Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.21128/1812-7126-2021-5-157-175
A. Evseev, E. Egorova
The article is a detailed review of a collective monograph published in honor of W.Sadurski, a prominent Australian legal scholar of Polish origin. It illuminates the most important problems of concern today to the international legal community. In particular, it is about the coming to power in a number of EU countries of right-wing populists who demonstratively disregard liberal values and tolerant rhetoric; the problems of the EU’s existence within its current borders, aggravated after the UK’s secession from the Union; and the phenomenon of “illiberal democracy” as one of the most dangerous challenges facing the constitutional development of the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, especially Hungary and Poland. Special attention is paid to democratic backsliding, seen in the steady decline in rankings of post-socialist countries in various ratings of democratic accountability. The paper draws a conclusion about the general crisis that democratic statehood is experiencing on the European continent today and which is perhaps the most serious since the late 1930s. Also addressed is the broader use of various forms of direct democracy, beginning with nationwide and local referendums and ending with various types of plebiscites on confidence. A relatively new form of popular governance has been introduced by deliberative (consultative) democracy, for example in the case of Ireland’s Citizens’ Assembly, which is chosen by random selection and as vox populi gives parliamentary committees recommendations on the most acute and divisive social problems. The volume also illuminates rightist governments’ social-economic policies repudiating the 1990s’ widely accepted concept of the market’s invisible hand and relying on direct payments to the population (as in Poland’s “500+” program, Covid payments, and so on). The Polish case is separately examined, particularly in the context of the so-called ‘war’ with the Constitutional tribunal.
{"title":"The Fate of A Scholar at the Core of Constitutionalism","authors":"A. Evseev, E. Egorova","doi":"10.21128/1812-7126-2021-5-157-175","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21128/1812-7126-2021-5-157-175","url":null,"abstract":"The article is a detailed review of a collective monograph published in honor of W.Sadurski, a prominent Australian legal scholar of Polish origin. It illuminates the most important problems of concern today to the international legal community. In particular, it is about the coming to power in a number of EU countries of right-wing populists who demonstratively disregard liberal values and tolerant rhetoric; the problems of the EU’s existence within its current borders, aggravated after the UK’s secession from the Union; and the phenomenon of “illiberal democracy” as one of the most dangerous challenges facing the constitutional development of the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, especially Hungary and Poland. Special attention is paid to democratic backsliding, seen in the steady decline in rankings of post-socialist countries in various ratings of democratic accountability. The paper draws a conclusion about the general crisis that democratic statehood is experiencing on the European continent today and which is perhaps the most serious since the late 1930s. Also addressed is the broader use of various forms of direct democracy, beginning with nationwide and local referendums and ending with various types of plebiscites on confidence. A relatively new form of popular governance has been introduced by deliberative (consultative) democracy, for example in the case of Ireland’s Citizens’ Assembly, which is chosen by random selection and as vox populi gives parliamentary committees recommendations on the most acute and divisive social problems. The volume also illuminates rightist governments’ social-economic policies repudiating the 1990s’ widely accepted concept of the market’s invisible hand and relying on direct payments to the population (as in Poland’s “500+” program, Covid payments, and so on). The Polish case is separately examined, particularly in the context of the so-called ‘war’ with the Constitutional tribunal.","PeriodicalId":113514,"journal":{"name":"Sravnitel noe konstitucionnoe obozrenie","volume":"32 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121385635","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.21128/1812-7126-2020-6-51-78
A. Grin'ko, K. Zharinov
The doctrine of precedent being recognized as an inherent part of the American legal system provokes a permanent discussion about the sources and nature of its binding force. The scholars continually examine the correlation between common and written law, especially, the U.S. Constitution as its paramount form. Some authors given the absence of stare decisis doctrine in the plain language of the Constitution tend to believe that common law is not included in the supreme law of the land and therefore, judges should follow it as a matter of their discretion. Others suppose that the doctrine of precedent was implied by the Founders in the structure and understandings of key terms that makes it binding on the judiciary. This Article attempts to suggest another approach to such problem. Considering the nature of binding force and the methods of its attribution to a legal doctrine (basing on the recent case-law) we conclude that the obligatory status of the stare decisis doctrine derives from the will of the judiciary rather than people or the legislature. It is the judicial community who decided to treat a precedent as binding on each of them. This fact makes third parties believe that such a precedent would be applied in case of potential proceedings and therefore, act in accordance with it. The declared conclusion is supported by the examination of such legal mechanisms as appellate review and judicial discipline process which enforce the doctrine regardless of one’s subjective attitude – that is essential for a rule to be binding. These findings suggest that further examination of written law as a source of common law seems to be impractical and it would be more reasonable to focus on the role of the judiciary and their willingness to enforce the stare decisis doctrine in future.
