Search results

This book critically examines the recent discussions of powers and powers-based accounts of causation. The author then develops an original view of powers-based causation that aims to be compatible with the theories and findings of natural science. Recently, there has been a dramatic revival of realist approaches to properties and causation, which focus on the relevance of Aristotelian metaphysics and the notion of powers for a scientifically informed view of causation. In this book, R.D. Ingthorsson argues that one central feature of powers-based accounts of causation is arguably incompatible with what is today recognised as fact in the sciences, notably that all interactions are thoroughly reciprocal. Ingthorsson's powerful particulars view of causation accommodates for the reciprocity of interactions. It also draws out the consequences of that view for issue of causal necessity and offers a way to understand the constitution and persistence of compound objects as causal phenomena. Furthermore, Ingthorsson argues that compound entities, so understood, are just as much processes as they are substances. A Powerful Particulars View of Causation will be of great interest to scholars and advanced students working in metaphysics, philosophy of science, and neo-Aristotelian philosophy, while also being accessible for a general audience. The Open Access version of this book, available at http://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/9781003094241, has been made available under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives 4.0 license.

An important feature of the constitutional state, the implementation of which has become classic is the principle of separation of powers. The need for separation of powers is based on the objective of social mismatch of interests of different social groups and the patterns of their reflection in the implementation of state functions. The separation of powers involves the creation of a legal mechanism of interaction between the branches of power in a single mechanism of functioning of system of state power, their mutual influence, resolution and overcoming conflicts and contradictions, emerging in society. Law enforcement is only possible on the basis of the interpretation of the right of every judge in the framework of the implementation of justice in each individual case. Enforcement essentially involves the interpretation and clarification by the courts of law; it is right in the action and justice itself is the final interpretation of the law, the most important kind of enforcement system. The nature of the judiciary, no doubt, distinguishes it from the legislature: the courts do not create new law, not legislate but the courts, of courseare the legitimate, system defining, the final stage of law making which imparts lawmaking final form, complete the form and most importantly the meaning of the entire legislature. © Medwell Journals, 2016.

The changes in legislation, as well as the judicial reform in General, should, in our opinion, be as thoughtful as possible, and the legislative novelties should contribute to more effective administration of justice ; Изменение законодательства, как и судебная реформа в целом, на наш взгляд, должно отличаться максимальной продуманностью, а законодательные новеллы должны способствовать более эффективному отправлению правосудия

The changes in the judicial system should be considered in the logic of changing its structure, including in terms of its interface with other significant modules of the previously unified law enforcement system (Prosecutor's office, preliminary investigation), staffing issues are secondary. Without a proper institutional framework, a shift in focus to the human resources issue, which is essentially the imposition of full responsibility on ordinary judges, there is a programmed impasse in judicial reform ; Преобразования в судебной системе надлежало рассматривать в логике изменения ее структуры, в том числе в части ее сопряжения с иными значимыми модулями ранее единой правоохранительной системы (прокуратура, предварительное следствие), вопросы кадрового обеспечения являются вторичными. Без надлежащего институционального базиса перенос акцента на кадровый вопрос, что является, по сути, возложением всей ответственности на рядовых судей, есть запрограммированный тупик судебной реформы