Abstract: This article presents the results of analysis of application of cross-system methods in conveying Russian criminal law and criminal procedure realias in English. The specific examples of Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation illustrate substantial discrepancies in the existing within Russian criminal law systems and Anglo-American type of criminal law system, which cause most difficulties in translation of relevant terminology from Russian into English. Leaning on the considered linguistic and extralinguistic factors, the authors suggest the original solutions of the set communicative tasks. The scientific novelty is substantiated by the absence of the official English version of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, while the need for the corresponding paperwork (request for legal assistance, extradition request, etc.) is significantly growing. The following conclusions are made: criminal procedure discourse of Russian-language and English-language community constructs different and most of the time nonequivalent models of legal reality, which increases the value of comparative jurisprudence for the translator; at the same time, detailed analysis of not only the direct structure of common law and continental law systems, but also methods of their verbalization, allows comprising a more precise portrait of linguistic persona to have an idea of their experience, worldview, thesaurus and other cultural-specific peculiarities that are essential for improving efficiency of communication.      

Abstract: This article examines the peculiarities of resolving the complicated questions associated with relations regulated by private international law through legal mechanisms that are at the disposal of the integrated institution – the European Union. It is demonstrated that use of means of harmonization and unification – rules and directives – facilitate regulation in the conflict of jurisdictions (on the questions of mutual recognition and execution of court decisions), conflict of laws (with regards to the choice of applicable law to contractual and non-contractual obligations, family and hereditary relations), substantive regulation of relations complicated by a foreign element. Methodology contains the sources of the European Union Law – constituent agreements, rules and directives in French language as the language of the theory of private international law. The analysis of EU legislative acts demonstrated that the most significant problems in all areas of private international law have been resolved in a positive way: enshrinement of the principle of mutual recognition and execution of court decisions; establishment of the general and subsidiary conflict of laws principles for the various types of private law relations, considering the latest scientific trends of private international law and comparative-legal experience; establishment of groundwork for harmonization of private law of the EU member-states. The authors also underline the inadequacy of regulation on the separate questions of private international law (qualification). Recommendation is made regarding the experience of the European Union in the context of potential development of law of the European Economic Community in the indicated sphere.  

Abstract: This research is dedicated to the specificities of territorial application of criminal jurisdiction. The author reveals the concepts of territoriality, extraterritoriality, and extraterritoriality of jurisdiction; demonstrates whether the various types of criminal jurisdiction (prescriptive criminal substantive or procedural jurisdiction, law enforcement criminal jurisdiction) can be applied territorially, extraterritorially, or distributed extraterritorially. The article demonstrated the details of particular manifestations of territorial application of criminal jurisdiction: national criminal and criminal procedural law abroad; proceedings via realization of the forms of international cooperation in the field of criminal justice. In the course of this study, the author determines that the territorial application of prescriptive criminal substantive jurisdiction is full, while the extraterritorial is impossible due to the concept of protection of sovereign interest. The extraterritorial distribution of law enforcement criminal jurisdiction as the process of delegation of competence is realized primarily via legal aid in criminal cases. The application of prescriptive criminal procedural jurisdiction of the requesting country is extraterritorial; moreover, it is cumulative with the territorial application of jurisdiction of the requesting country in its priority, and formally dissolutive within the framework of application of the latter.