{"title":"The American common law and the will of the judiciary as a source of its binding force","authors":"A. Grin'ko, K. Zharinov","doi":"10.21128/1812-7126-2020-6-51-78","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21128/1812-7126-2020-6-51-78","url":null,"abstract":"The doctrine of precedent being recognized as an inherent part of the American legal system provokes a permanent discussion about the sources and nature of its binding force. The scholars continually examine the correlation between common and written law, especially, the U.S. Constitution as its paramount form. Some authors given the absence of stare decisis doctrine in the plain language of the Constitution tend to believe that common law is not included in the supreme law of the land and therefore, judges should follow it as a matter of their discretion. Others suppose that the doctrine of precedent was implied by the Founders in the structure and understandings of key terms that makes it binding on the judiciary. This Article attempts to suggest another approach to such problem. Considering the nature of binding force and the methods of its attribution to a legal doctrine (basing on the recent case-law) we conclude that the obligatory status of the stare decisis doctrine derives from the will of the judiciary rather than people or the legislature. It is the judicial community who decided to treat a precedent as binding on each of them. This fact makes third parties believe that such a precedent would be applied in case of potential proceedings and therefore, act in accordance with it. The declared conclusion is supported by the examination of such legal mechanisms as appellate review and judicial discipline process which enforce the doctrine regardless of one’s subjective attitude – that is essential for a rule to be binding. These findings suggest that further examination of written law as a source of common law seems to be impractical and it would be more reasonable to focus on the role of the judiciary and their willingness to enforce the stare decisis doctrine in future.","PeriodicalId":113514,"journal":{"name":"Sravnitel noe konstitucionnoe obozrenie","volume":"176 5","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"120899836","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.21128/1812-7126-2021-3-141-157
A. Shatilina
For about 30 years, the topic of abortion has remained a “bone of contention” between conservative and liberal members of Polish society. In October 2020, these discussions moved from the political and religious planes to the legal field: the Constitutional Tribunal of the Republic of Poland considered the issue of women’s right to “eugenic abortion”. The Constitutional Tribunal scrutinized the provisions of a specialized law, allowing the termination of pregnancy in case of a high probability of a severe and irreversible fetal malformation or an incurable disease threatening its life. As a result, in the Judgment of 22 October 2020 no. K1/20 the Constitutional Tribunal upheld the position of the applicants, a group of deputies of the Sejm, and declared the contested legal norms unconstitutional. This process was the center of attention of mass media and the reason of mass protests throughout Poland. This article is the commentary on the decision, that attempts to comprehend the premises of the decision, its substantive and procedural aspects, as well as the consequences. The author concludes that the main purpose of the decision is to constitutionalize the traditionalist state policy in the field of reproductive rights. This decision is difficult to analyze in isolation from political and religious factors. The article notes that the value of the “eugenic abortion” case is not limited to legal aspects. The Constitutional Tribunal tried not only to change approaches to the correlation of competing rights (the right of an unborn child to life and woman’s rights in the context of freedom of reproductive choice), but also to increase “chilling effect”. It is expressed in the phasing out of abortion on pain of criminal prosecution.
