Search results

The purpose of this study is to reveal the peculiarities of disciplinary responsibility of lawyers for violation of the Rules on Advocates Ethics. This requires clarification of the grounds for bringing a lawyer to disciplinary responsibility, the improvement of the rules of disciplinary proceedings against a lawyer, and the differentiation of the types of sanctions that can be applied to a lawyer. The article uses such methods of research as: comparison and generalization – to disclose the changes made in the new edition of the Rules of lawyer ethics, analysis and synthesis, induction and deduction. The result of the study is the disclosure of peculiarities of bringing to disciplinary responsibility both Ukrainian and foreign lawyers. The new edition of the Rules on Advocates Ethics has been analysed in the context of a comparison with the previous edition and proposals have been made to improve the current provisions of the new edition of the Rules on Advocates Ethics regarding the criteria of evaluation of ethical aspects of advocate's conduct in disciplinary proceedings of qualification and disciplinary commissions of the Bar; the need to returnsome important provisions to the principle of independence and freedom of advocacy in carrying out their activities was outlined. It has been substantiated that it is inappropriate to establish a special procedure for bringing advocates to disciplinary responsibility in case they violate the Rules of Advocates Ethics. In the conclusions, it should be noted that the rules of Rules of Advocates Ethics should not duplicate the procedural rules of the Law and the Regulation on the procedure for acceptance and consideration of complaints about improper conduct of an advocate, which may entail his disciplinary responsibility. Keywords: rules of advocate's ethics, disciplinary responsibility of an advocate, grounds for disciplinary responsibility of an advocate, disciplinary penalties.

AbstractThis research shows how business students' disciplinary specializations can affect their sense of personal responsibility by providing rationalizations for moral disengagement. It thereby conceptualizes business students' disciplinary specializations as a key dimension of the business school responsibility learning environment. Students use four main rationalizations to displace responsibility variously away from their own disciplinary specializations, to claim responsibility as the prerogative of their specialization, and to shiftirresponsibility onto disciplinary out-groups. Yet despite their disciplinary identifications, students largely rationalized that their sense of responsibility was an individual matter that was unlikely to be affected by contextual influences, and they attributedirresponsible behavior to incorrigible 'bad apples.' A theoretical model is offered which illustrates these dynamics by combining Bandura's social cognitive theory with social identity theory. The research is based on secondary data, specifically focus-group interviews conducted with undergraduate students at a major Scandinavian business school in connection with the implementation of the UN Principles for Responsible Management Education (PRME) initiative. The implications for management education include the need to strengthen students' 'disciplinary reflexivity,' and to explicitly address the tension between students' disciplinary solidarities and their faith in their own individual moral infallibility.

In the first part of this article ("Termination of the powers of a judge for a serious offense after the constitutional innovations of 2020 – constitutional or disciplinary liability?") the modern problems of the mechanism of judges' responsibility for disciplinary misconduct were considered. This second part of this article examines the current problems of the organizational and legal mechanism of disciplinary responsibility of heads (chairmen and deputy chairmen) of courts. Attention is drawn to the fact that the status of heads of courts is twofold: on the one hand, they are judges who directly administer justice, on the other hand, heads of a judicial body with powers and responsibilities to organize the work of the court (to ensure, within their powers, financial, material, resource, information and other parties), the implementation of general management of the activities of the court's staff, and most importantly, to ensure the judicial and effective operation of the court on the principles of justice. Attention is drawn to the fact that the current legislation (and even partly the Constitution of the Russian Federation) provides for the responsibility of heads of courts for gross misconduct, which does not qualify as disciplinary, and the penalty for it is one – early termination of the powers of the head of the court, and in some cases the powers of a judge, without the possibility of applying other, less severe, penalties (penalties). It is proposed to formalize some new, real-life functions of the heads of courts with the establishment of a mechanism for their non-fulfillment. It is proposed to introduce the institution of the oath of the head of the court (separate from the oath of the judge) with the introduction of liability for violation of this oath, in particular for interference in the judicial activities of judges of the court headed by this head. Other proposals are also being made.

