ՆՈՐՄԱՏԻՎ ԻՐԱՎԱԿԱՆ ԱԿՏԵՐԻ ՕՐԻՆԱԿԱՆՈՒԹՅԱՆ ՆԿԱՏՄԱՄԲ ԴԱՏԱԿԱՆ ՎԵՐԱՀՍԿՈՂՈՒԹՅԱՆ ՈՐՈՇ ՀԻՄՆԱՀԱՐՑԵՐԸ ԽՈՐՀՐԴԱՅԻՆ ԻՐԱՎՈՒՆՔՈՒՄ

Rafik Khandanyan
{"title":"ՆՈՐՄԱՏԻՎ ԻՐԱՎԱԿԱՆ ԱԿՏԵՐԻ ՕՐԻՆԱԿԱՆՈՒԹՅԱՆ ՆԿԱՏՄԱՄԲ ԴԱՏԱԿԱՆ ՎԵՐԱՀՍԿՈՂՈՒԹՅԱՆ ՈՐՈՇ ՀԻՄՆԱՀԱՐՑԵՐԸ ԽՈՐՀՐԴԱՅԻՆ ԻՐԱՎՈՒՆՔՈՒՄ","authors":"Rafik Khandanyan","doi":"10.52063/25792652-2021.2-87","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Тhe aim of the article is to examine the development and mechanisms of direct and indirect judicial control over normative legal acts in Soviet Union and tօ look into power of the courts in that sphere. In the course of the study, both scientific (the principle of historicity, analysis, synthesis)\nand special (formal logical, comparative legal) methods were applied. During the research the competence of the Supreme Court of the Soviet Union o assessment of legality of normative legal acts was examined, which, as concluded, can not be considered as control over legality of normative legal acts, as the Supreme Court of the Soviet Union did not have the competence to invalidate that acts.\nThe study also resulted in the following conclusion: during certain periods of the existence of the Soviet Union there was actually both direct and indirect judicial control over the legality of normative legal acts, but there was no special and comprehensive legal regulation regarding it.\nMore accurately, indirect judicial control was practiced at the beginning of the establishment of the USSR and also after 1970s and was manifested in the power of the courts to refuse to apply specific regulatory legal acts or to act not in accordance with them. As for the direct judicial control, it was only realized on the eve of the collapse of the Soviet Union by adopting «Law on Propety in the USSR» on 06.03.1990 and it led to the recognition of the right to contest normative legal acts concerning property in courts. The absence of certain and complex legal regulations on direct and indirect judicial control was because of some political observations and the absence of principle of the separation of powers.","PeriodicalId":207059,"journal":{"name":"Scientific Artsakh","volume":"86 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scientific Artsakh","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.52063/25792652-2021.2-87","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Тhe aim of the article is to examine the development and mechanisms of direct and indirect judicial control over normative legal acts in Soviet Union and tօ look into power of the courts in that sphere. In the course of the study, both scientific (the principle of historicity, analysis, synthesis) and special (formal logical, comparative legal) methods were applied. During the research the competence of the Supreme Court of the Soviet Union o assessment of legality of normative legal acts was examined, which, as concluded, can not be considered as control over legality of normative legal acts, as the Supreme Court of the Soviet Union did not have the competence to invalidate that acts. The study also resulted in the following conclusion: during certain periods of the existence of the Soviet Union there was actually both direct and indirect judicial control over the legality of normative legal acts, but there was no special and comprehensive legal regulation regarding it. More accurately, indirect judicial control was practiced at the beginning of the establishment of the USSR and also after 1970s and was manifested in the power of the courts to refuse to apply specific regulatory legal acts or to act not in accordance with them. As for the direct judicial control, it was only realized on the eve of the collapse of the Soviet Union by adopting «Law on Propety in the USSR» on 06.03.1990 and it led to the recognition of the right to contest normative legal acts concerning property in courts. The absence of certain and complex legal regulations on direct and indirect judicial control was because of some political observations and the absence of principle of the separation of powers.
Тhe本文的目的是研究苏联对规范性法律行为的直接和间接司法控制的发展和机制,并进一步探讨法院在这一领域的权力。在研究过程中,既运用了科学方法(历史性原则、分析方法、综合方法),也运用了特殊方法(形式逻辑方法、比较法方法)。在研究过程中,对苏联最高法院对规范性法律行为合法性评估的权限进行了考察,得出的结论是,苏联最高法院不具有对规范性法律行为无效的权限,不能视为对规范性法律行为合法性的控制。这项研究还得出以下结论:在苏联存在的某些时期,对规范性法律行为的合法性实际上有直接和间接的司法控制,但没有关于这方面的专门和全面的法律规定。更准确地说,间接司法控制是在苏联成立之初和1970年代以后实行的,表现为法院有权拒绝适用具体的管制性法律行为或不按照这些法律行事。至于直接的司法控制,它是在1990年3月6日苏联解体前夕通过《苏联物权法》才实现的,它导致承认在法庭上对有关财产的规范性法律行为提出异议的权利。没有关于直接和间接司法控制的某些复杂的法律规定是由于一些政治观察和权力分立原则的缺乏。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信