{"title":"Your body is not only your business: commentary on Poland’s Constitutional Tribunal Judgment of 22 October 2020 no.K1/20","authors":"A. Shatilina","doi":"10.21128/1812-7126-2021-3-141-157","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21128/1812-7126-2021-3-141-157","url":null,"abstract":"For about 30 years, the topic of abortion has remained a “bone of contention” between conservative and liberal members of Polish society. In October 2020, these discussions moved from the political and religious planes to the legal field: the Constitutional Tribunal of the Republic of Poland considered the issue of women’s right to “eugenic abortion”. The Constitutional Tribunal scrutinized the provisions of a specialized law, allowing the termination of pregnancy in case of a high probability of a severe and irreversible fetal malformation or an incurable disease threatening its life. As a result, in the Judgment of 22 October 2020 no. K1/20 the Constitutional Tribunal upheld the position of the applicants, a group of deputies of the Sejm, and declared the contested legal norms unconstitutional. This process was the center of attention of mass media and the reason of mass protests throughout Poland. This article is the commentary on the decision, that attempts to comprehend the premises of the decision, its substantive and procedural aspects, as well as the consequences. The author concludes that the main purpose of the decision is to constitutionalize the traditionalist state policy in the field of reproductive rights. This decision is difficult to analyze in isolation from political and religious factors. The article notes that the value of the “eugenic abortion” case is not limited to legal aspects. The Constitutional Tribunal tried not only to change approaches to the correlation of competing rights (the right of an unborn child to life and woman’s rights in the context of freedom of reproductive choice), but also to increase “chilling effect”. It is expressed in the phasing out of abortion on pain of criminal prosecution.","PeriodicalId":113514,"journal":{"name":"Sravnitel noe konstitucionnoe obozrenie","volume":"65 Suppl 1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115535239","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.21128/1812-7126-2020-5-74-88
A. Larichev, E. Markwart
Local government as a political, legal and social institution finds itself in a very difficult period of development in Russia. The long-established tendency of its subordination to the state has intensified today in connection with the newly adopted constitutional amendments. At the same time, it seems obvious that further “embedding” of local government into the state management vertical, in the absence of any positive effect in terms of solving socio-economic and infrastructural problems, will inevitably lead to other hard to reverse, negative results both for local government institutions and the system of public authority as a whole. The normal functioning of local government requires, however, not only the presence of its sufficient institutional and functional autonomy from the state, but also an adequate territorial and social base for its implementation. To ensure the formation of viable territorial collectives, especially in urban areas, it seems appropriate to promote the development of self-government based on local groups at the intra-municipal level. Such local groups can independently manage issues of local importance on a small scale (landscaping, social volunteering, and neighborly mutual assistance), and provide, within the boundaries of a local territory, due civil control over the maintenance by municipal authorities of more complex and large-scale local issues (repair and development of infrastructure, removal of solid household waste and more). At the same time, the development of local communities can by no means be a self-sufficient and substitutional mechanism, whose introduction would end the need for democracy in the full scope of municipal structures overall. In this regard, the experience of local communities’ development in Germany, a state with legal traditions similar to Russian ones, with a centuries-old history of the development of territorial communities and a difficult path to building democracy and forming civil society, seems to be very interesting. Here, the progressive development of local forms of democracy and the participation of residents in local issue management are combined with stable mechanisms of municipal government, and the interaction of municipalities with the state does not torpedo the existing citizen forms of self-government. At the same time, the experience of Germany shows that the decentralization of public issue management which involves the local population can only be effective in a situation where, in addition to maintaining a full-fledged self-government mechanism at the general municipal level, relevant local communities are endowed with real competence and resources to influence local issue decision-making. The role of formalized local communities in urban areas, as the German experience shows, can not only facilitate the decentralization of solving public problems, but can also help in timely elimination of triggers for mobilizing citywide supercollectives with negative agendas.
