Theoretical substantiation of the model of borrowing rights-terminating facts

Autori/Curatori Anatoliy V. Kostruba, Oleh S. Hyliaka
Anno di pubblicazione 2021 Fascicolo 2020/2 suppl. Lingua Inglese
Numero pagine 15 P. 189-203 Dimensione file 150 KB
DOI 10.3280/RISS2020-002-S1014
Il DOI è il codice a barre della proprietà intellettuale: per saperne di più clicca qui

Qui sotto puoi vedere in anteprima la prima pagina di questo articolo.

Se questo articolo ti interessa, lo puoi acquistare (e scaricare in formato pdf) seguendo le facili indicazioni per acquistare il download credit. Acquista Download Credits per scaricare questo Articolo in formato PDF

Anteprima articolo

FrancoAngeli è membro della Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA)associazione indipendente e non profit per facilitare (attraverso i servizi tecnologici implementati da l’accesso degli studiosi ai contenuti digitali nelle pubblicazioni professionali e scientifiche

The relevance of the research is determined by the fact that it is necessary to dif-ferentiate the possibility of applying rights-terminating facts not only in general constructs of the civil branch of legislation but also in a number of private practices of sub-industries regulating general socio-economic relations. Such differentia-tion can contribute to the sustainable development of the civil sector of legislation. The aim of the article was to show new constructions in connection with the judicial system and the system of socio-economic forecasting. The main importance of legal consists in the fact that they can be applied in general in the category of civil law and at the same time their role as regulators of the civil branch of legisla-tion is minimized or does not work at all. In this regard, for the termination of legal relations, mainly general constructs of juridical facts without formalization for industry values are used. Such constructions contribute to equality between members of society, which in turn contributes to its development and well-being. It is found that the main task of the formation of the practice of applying rights-terminating facts is to determine the limits of liability of industry-specific legislation. The practical significance of the research is determined by the fact that for the first time the aspects of sectoral planning of the system of application of rights-terminating facts are revealed. The developed model can be applied both in the process of adjudication and in the process of socio-economic development programmers. The novelty of the research is determined by the fact that in the lit-erature, aspects of the formation of industrial legislative grounds for the application of local juridical facts are shown for the first time.

Keywords:Social security law, systematisation, legislation, legal relations, rule-making entities

  1. Baurmann M. (2000), “Legal authority as a social fact”, Law and Philosophy, 19(2): 247-262.
  2. Coleman J. L. (2013), The Architecture of Jurisprudence, in Ferrer Beltrán J., Moreso J. J. and Papayannis D. M., eds., Neutrality and Theory of Law, Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht.
  3. Dewitz S. (1995), Using Information Technology as a Determiner of Legal Facts, in Bankowski Z., White I. and Hahn U., eds., Informatics and the Foundations of Legal Reasoning, Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht.
  4. Hage J. (2018), Of Norms, in Handbook of Legal Reasoning and Argumentation, Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht.
  5. Hage J., Waltermann A. and Akkermans B. (2017), Introduction to Law: Second Edition, Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht.
  6. Hunt I. and Mostyn J. (2020), “Probability reasoning in judicial fact-finding”, International Journal of Evidence and Proof, 24(1): 75-94.
  7. Khadzhyradieva S., Hrechko T. and Savkov A. (2019a), “Behavioral insights in public policy: Ukrainian case”, Public Policy and Administration, 18(1): 85-99.
  8. Khadzhyradieva S., Hrechko T. and Smalskys V. (2019b), “Institutionalisation of behavioural insights in public policy”, Public Policy and Administration, 18(3): 95-113.
  9. Kiikeri M. (2001), Comparative Law in European Legal Adjudication, in Comparative Legal Reasoning and European Law, Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht.
  10. Makushkin S.A. (2019), “Company’s personnel motivation”, Espacios, 40(40): 1-16.
  11. Marques Martins J. (2020), “A system of communication rules for justifying and explaining beliefs about facts in civil trials”, Artificial Intelligence and Law, 28(1): 135-150.
  12. Morawski L. (1999), “Law, fact and legal language”, Law and Philosophy, 18(5): 461-473.
  13. Paliienko O., Naumenkova S. and Mishchenko S. (2020), “An empirical investigation of the Fama-French five-factor model”, Investment Management and Financial Innovations, 17(1): 143-155.
  14. Ponomarenkov V., Kalashnikova E.B., Korobova, A.P., Petrogratskaya A.A. and Karev D.A. (2018), “Social basis of procedural relations”, Journal of Advanced Research in Law and Economics, 9(3): 1092-1097.
  15. Rigaux F. (1990). The Concept of Fact in Legal Science, in Nerhot P., eds., Law, Interpretation and Reality: Essays in Epistemology, Hermeneutics and Jurisprudence, Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht.
  16. Skrypniuk O.V., Оnishchenko N.M. and Parkhomenko N.M. (2019), “Awareness in law as strategical direction of legal policy”, Journal of Advanced Research in Law and Economics, 10(5): 1534-1540.
  17. Toh K. (2008), “An argument against the social fact thesis (and some additional preliminary steps towards a new conception of legal positivism)”, Law and Philosophy, 27(5): 445-504.
  18. Toleubai A.M. and Kizdarbekova A.S. (2018), “The concept of commercial legal entities in Kazakhstan and foreign legislation”, Journal of Advanced Research in Law and Economics, 9(7): 2437-2446.
  19. Tuzet G. (2020), “Assessment criteria or standards of proof? An effort in clarification”, Artificial Intelligence and Law, 28(1): 91-109.
  20. van Schooten H. (2009), “War as an institutional fact: Semiotics and institutional legal theory”, International Journal for the Semiotics of Law – Revue Internationale de Sémiotique Juridique, 22(3): 307-320.
  21. van Schooten H. (2014), “Towards a new analytical framework for legal communication”, International Journal for the Semiotics of Law – Revue Internationale de Sémiotique Juridique, 27(3): 425-461.
  22. van Zanten G. V., Nissink P. and Dulfer D. (2015), Fact Based Legal Benefits Services, in Ciuciu I., Panetto H., Debruyne C., Aubry A., Bollen P., Valencia-García R. and Ferri F., eds., On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems: OTM 2015 Workshops, Springer International Publishing, Cham.
  23. Wróblewski J. (1989), “Proof in law: Legal language and legal institutions”, Revue Internationale de Semiotique Juridique, 2(1): 3-16.
  24. Xiong M. and Zenker F. (2018), “Legal facts in argumentation-based litigation games”, Argumentation, 32(2): 197-211.
  25. Yalnazov O. (2018). “Fact, Law, and Legal Change”, in Precedent and Statute: Lawmaking in the Courts versus Lawmaking in Parliament, Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden.

Anatoliy V. Kostruba, Oleh S. Hyliaka, Theoretical substantiation of the model of borrowing rights-terminating facts in "RIVISTA DI STUDI SULLA SOSTENIBILITA'" 2 suppl./2020, pp 189-203, DOI: 10.3280/RISS2020-002-S1014