Tatarinov M.K., Britsyna N.M., Kovshikova E.V. —
Common differences between the Anglo-American and Romano-Germanic legal systems as the main extralinguistic factors in verbalization of criminal and criminal procedural law
// Philology: scientific researches. – 2020. – ¹ 6.
– P. 9 - 20.
DOI: 10.7256/2454-0749.2020.6.33097
URL: https://en.e-notabene.ru/fmag/article_33097.html
Read the article
Abstract: This work examines the fundamental differences between legal systems, defining uniqueness of the Russian-language and English-language criminal legal discourses, which should be taken into consideration during communication. Moving general-to-specific, the authors analyze the main differences at the legal system level, directly impacting translation of criminal procedural terminology (primary source of law, its role in formation of juridical technique, etc.), and concentrate their attention on the unique traits of lingual and non-lingual element (idea of the criminal legal system, ways of verbalization, etc.), characteristic to Russian and Anglo-American criminal legal discourses. The novelty of this research is justified by the fact that extralinguistic factors of legal discourse and their role during representation has only been generally studied, without sufficient work being done on verbalization of criminal legal system in the Russian and English languages. Referring to separate articles of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, the authors propose a way of transmitting the essence of the Russian legal institution of investigation and the stage of preliminary inquiry by means of Anglo-American legal terminology.
Tatarinov M.K., Lyakhova I.V. —
Review of the resolved and unresolved problems of private international law emerging within the framework of legal regulation of the European Union Single Market
// International Law and International Organizations. – 2019. – ¹ 4.
– P. 44 - 52.
DOI: 10.7256/2454-0633.2019.4.31340
URL: https://en.e-notabene.ru/mpmag/article_31340.html
Read the article
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.
Tatarinov M.K. —
Territorial application of criminal jurisdiction
// International Law. – 2019. – ¹ 2.
– P. 1 - 13.
DOI: 10.25136/2644-5514.2019.2.29545
URL: https://en.e-notabene.ru/wl/article_29545.html
Read the article
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.