俄罗斯与中国民事责任立法前提比较分析

IF 0.1 Q4 LAW
Y. Monastyrsky
{"title":"俄罗斯与中国民事责任立法前提比较分析","authors":"Y. Monastyrsky","doi":"10.17223/22253513/45/14","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The paper compares the legislative regulation of property liability in the form of compensation for losses in the Russian Federation and in a state with the largest economy, rapid development rates, and a giant population neighboring the Siberian region of our country - China. The logic of historical evolution predetermined a detailed consideration of each other's experience in state building and the implementation of long-term development plans. In the legal field, both legal systems are based on the concept of codified law and are being improved through the adoption of normative acts. The institution of forfeit and recovery of damages for non-fulfillment of obligations, violation of subjective rights, permitted unilateral termination of an agreement in cases specially specified in the rules is contained in the civil codes of Russia and China and has significant conceptual differences. Its comparative analysis has not been carried out in detail for the last 20 years and is the novelty of this study. Its relevance can be determined by the development and complication of economic ties in the Siberian region, which is characterized by an extensive Chinese economic presence. Inevitable disputes and peculiarities of the applicable law, in this case both Russian and foreign, create applied interest in the comparative analysis of not only legislative material, but also judicial and arbitration practice. Knowledge of Chinese approaches is necessary not only in litigation in foreign courts, but also when a dispute is resolved on the basis of Chinese law in domestic jurisdictions or arbitration tribunals. The degree of elaboration of this topic. The timeliness of this study is confirmed by the fact that little attention has been paid in legal science to comparing the concepts of compensation for losses in Russia and China, despite their doctrinal significance, a close connection with the notions of liability, causality, guilt and negligence of creditors. The aim of the study is to develop a theoretical model of legal regulation of relations regarding compensation for damages corresponding to the modern conditions of the market economy of the Russian Federation, which could become a methodological basis for improving the norms and practice of their application, protecting the legitimate interests of participants in these legal relations. The subject of the analysis is the norms that directly regulate the procedure for compensation for losses in Russian and Chinese civil law, as well as materials of domestic and Chinese foreign doctrine on the legal nature of this institution. The research is based on private scientific (special legal, comparative legal, historical) and general scientific (problem-theoretic, teleological and systemic) methods. In the process of studying and understanding specific legal issues, general logical methods were used (abstraction, analysis, synthesis, analogy, generalization, and so on). The author declares no conflicts of interests.","PeriodicalId":41435,"journal":{"name":"Vestnik Tomskogo Gosudarstvennogo Universiteta-Pravo-Tomsk State University Journal of Law","volume":"37 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative analysis of the legislative prerequisites for civil liability in Russia and China\",\"authors\":\"Y. Monastyrsky\",\"doi\":\"10.17223/22253513/45/14\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The paper compares the legislative regulation of property liability in the form of compensation for losses in the Russian Federation and in a state with the largest economy, rapid development rates, and a giant population neighboring the Siberian region of our country - China. The logic of historical evolution predetermined a detailed consideration of each other's experience in state building and the implementation of long-term development plans. In the legal field, both legal systems are based on the concept of codified law and are being improved through the adoption of normative acts. The institution of forfeit and recovery of damages for non-fulfillment of obligations, violation of subjective rights, permitted unilateral termination of an agreement in cases specially specified in the rules is contained in the civil codes of Russia and China and has significant conceptual differences. Its comparative analysis has not been carried out in detail for the last 20 years and is the novelty of this study. Its relevance can be determined by the development and complication of economic ties in the Siberian region, which is characterized by an extensive Chinese economic presence. Inevitable disputes and peculiarities of the applicable law, in this case both Russian and foreign, create applied interest in the comparative analysis of not only legislative material, but also judicial and arbitration practice. Knowledge of Chinese approaches is necessary not only in litigation in foreign courts, but also when a dispute is resolved on the basis of Chinese law in domestic jurisdictions or arbitration tribunals. The degree of elaboration of this topic. The timeliness of this study is confirmed by the fact that little attention has been paid in legal science to comparing the concepts of compensation for losses in Russia and China, despite their doctrinal significance, a close connection with the notions of liability, causality, guilt and negligence of creditors. The aim of the study is to