{"title":"Local Communities as a Tool for the Development of Municipal Democracy: German Experience and Lessons for Russia","authors":"A. Larichev, E. Markwart","doi":"10.21128/1812-7126-2020-5-74-88","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21128/1812-7126-2020-5-74-88","url":null,"abstract":"Local government as a political, legal and social institution finds itself in a very difficult period of development in Russia. The long-established tendency of its subordination to the state has intensified today in connection with the newly adopted constitutional amendments. At the same time, it seems obvious that further “embedding” of local government into the state management vertical, in the absence of any positive effect in terms of solving socio-economic and infrastructural problems, will inevitably lead to other hard to reverse, negative results both for local government institutions and the system of public authority as a whole. The normal functioning of local government requires, however, not only the presence of its sufficient institutional and functional autonomy from the state, but also an adequate territorial and social base for its implementation. To ensure the formation of viable territorial collectives, especially in urban areas, it seems appropriate to promote the development of self-government based on local groups at the intra-municipal level. Such local groups can independently manage issues of local importance on a small scale (landscaping, social volunteering, and neighborly mutual assistance), and provide, within the boundaries of a local territory, due civil control over the maintenance by municipal authorities of more complex and large-scale local issues (repair and development of infrastructure, removal of solid household waste and more). At the same time, the development of local communities can by no means be a self-sufficient and substitutional mechanism, whose introduction would end the need for democracy in the full scope of municipal structures overall. In this regard, the experience of local communities’ development in Germany, a state with legal traditions similar to Russian ones, with a centuries-old history of the development of territorial communities and a difficult path to building democracy and forming civil society, seems to be very interesting. Here, the progressive development of local forms of democracy and the participation of residents in local issue management are combined with stable mechanisms of municipal government, and the interaction of municipalities with the state does not torpedo the existing citizen forms of self-government. At the same time, the experience of Germany shows that the decentralization of public issue management which involves the local population can only be effective in a situation where, in addition to maintaining a full-fledged self-government mechanism at the general municipal level, relevant local communities are endowed with real competence and resources to influence local issue decision-making. The role of formalized local communities in urban areas, as the German experience shows, can not only facilitate the decentralization of solving public problems, but can also help in timely elimination of triggers for mobilizing citywide supercollectives with negative agendas.","PeriodicalId":113514,"journal":{"name":"Sravnitel noe konstitucionnoe obozrenie","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130970381","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.21128/1812-7126-2021-4-17-40
Armen Dzhagaryan
The Russian constitutional justice is going through a stage of deep reforming. Both the nature of the participation of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation in the constitutional reform of 2020, as well as the content itself and regulatory consequences have exposed a serious value and institutional crisis of the identity of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation in the State-legal system. The main vector of the reform declared in order to “strengthen the role of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation” is essentially resulted from the authoritarian, not humanistic paradigm, and leads to the development of the integration of constitutional justice into a unified system of public power remaining without proper legal deterrence. The noted crisis of the identity of the constitutional justice, which reflects the general problems of Russian constitutionalism, is to a large extent a product and expression of a fundamental communicative constitutional crisis, failures in establishing a constitutional dialogue between the government and civil society. At the same time, constitutional justice is not only the object of this communication with its defects and dysfunctions but should act as one of its main subjects, it has a unique extremely important potential for implementing the values and practices of constitutional dialogue with civil society, especially in the conditions of post-socialism. The constitutional dialogue also characterizes the content side of the constitutional justice itself in its modern understanding. In this context, the article discusses both general issues related to the understanding of constitutional dialogue itself and its importance for constitutional justice, as well as some more specific problems of implementing the dialogic model of constitutional-judicial control in Russian realities. Determining the direction of the further evolution of the constitutional justice, which has a unique potential for self-transformation, in any case, is an important area of responsibility of civil society, which itself must remain resolute in organizing the constitutional dialogue, not avoid attempts to initiate it and insist on it.
{"title":"Constitutional justice and civil society in search of dialogue","authors":"Armen Dzhagaryan","doi":"10.21128/1812-7126-2021-4-17-40","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21128/1812-7126-2021-4-17-40","url":null,"abstract":"The Russian constitutional justice is going through a stage of deep reforming. Both the nature of the participation of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation in the constitutional reform of 2020, as well as the content itself and regulatory consequences have exposed a serious value and institutional crisis of the identity of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation in the State-legal system. The main vector of the reform declared in order to “strengthen the role of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation” is essentially resulted from the authoritarian, not humanistic paradigm, and leads to the development of the integration of constitutional justice into a unified system of public power remaining without proper legal deterrence. The noted crisis of the identity of the constitutional justice, which reflects the general problems of Russian constitutionalism, is to a large extent a product and expression of a fundamental communicative constitutional crisis, failures in establishing a constitutional dialogue between the government and civil society. At the same time, constitutional justice is not only the object of this communication with its defects and