金融法律条款执法中的自由裁量权偏见

A. Barikova
{"title":"金融法律条款执法中的自由裁量权偏见","authors":"A. Barikova","doi":"10.56215/naia-chasopis/1.2023.36","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The imperfection of the procedure for implementing prejudgment in court proceedings may lead to instability of practice, and this demonstrates the relevance of the research topic with regard to formulating clear criteria for the mechanism of discretionary prejudgment in the application of financial rules of law. With this in mind, the purpose of the article is to identify the peculiarities of bias of discretionary powers in the law enforcement of financial rules of law. The methodological tools are based on the general philosophical (dialectical, hermeneutical), general scientific formal (empirical in the form of observation, description and comparison; axiomatic; hypothetical-deductive; formalization; unity of historical and logical) and special scientific methods (formal-logical; comparative legal; systemic and structural), as well as the methodology of reversal and monitoring of a preliminary court decision, which allows to study theoretical and practical issues of discretionary powers in the law enforcement of financial and legal provisions in the unity of their substantive component and external form of reflection. The author proposes a classification of prejudice by: the level of law enforcement; legal force of prejudice; significance of the established factual circumstances which are the subject of proof; nature of the accusation; and subject. The author examines the psychological dimension of the use of prejudicial categories as a metacognitive activity of establishing and taking into account the meaning of prejudice, taking into account the accuracy of empirical generalizations, and formulating judgments to identify the future consequences of making decisions with prejudicial categories contained in the original decision. The author outlines the mechanism for implementing the legal policy on the use of financial prejudicial categories, which should be based primarily on the instrumental and procedural characteristics of this model of legal influence. It is established that in the organizational and legal aspect, the conditions for the national market segment to enter the cross-border space are formed by streamlining the procedures for interaction of legal entities through the appropriate forms of legal influence. The practical significance of the results obtained is that they can be used to determine the procedure for applying prejudgment at the supranational and national levels, in particular, in the context of applying the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union","PeriodicalId":334836,"journal":{"name":"Ûridičnij časopis Nacìonalʹnoï akademìï vnutrìšnìh sprav","volume":"9 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Prejudice on discretion in law enforcement of financial legal provisions\",\"authors\":\"A. Barikova\",\"doi\":\"10.56215/naia-chasopis/1.2023.36\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The imperfection of the procedure for implementing prejudgment in court proceedings may lead to instability of practice, and this demonstrates the relevance of the research topic with regard to formulating clear criteria for the mechanism of discretionary prejudgment in the application of financial rules of law. With this in mind, the purpose of the article is to identify the peculiarities of bias of discretionary powers in the law enforcement of financial rules of law. The methodological tools are based on the general philosophical (dialectical, hermeneutical), general scientific formal (empirical in the form of observation, description and comparison; axiomatic; hypothetical-deductive; formalization; unity of historical and logical) and special scientific methods (formal-logical; comparative legal; systemic and structural), as well as the methodology of reversal and monitoring of a preliminary court decision, which allows to study theoretical and practical issues of discretionary powers in the law enforcement of financial and legal provisions in the unity of their substantive component and external form of reflection. The author proposes a classification of prejudice by: the level of law enforcement; legal force of prejudice; significance of the established factual circumstances which are the subject of proof; nature of the accusation; and subject. The author examines the psychological dimension of the use of prejudicial categories as a metacognitive activity of establishing and taking into account the meaning of prejudice, taking into account the accuracy of empirical generalizations, and formulating judgments to identify the future consequences of making decisions with prejudicial