develop a theoretical model of legal regulation of relations regarding compensation for damages corresponding to the modern conditions of the market economy of the Russian Federation, which could become a methodological basis for improving the norms and practice of their application, protecting the legitimate interests of participants in these legal relations. The subject of the analysis is the norms that directly regulate the procedure for compensation for losses in Russian and Chinese civil law, as well as materials of domestic and Chinese foreign doctrine on the legal nature of this institution. The research is based on private scientific (special legal, comparative legal, historical) and general scientific (problem-theoretic, teleological and systemic) methods. In the process of studying and understanding specific legal issues, general logical methods were used (abstraction, analysis, synthesis, analogy, generalization, and so on). The author declares no conflicts of interests.\",\"PeriodicalId\":41435,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Vestnik Tomskogo Gosudarstvennogo Universiteta-Pravo-Tomsk State University Journal of Law\",\"volume\":\"37 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Vestnik Tomskogo Gosudarstvennogo Universiteta-Pravo-Tomsk State University Journal of Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.17223/22253513/45/14\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Vestnik Tomskogo Gosudarstvennogo Universiteta-Pravo-Tomsk State University Journal of Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17223/22253513/45/14","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文比较了俄罗斯联邦和与我国西伯利亚地区相邻的经济规模最大、发展速度最快、人口众多的国家——中国在财产损失赔偿方面的立法规定。历史演进的逻辑决定了对彼此在国家建设和长期发展计划实施方面的经验的详细考虑。在法律领域,这两种法律制度都以编纂法的概念为基础,并正在通过采用规范性行为加以改进。对不履行义务、侵犯主观权利、在规则特别规定的情况下允许单方面终止协议的没收和赔偿损害的制度载于俄罗斯和中国的民法典中,在概念上存在重大差异。它的比较分析在过去的20年里没有进行过详细的研究,这是本研究的新颖之处。其相关性可以通过西伯利亚地区经济联系的发展和复杂性来确定,该地区的特点是中国经济的广泛存在。在这种情况下,不可避免的争议和适用法律的特殊性,在俄罗斯和外国,创造适用的利益,不仅在立法材料的比较分析,而且在司法和仲裁实践。不仅在外国法院的诉讼中,而且在国内司法管辖区或仲裁法庭根据中国法律解决争议时,了解中国方法是必要的。这个题目的阐述程度。这项研究的及时性得到了这样一个事实的证实,即在法律科学中很少注意比较俄罗斯和中国的损失赔偿概念,尽管它们具有理论意义,与债权人的责任、因果关系、有罪和过失等概念密切相关。这项研究的目的是发展一个与俄罗斯联邦市场经济的现代条件相适应的损害赔偿关系的法律规制的理论模式,这可以成为改进其适用的规范和实践的方法基础,保护这些法律关系参与者的合法利益。分析的主体是俄罗斯和中国民法中直接规范损失赔偿程序的规范,以及国内外关于这一制度法律性质的学说资料。研究的基础是私人科学(特殊法律、比较法律、历史)和一般科学(问题论、目的论和系统)方法。在研究和理解具体法律问题的过程中,运用了一般的逻辑方法(抽象、分析、综合、类比、概括等)。作者声明没有利益冲突。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparative analysis of the legislative prerequisites for civil liability in Russia and China
The paper compares the legislative regulation of property liability in the form of compensation for losses in the Russian Federation and in a state with the largest economy, rapid development rates, and a giant population neighboring the Siberian region of our country - China. The logic of historical evolution predetermined a detailed consideration of each other's experience in state building and the implementation of long-term development plans. In the legal field, both legal systems are based on the concept of codified law and are being improved through the adoption of normative acts. The institution of forfeit and recovery of damages for non-fulfillment of obligations, violation of subjective rights, permitted unilateral termination of an agreement in cases specially specified in the rules is contained in the civil codes of Russia and China and has significant conceptual differences. Its comparative analysis has not been carried out in detail for the last 20 years and is the novelty of this study. Its relevance can be determined by the development and complication of economic ties in the Siberian region, which is characterized by an extensive Chinese economic presence. Inevitable disputes and peculiarities of the applicable law, in this case both Russian and foreign, create applied interest in the comparative analysis of not only legislative material, but also judicial and arbitration practice. Knowledge of Chinese approaches is necessary not only in litigation in foreign courts, but also when a dispute is resolved on the basis of Chinese law in domestic jurisdictions or arbitration tribunals. The degree of elaboration of this topic. The timeliness of this study is confirmed by the fact that little attention has been paid in legal science to comparing the concepts of compensation for losses in Russia and China, despite their doctrinal significance, a close connection with the notions of liability, causality, guilt and negligence of creditors. The aim of the study is to develop a theoretical model of legal regulation of relations regarding compensation for damages corresponding to the modern conditions of the market economy of the Russian Federation, which could become a methodological basis for improving the norms and practice of their application, protecting the legitimate interests of participants in these legal relations. The subject of the analysis is the norms that directly regulate the procedure for compensation for losses in Russian and Chinese civil law, as well as materials of domestic and Chinese foreign doctrine on the legal nature of this institution. The research is based on private scientific (special legal, comparative legal, historical) and general scientific (problem-theoretic, teleological and systemic) methods. In the process of studying and understanding specific legal issues, general logical methods were used (abstraction, analysis, synthesis, analogy, generalization, and so on). The author declares no conflicts of interests.
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信