Suchergebnisse

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the normal use of European conflict rules determining the applicable social security legislation was temporarily suspended to avoid changes in the applicable legislation as a result of telework, which was being obliged or recommended. The purpose was to avoid the consequences of such a change. However, these forms of remote work are expected to remain in existence after the pandemic, even when the suspension of the conflict rules is no longer in place. So, the question arises whether the suspension of the strict application of the conflict rules should be prolonged after the pandemic, or whether these conflict rules should be applied differently or even amended. First, this article discusses the measures that were taken during the pandemic. Next, it will highlight the consequences if the temporary measures are not prolonged after the pandemic for the determination of the applicable social security legislation. It will explore the possible re-interpretation of or even amendments to these rules in order to adapt them to the continuation of telework.

Раздел "Международное право" - рубрика "Международное частное право" ; Статья посвящена рассмотрению такого вопроса, как коллизионный способ регулирования договора международного факторинга в Республике Беларусь. На основании изучения отечественной и зарубежной доктрины и правоприменительной практики автор приходит к следующим выводам. Рассматривая вопрос о правовом регулировании договора международного факторинга на международном уровне, автор указывает на то, что в силу ряда причин его нельзя признать эффективным, особенно применительно к факторинговым отношениям с участием белорусских субъектов хозяйствования. Вследствие этого единственным способом регулирования международных факторинговых отношений в Республике Беларусь является коллизионный способ на основе национальных коллизионных норм. Автор отмечает, что в том случае, если стороны не договорились об ином, к договору факторинга подлежит применению право страны, где фактор (как сторона, чье исполнение имеет существенное значение) имеет основное место деятельности. В статье предлагается закрепить дифференцированный подход к определению права, подлежащего применению к отношениям между фактором и кредитором и отношениям, складывающимся между фактором и должником. В заключение автор обращает внимание на то, что законодательство Республики Беларусь, регулирующее договор международного факторинга, не является совершенным и требует приведения в соответствие с мировой практикой и потребностями хозяйственного оборота. = The article deals with the question of conflict rules that regulate an international factoring contract in the Republic of Belarus. After studying native and foreign doctrine and law-enforcement practice the author comes to the following conclusions. While considering the question of legal regulation of an international factoring contract on the international level the author points that because of several reasons it is impossible to regard it as effective especially in respect factoring relations with participation of Belarusian entrepreneurs. As a result of that fact the only way to regulate international factoring relations in the Republic of Belarus is regulation by means of national conflict rules. The author emphasizes that unless the parties agreed different, the law of the country where the factor (as a party whose performance has vital importance) is based should be applied to a factoring contract. The article suggests fixing a different approach to determine a law which is applicable to the relations between the factor and the creditor and a law which is applicable to the relations between the factor and the debtor. In summary the author draws attention to the fact that the legislation of the Republic of Belarus that regulates the international factoring contract is not perfect and is to be brought into line with the world practice and needs of economic circulation.

En este artículo se estudia lo que ha significado la reforma del Fuero Nuevo en cuanto a los conflictos de leyes internos e internacionales y su proyección a varias cuestiones concretas (remisión a la legislación general del Estado, condición civil foral, conflicto móvil, etc.). Se pone especial énfasis en el análisis del recurso de inconstitucionalidad 315-2020 en lo que afecta a las Leyes 11 y 12 y los motivos por los que se entiende que dicho recurso carece de fundamento jurídico ; Artikulu honetan, aztertu da Foru Berriak zer-nolako eragina izan duen barneko eta nazioarteko legeen arteko gatazketan eta beste hainbat gai zehatzetan (Estatuko legeria orokorrera jotzea, foru izaera zibila, gatazka mugikorra, etab.). Bereziki, 11. eta 12. legeen aurka jarritako 315-2020 konstituzio-kontrakotasuneko helegitea aztertu zuen, eta oinarriko juridikorik ez duela arrazoitu ; This article examines what the reform of the New Legal Code has meant in terms of domestic and international conflicts of laws and its influence on several specific matters (referral to general State legislation, regional civil status, conflict of mobility, etc.). A special emphasis is placed on the appeal on grounds of unconstitutionality 315-2020 with regard to how it affects Laws 11 and 12 and the reasons why it is considered that this appeal has no legal basis.

This paper analyzes whether and to what extent countries reconstitute the rule of law following civil conflict. Drawing on an original data set of 47 cases in which conflict ended between 1970 and 1999, we find that the cessation of conflict has at best a modest effect on the rule of law. On average, countries revert to the pre-conflict rule-of-law status quo ante. In simple models, rule of law prior to the onset of conflict is the best indicator of post-conflict performance. Analysis of individual cases using structural break analysis shows that the cessation of conflict is not typically associated with an inflection in the rule of law; improvements are modest, take a long time, and fall far short of plausible thresholds for robust rule of law. Adapted from the source document.

Aus französischer Sicht

Congressional rules can be violated by majority vote, but the application of those rules often leads to different outcomes than would prevail under direct majority rule. Why does Congress enact rules in the first place, and why would not a majority violate those rules whenever it disliked the outcomes they produced? Drawing from work in psychology, I argue legislators become angry and engage in socially costly retaliation when unfavorable outcomes are produced by discretionary authority but not when they are produced by the application of fixed rules. Consequently, rules sometimes inefficiently allocate congressional resources, but they also reduce costly conflict within the institution. I present a model that provides conditions under which the legislature prefers to enact and defer to rules and derive its empirical implications.