Évf. 3 szám 3 (2006)
Peter Goodrich és a Satirical Legal StudiesMegtekintések száma:30
Satirical Legal Studies is a study by Peter Goodrich, written in 2005. It was published in Michigan Law Review. I wrote my essay with the purpose of analyzing the main points of this study because – as I know – it has not been translated or published in Hungarian yet.
Goodrich gives a comprehensive analysis of the history of the satirical genres, making comparisons, revealing the most important characteristics of these kind of writings. It is the function that distinguishes simple humour from satire and especially legal satire. Satire uses humour as a tool for pointing out to relevant legal matters that need to be changed, so it can easily be admitted that the purpose of satire is reform itself. It means also that the satirical tendencies in jurisprudence have always become stronger in times of need for reforms but we can state that independent of this satire has (more or less) always been present throughout the history of jurisprudence.
Satire has classical, antique traditions that show us the connections between satire and politics or literature. The literary vein of satire or legal satire is less radical than the other one which is in close connection with politics. The latter, more radical form is called Menippean satire and the style of it has always been a certain call for reforms, it always represented a certain social urge to change some relevant legal matters.
The study deals with the problems of metaphysical nonsenses in the territory of law, such as for example law would be God made, or it could be unchangeable. Satirical Legal Studies clearly states that these are all contradictional nonsenses. Besides this Satirical Legal Studies has always represented and fought against the social injustice and the injustice of legal institutions.
These main points guide us to the figure of the Bad Man, whom the author, Goodrich features as the immunological power of the society revealing all the serious social affairs waiting for an answer. Taking all these facts into consideration the Bad Man is not a tool for the idea of Bad, what’s more: he is or can be the cure for a society’s illness if the legal system does not ignore him and his voice at all because his decadence is only the decadence of the certain time and place that he is a part of. The role of satire is to face the legal system with the pure reality and needs in order to become adequately reactive.
Terhelti védekezések jogi és pszichológiai szempontú értékelése az adminisztratív csődbüntett körébőlMegtekintések száma:53
Psychology plays a main role in the criminal procedure, in which the people’s personality is very important to be investigated and known. The psychological methods started being used only in the 19th century. During the legal proceedings the authorities must deal with people. The behavior of the people is very different. The authorities must know the basic rules of the psychology to understand these different behaviors of accused people. The human memory has a lot of regularity. The knowledge of these regularities make easier the efforts of the authorities to get the truth. In the whole process of the investigation the most important fact to know is the personality of the person who committed the crime. When the suspected is being heard, different type of personalities can cause different final resumes. Therefore the importance of the psychological knowledge in the legal occupation is unquestionable.
Gondolatok a szerzői jogi törvény legújabb módosítása kapcsánMegtekintések száma:48
The Act LXXVI of 1999 on Copyright was amended by the Act CVLV of 2005 with effect of 15 April 2006 in compliance with the provisions of the Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on measures and procedures to ensure the enforcement of intellectual property rights (hereinafter: “Enforcement-Directive”). The Enforcement-Directive concerns the measures necessary to ensure the enforcement of intellectual property rights (copyrights, patent, trade marks, etc.). The Member States of the European Union had to provide for the proportionate measures and procedures needed to ensure the enforcement of intellectual property rights covered by the Enforcement-Directive. The amended and supplement provisions of the Hungarian Act on Copyright provide efficient shelter for the authors from the infringement of copyright law on the one hand and provide legal (procedural) guarantees for the potential infringers on the other hand.
There are some new provisions which can be applied against the infringers not only by final judgment but also as provisional and precautionary measures. When a judicial decision has been taken finding an infringement of copyright or neighbouring right, the judicial authorities may serve the infringer with an injunction aimed at prohibiting the continuation of the infringement. The judicial authorities can serve the alleged infringer, or the intermediary whose services are being used by a third party to infringe a right, with an interlocutory injunction intended to prevent any impending infringement of copyright or neighbouring right, or to forbid the continuation of the alleged infringements of copyright or neighbouring right, or to make such continuation subject to the lodging of guarantees intended to ensure the compensation of right holder. The judicial authorities can be empowered to require the applicant to provide any reasonably available evidence to their satisfaction with a sufficient degree of certainty that the applicant is the right holder and that the applicant’s right is being infringed or, that such infringement is imminent. The judicial authorities may order the publication or seizure of bank, financial or commercial documents. The judicial authorities may order the recall, at the infringer’s expense in appropriate cases, of the goods which have been found to infringe copyright or neighbouring right and may order that the goods which have been found to infringe the right, as well as the materials and implements used primarily for the creation or the manufacture of the goods in question, be disposed of outside the channels of commerce, without any compensation being due. It can be also ordered, that the decision be displayed and published in full or in part in the newspapers or in the internet designated by the right holder.