categories contained in the original decision. The author outlines the mechanism for implementing the legal policy on the use of financial prejudicial categories, which should be based primarily on the instrumental and procedural characteristics of this model of legal influence. It is established that in the organizational and legal aspect, the conditions for the national market segment to enter the cross-border space are formed by streamlining the procedures for interaction of legal entities through the appropriate forms of legal influence. The practical significance of the results obtained is that they can be used to determine the procedure for applying prejudgment at the supranational and national levels, in particular, in the context of applying the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union\",\"PeriodicalId\":334836,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ûridičnij časopis Nacìonalʹnoï akademìï vnutrìšnìh sprav\",\"volume\":\"9 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-02-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ûridičnij časopis Nacìonalʹnoï akademìï vnutrìšnìh sprav\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.56215/naia-chasopis/1.2023.36\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ûridičnij časopis Nacìonalʹnoï akademìï vnutrìšnìh sprav","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.56215/naia-chasopis/1.2023.36","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

法院程序中预判执行程序的不完善可能导致实践的不稳定性,这也说明了本研究课题对于在金融法治适用中为自由裁量预判机制制定明确标准的相关性。考虑到这一点,本文的目的是确定自由裁量权在金融法治执法中的特殊性。方法论的工具是基于一般哲学的(辩证的、解释学的),一般科学的形式(经验的观察、描述和比较的形式;公理化;hypothetical-deductive;规范化;历史与逻辑的统一)和特殊的科学方法(形式逻辑;比较法律;系统的和结构的),以及撤销和监测初步法院判决的方法,这使得可以在其实质性组成部分和外部反映形式的统一中研究财政和法律规定的执法中的自由裁量权的理论和实践问题。作者提出了一种偏见的分类:执法水平;偏见的法律效力;作为证明主体的既定事实情节的重要性;指控的性质;和主题。作者考察了使用偏见类别的心理维度,将其作为一种元认知活动,建立和考虑偏见的含义,考虑经验归纳的准确性,并制定判断,以确定使用原始决定中包含的偏见类别做出决定的未来后果。提交人概述了执行关于使用财政歧视类别的法律政策的机制,该机制应主要基于这种法律影响模式的工具和程序特征。可以确定的是,在组织和法律方面,通过适当的法律影响形式,简化法律实体相互作用的程序,形成了国家细分市场进入跨境空间的条件。所取得的结果的实际意义在于,它们可以用来确定在超国家和国家一级适用预判的程序,特别是在适用欧洲联盟法院判例法的情况下
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Prejudice on discretion in law enforcement of financial legal provisions
The imperfection of the procedure for implementing prejudgment in court proceedings may lead to instability of practice, and this demonstrates the relevance of the research topic with regard to formulating clear criteria for the mechanism of discretionary prejudgment in the application of financial rules of law. With this in mind, the purpose of the article is to identify the peculiarities of bias of discretionary powers in the law enforcement of financial rules of law. The methodological tools are based on the general philosophical (dialectical, hermeneutical), general scientific formal (empirical in the form of observation, description and comparison; axiomatic; hypothetical-deductive; formalization; unity of historical and logical) and special scientific methods (formal-logical; comparative legal; systemic and structural), as well as the methodology of reversal and monitoring of a preliminary court decision, which allows to study theoretical and practical issues of discretionary powers in the law enforcement of financial and legal provisions in the unity of their substantive component and external form of reflection. The author proposes a classification of prejudice by: the level of law enforcement; legal force of prejudice; significance of the established factual circumstances which are the subject of proof; nature of the accusation; and subject. The author examines the psychological dimension of the use of prejudicial categories as a metacognitive activity of establishing and taking into account the meaning of prejudice, taking into account the accuracy of empirical generalizations, and formulating judgments to identify the future consequences of making decisions with prejudicial categories contained in the original decision. The author outlines the mechanism for implementing the legal policy on the use of financial prejudicial categories, which should be based primarily on the instrumental and procedural characteristics of this model of legal influence. It is established that in the organizational and legal aspect, the conditions for the national market segment to enter the cross-border space are formed by streamlining the procedures for interaction of legal entities through the appropriate forms of legal influence. The practical significance of the results obtained is that they can be used to determine the procedure for applying prejudgment at the supranational and national levels, in particular, in the context of applying the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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