичної техніки та стадії правотворчої технології, якими доцільно оперувати під час такого впровадження. Отже, сформовано методологію вико­ристання юридичного техніко-технологічного інструментарію, що сприятиме забезпеченню панування у правовій системі України принципу верховенства права.

The power of the government rather than limiting it), human rights and democracy. Therefore, this paper will explore the following research questions: 1. Is the current macro legal framework in Peru and Ecuador consistent with what is generally defined as Rule of Law or is it more related to what is known as Soft Rule of Law? 2. To what extend does a theoretical analysis support the prevailing of a Soft Rule of Law in Ecuador and Peru? This paper has been divided into seven sections. Section one refers to a theoretical revision of the term Rule of Law, section two presents on the concept of soft rule of law, section three focuses on human rights as an essential element of the Rule of Law, section four explores the interaction between democracy and the Rule of Law, section five refers to the challenges faced by the Rule of Law in a consolidated democracy, section six presents, as an example, a brief reflection on the current problems of Peru and Ecuador and finally the paper's conclusions are submitted. ; Campus Lima Centro

ZusammenfassungGezielte Angriffe auf die rechtsstaatlichen Elemente konstitutioneller Demokratie sind ein zentraler Bestandteil des weltweit zu beobachtenden "democratic backsliding". Teilweise lassen sie sich als Reaktion auf die mitunter unreflektierte, mechanistische Rechtsstaatsgläubigkeit der Demokratisierungsforschung und -politik der vergangenen 20 Jahre erklären. Allerdings missbrauchen autoritär-populistische Anti-Demokraten, die selbst in (noch) konsolidierten Demokratien gegenwärtig an Einfluss gewinnen, diese berechtigte Kritik, um ihre anti-pluralistischen Vorstellungen von einem angeblich homogenen Volkswillen und einer unumschränkten Mehrheitsherrschaft zu propagieren. Gegen diese Gefahren des "rule of law backsliding" hilft nur eine klare Benennung des oft negierten Spannungsverhältnisses zwischen Rechtsstaat und Demokratie und die konstruktive Suche nach einer Balance zwischen beiden Prinzipien im Rahmen des demokratischen Verfassungsstaates.

Forty Years of China's Legal Construction in Cybersecurity -- 40 Years of China's Regulatory Development in Cybersecurity -- 40 Years of China's Judicial Reforms in Cybersecurity -- Forty Years of China's International Governance in Cyberspace -- Future Prospects of China's Legal Construction in Cybersecurity.

The rhetorical force of the rule of law is acknowledged through official discourse in Myanmar just as it is in other countries across Asia and around the world. Given that Myanmar manifestly does not conform to substantive models of the rule of law, which are associated with democratic government and individual liberties, might it conform to a minimalist one? Is there in Myanmar a thin rule of law to which the military government can lay claim, one compatible even with grave abuses of human rights? Or is there only "un-rule of law"? Beginning with some theoretical concerns, this article passes briefly through a review of law and rule-of-law rhetoric in the country's modern history before arriving at the present day. It recounts a court case arising from a recent historic event, the September 2007 antigovernment protests, to query whether or not a thin rule of law can, in Myanmar at least, be said to coexist with authoritarian rule. It concludes that it cannot. But if the army in Myanmar has succeeded in overwhelming the courts at cost of the rule of law, ironically in doing this it may also have averted a worse scenario, one in which the denial of fundamental rights for which it is well known could be even greater than at present.