dysfunctions but should act as one of its main subjects, it has a unique extremely important potential for implementing the values and practices of constitutional dialogue with civil society, especially in the conditions of post-socialism. The constitutional dialogue also characterizes the content side of the constitutional justice itself in its modern understanding. In this context, the article discusses both general issues related to the understanding of constitutional dialogue itself and its importance for constitutional justice, as well as some more specific problems of implementing the dialogic model of constitutional-judicial control in Russian realities. Determining the direction of the further evolution of the constitutional justice, which has a unique potential for self-transformation, in any case, is an important area of responsibility of civil society, which itself must remain resolute in organizing the constitutional dialogue, not avoid attempts to initiate it and insist on it.","PeriodicalId":113514,"journal":{"name":"Sravnitel noe konstitucionnoe obozrenie","volume":"32 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130690897","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.21128/1812-7126-2020-5-134-149
V. Nizov
The article discusses problems of the constitutional regulation of property rights and property itself. The research has been narrowed down to the features of public property regulation in the Russian Federation. The relevance of the research is explained by the process of the reform in the public property administration in Russian Federation, which has transferring of the state property to some legal entities of public law as distinguished feature. The author proposes the historical analysis of the property regulation’s development and the role of the Constitution in this process. The comparative instruments are used to show the main preconditions and trends of public property regulation in Russia and other countries. The author argues the Russian Federation is going on the process of the property regulation construction and the modern stage sees the Constitution as a main axiological filter for that. Meanwhile, the Russian legal system has several obstacles in this way: the limitation of the direct force of the Constitution, the spoiled separation of power, etc. The importance of the system of the check and balances in the property administration is noted. Thus, the research explains the differences between the system of the separation of power in the United Kingdom, Ukraine, and Russia. The author discloses the distinguishing features of the public property the state needs to account in the process of the property transition to public law entities. The critic overview of detailed property regulation in the Constitution’s text is expressed. The author notes constitutional provisions that regulate property issues are features of the post-socialist states. The difference between property rights and sovereign rights is also enclosed in the article. The justification of the right to administrate public property is provided, the research explains the importance of the justification in public property administration and its role in democratic societies, especially in the Russian Federation. The privatization and decentralization of the public property administration are needed to be explained the effectiveness and stability of these decisions. Additionally, the author argues that public property must have more concrete regulation because it needs more complex rules for just and effective administration. The conclusion of the article explains the linkage between the constitutional ideal and the development of public property regulation.
{"title":"Constitutional basis for public property in the context of the creation of a legal entity of public law","authors":"V. Nizov","doi":"10.21128/1812-7126-2020-5-134-149","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21128/1812-7126-2020-5-134-149","url":null,"abstract":"The article discusses problems of the constitutional regulation of property rights and property itself. The research has been narrowed down to the features of public property regulation in the Russian Federation. The relevance of the research is explained by the process of the reform in the public property administration in Russian Federation, which has transferring of the state property to some legal entities of public law as distinguished feature. The author proposes the historical analysis of the property regulation’s development and the role of the Constitution in this process. The comparative instruments are used to show the main preconditions and trends of public property regulation in Russia and other countries. The author argues the Russian Federation is going on the process of the property regulation construction and the modern stage sees the Constitution as a main axiological filter for that. Meanwhile, the Russian legal system has several obstacles in this way: the limitation of the direct force of the Constitution, the spoiled separation of power, etc. The importance of the system of the check and balances in the property administration is noted. Thus, the research explains the differences between the system of the separation of power in the United Kingdom, Ukraine, and Russia. The author discloses the distinguishing features of the public property the state needs to account in the process of the property transition to public law entities. The critic overview of detailed property regulation in the Constitution’s text is expressed. The author notes constitutional provisions that regulate property issues are features of the post-socialist states. The difference between property rights and sovereign rights is also enclosed in the article. The justification of the right to administrate public property is provided, the research explains the importance of the justification in public property administration and its role in democratic societies, especially in the Russian Federation. The privatization and decentralization of the public property administration are needed to be explained the effectiveness and stability of these decisions. Additionally, the author argues that public property must have more concrete regulation because it needs more complex rules for just and effective administration. The conclusion of the article explains the linkage between the constitutional ideal and the development of public property regulation.","PeriodicalId":113514,"journal":{"name":"Sravnitel noe konstitucionnoe obozrenie","volume":"16 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130234172","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.21128/1812-7126-2020-1-133-148
{"title":"Review of legal reasoning in the Russian Constitutional Court judgments: Nos.38-P–41-P (2019), Nos.1-P–3-P (2020)","authors":"","doi":"10.21128/1812-7126-2020-1-133-148","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21128/1812-7126-2020-1-133-148","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":113514,"journal":{"name":"Sravnitel noe konstitucionnoe obozrenie","volume":"3 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116135662","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：