The most efficient protection against the usurpation can be satisfied by the parallel regulation of the civil and criminal law. The next steps to be done by the European Union are the criminal law provisions. Besides the regulations, consistent jurisdiction is necessary, in which the courts should play an important role.
Kölcsönhatásban az európai emberi jogvédelem legfobb nemzetközi letéteményesei – avagy milyen hatással van az Európai Bíróság az Emberi Jogok Európai Bíróságára?Megtekintések száma:31
Dieser Artikel beschäftigt sich mit der Frage, was für einen Einfluss der „junge“ Menschenrechtsschutz oder Grundrechtschutz der Europäischen Union, insbesondere der Europäische Gerichtshof und seine Rechtssprechung an den „grossen alten“, d.h. an das System des Europarates haben kann. Das Thema ist vielleicht nicht gerade uninteressant für die Länder die in beiden Systemen Mitglieder sind (also praktisch für alle Unionsmitglieder).
Nach einer kurzen Zusammenfassung der Grundrechtsgeschichte der Europäischen Gemeinschaften befassen wir uns mit der Frage der Auslegung, der abweichenden Interpretation der Gerichtshöfer in Luxembourg und in Strasbourg (Teil I). Der Artikel geht auf die Frage ein, ob es gerechtfertigt sei über Wechselwirkungen zwischen die Gerchtshöfer zu sprechen und was für Zeichen dessen sich in der Rechtssprechung der EuGH für Menschenrechte wiederspiegelt (Teil II). Später erörtern wir die Frage der Reformversuche (Teil III), wo wir uns insbesondere auf den Vorabentscheidungsvorschlag und den möglichen Beitritt der Europäischen Union zu der Europäischen Menschenrechtskonvention beschäftigen. Kurz befassen wir uns noch damit, ob die beiden sich mit Menschenrechtsschutz beschäftigenden Systeme berechtigt parallel neben einander existieren oder doch eine andere Möglichkeit besser das Ziel – den best möglichen Schutz der Menschenrechte in Europa – dienen würde.
Kelsen államelméletének alapjaiMegtekintések száma:33
Hans Kelsen was maybe the most famous philosopher of positivism. He became known from various theories that he made in the philosophy of law. Evolution was the characteristic feature of his scienfitic achievement. We can see this development for example in the theories 'origin of the state' and 'will of the state'.
In 1925 Kelsen made a resume of his theories. This was the "Allgemeine Staatsrechte", which was followed by the "Grundriss einer allgemeinen Theorie des Staates" (Basic rules of the theory of the state) in 1926, which was the shorter form of the previous resume. The following summary can be made of these studies:
Kelsen made a thorough and detailed examination of the science of law, and realized that the point of view juristical a sociological theories are mostly influenced by the political tendencies. He criticized the dual system of the law of the rules and the law of the individual and he did not make difference between law and state.
State is somehow the order of the human behaviour. State can be only mentioned as order, where human facts and human behaviour are in symphony. When the rules of the state are dominant, people observe its instructions, sometimes in spite of the different rules of nature. The will of the state doesn't mean all the will of every human being of the state, it's different, it means, that all the rules are made by the state are valid.
State is not only some kind of authority and a valid order, which is followed by people of the state, it is also effective. This effective means, that people of the state observe the instructions of the state, they act according to these instructions. The system of the rules don't make this effinence on its own, it is helped by the psychologically processes of human beings, that they are obedient to these rules.
Law and state exist when its authority is felt, and this authority can be felt only in case, when law and state exist. Validity means, that rules must be followed. Validity doesn't depend of efficiency (if it is regularly followed by people). Anyway, the rule which is followed by nobody is not valid, but there is no rule, which is followed by everybody. Permanency is not the prerequisite of validity.
We can draw up the following question: why seems to be different the act of the state to other type of acts. Every act of the state is committed by a human being, nevertheless we consider this act to the state. Kelsen says, that 'state' is a fixed point of special human acts. We can consider an act as natural or normative one. An act is natural, when it is caused by natural processes. But an act, when it is committed by a human, and the same time it is the manifestation of the state, it corresponds to the order of norms. Norms are rules, and if we follow them, our acts can be considered as a normative act.
State can be considered as a group of acts, which can be obtained by force. Obtaining is not the way of enforcing the law, it has got only preventive and deterrent function.
Kelsen sets up the formal an the material definition of the state itself, the definition of state organization, and makes difference of them. Formal state is a larger category, it means the order of law, and all the legal acts. Material state is a smaller category, it contains only some types of norms, like applying the law, and the rules of administration. Material state organization is also a smaller category than formal state organization. It means those acts which are used for obtaining, and also means the function of administration.
In his studies Kelsen criticized the dual system of the law of the rules and the law of the individual and he said, that law and state is the same. State is equal to all the rules of law, and makes them valid. That is why state can be regarded as law.