To estimate the effects of a policy change, analysts must often rely on available data as time and resource constraints limit their ability to commission new primary research. Research synthesis methods—including systematic review, meta‐analysis, and expert elicitation—play an important role in ensuring that this evidence is appropriately weighed and considered. We present the conclusions of a multidisciplinary Harvard Center for Risk Analysis project that evaluated and applied these methods, and introduce the resulting series of articles. The first step in any analysis is to clearly define the problem to be addressed; the second is a systematic review of the literature. Whether additional analysis is needed depends on the quality and relevance of the available data to the policy question, and the likely effect of uncertainty on the policy decision. Meta‐analysis promotes understanding the variation between studies and may be used to combine the estimates to develop values for application in policy analysis. Formal, structured expert elicitation promotes careful consideration of the evidence when data are limited or inconsistent, and aids in extrapolating to the policy context. Regardless of the methods used, clear communication of the approach, assumptions, and uncertainty is essential.

AbstractThe introduction sketches the recent development of the 'responsibility to protect' norm and emphasises its African roots, both in terms of its conceptualisation and implementation and with particular respect to two tragedies—the genocide in Rwanda in 1994 and the crisis in Darfur since 2003—that have lent urgency to the norm's formulation and widespread international adoption. The number and extent of R2P cases in Africa are outlined and the roles of the African Union and Africa's regional organisations in implementing the norm are briefly considered. The introduction acknowledges the importance of examining R2P through African perspectives. Referencing the justifications and primary principles for action upon which the norm is founded, the authors also assess the relative strengths of competing notions of sovereignty in Africa. The essay further considers how R2P has come to be seen as a mechanism that can bolster the capacity of weak states to fulfil their sovereign responsibilities to their own citizens, and how new international obligations imposed upon states, and particularly those adopted in Africa, have made significant inroads into the old concept of sovereignty as territorial integrity and freedom from external interventions.

Comprehensive detailed analysis of employee involvement in disciplinary responsibility was carried out. This work was carried out on the basis of the general procedure under the Labour Code, as well as special form of disciplinary responsibility of the Prosecutor as a special subject of the violation. The work was carried out on the basis of analysis of relevant legal sources, namely: the Constitution of Ukraine, the law of Ukraine "On Prosecutor's Office", on the basis of the Code of labour laws of Ukraine, thoughts of scientists and practice, personal understanding of the issue. The composition of the disciplinary offense is investigated, the term of disciplinary misconduct with criticism and understanding of the issue by the legislator and a number of scientists was disclosed, a personal understanding of the term was provided, taking into account all the above-mentioned sources and various scientific approaches. The historical development of the institute of disciplinary responsibility of prosecutors from the beginning of Ukraine's independence until today is traced. It takes into account the painful and problematic issues of bringing prosecutors to disciplinary responsibility, the high level of corruption and low legal understanding of the population's legal awareness. The ethical component of the prosecutor's status was taken into account, the Image and degree of public attitude to prosecutors-violators with appropriate personal critical assessment, different views of relevant specialists and providing the necessary recommendations. In the future it will be impossible to avoid the responsibility by prosecutor who violates the law.

The given article is devoted to the features of developing separate kinds of disciplinary liability in the period of new economic policy. Some features of legislative registration of a disciplinary responsibility in days of new economic policy and also during the specified period are analyzed. There was a formation of separate types of this responsibility: disciplinary responsibility on internal regulations, disciplinary responsibility on subordination and disciplinary responsibility of employees, according to the statutes on discipline and special provisions as a special type of disciplinary responsibility on subordination. The features of legal regulation of disciplinary responsibility, considered in article, were of great importance in further development of institute of a disciplinary liability and the legislation on a disciplinary liability.The purpose of the given article is to comprehend the process of disciplinary liability institute's development on the basis of new achievements of legal science. Method or methodology of the work: modern methods of learning, special historical, comparative and legal methods were used. Results: scientific analysis of theoretical, historical and legal sources, determining the peculiarity and the content of disciplinary liability institute. Application of results: conclusions achieved as a result of scientific research can find practical application in law-making activities of governmental institutions.