Vol 17, No 1 (2024)
Legal Thought: History and Modernity
Sources and Forms of Law: a Modern View on Basic Theoretical Provisions
Abstract



Universality of International Human Rights Standards: A Necessary Utopia
Abstract



Russian Law: Condition, Perspectives, Commentaries
Nature of Disposal of Property from Possession at the Institute for Protection of bona fide Acquirer
Abstract



Labor Legislation Goals and Tasks as Indicators of Modern Labor Law Origin in Public Law
Abstract



Crimes at Competition
Abstract



Socio-Psychological Patterns in the Criminal Law
Abstract



Discussion Club
Frontier of Biology and Horizons of Jurisprudence: Influence of Studies in Nature of Human Aggression on Development of Criminal Justice
Abstract



Law in the Modern World
Belarusian Experience of Systematization of Legislation on Protecting Cultural Heritage through Codification
Abstract



Copyright Owners, National Treatment and Current Developments in Private International Law
Abstract
The question of initial ownership is a preliminary question in all copyright claims. It is thus of fundamental importance for the success of any copyright claim. The confrontation of the principle of territoriality vis-à-vis the universality principle finds its reflection in the choice of a connecting factor for the question of initial ownership of copyright. Proponents of universality tend to apply the lex originis rule, which takes into consideration legal relations existent in the State of the origin of the work. On the other hand, there are proponents of the strict territoriality principle who apply lex loci protectionis conflict-of-laws rule to the whole copyright statute, including the ownership question, which leads to de facto violation of legitimate expectations of copyright holders. One of the often-mentioned arguments of lex loci protectionis proponents against the use of lex originis is that lex originis is not able to comply with the national treatment principle enshrined in most international copyright instruments. The purpose and aim of the article is to analyze whether the lex originis conflict-of-laws principle indeed contradicts the national treatment principle. For that purpose, the Russian judicial practice is analyzed, for Russia is one of few countries using the lex originis principle, which has also had an opportunity to develop an advanced judicial practice in this regard. Most EU countries prefer the lex loci protectionis connecting factor to determine the initial copyright owner, which, however, presents a substantial hindrance to the single market. In order to not touch the dogmatically settled lex loci protectionis principle and at the same time enable free movement of services within the single market, the EU has introduced a home country rule in its secondary law, which is a material copyright law derogation made in favor of the functioning of EU single market. Compliance of this phenomenon with the national treatment principle is also analyzed in this article. The author concludes that the conflict-of-laws principle lex originis, as well as the home country rule, are indeed incompatible with the national treatment principle. It is further concluded that it is through the lex originis principle that the essence of national treatment is realized. In order to interpret international copyright treaties secundum ratione legis, the question of copyright ownership should be explicitly excluded from the scope of national treatment, thus from the scope of lex loci protectionis.



Influence of the Soviet (Russian) Law on the Chinese Criminal Procedure Laws
Abstract
The first Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) of China issued in 1979 was greatly influenced by the Soviet Criminal Procedure Law in multiple dimensions including the framework, concepts, principles, and specific institutions. Although the Chinese CPL has changed a lot after three amendments in 1996, 2012 and 2018 respectively, the influence of the Soviet Law can still be noticed in many aspects of the current law. The paper explores how the Soviet Law has shaped Chinese Criminal Procedure Law into the way it is. Part I explores the historical development of Chinese CPL, indicating the close relationship between the Chinese Law and the Soviet Law. Part II compares Chinese CPLs with the Soviet (and its successor Russia) CPLs, trying to identify their similarities and differences. In the Part III the author draws tentative conclusions from the comparison and predicts the continuing influence of the Russian law model on Chinese CPLs in the future. The paper primarily relies on comparative study and historical analysis. The legal framework, legal terms, theories, principles, and specific institutions will be examined to illustrate the great influence of the Soviet Law on Chinese Criminal Procedure Law. The study will help to better understand the evolution of Chinese criminal procedure law and to predict more accurately its further development.



Municipality in the Turkish Law: Concept and Content
Abstract


