Search results

Active legal regulations, judicial practice, and law-enforcement experience have been used as the research core.

The works by A. Atsupov and S. Baklanovskii, devoted to classification tasks, as a way of discovering system features of multiple conflicts, have served for the research’s theoretical foundation.

The basis of such classification, including the classification by the subject content, has been studied using the works by R. Kraakman, P. Davies, H. Hansmann, G. Hertig, K. Hopt, H. Kanda, and E. Rjck.

Inter- and outer-group conflicts as well as the dependence on the social structure have been investigated using the studies of L. Coser. The interrelation between the social structure, a conflict’s institutionalization, and defining the extents of its admissibility have been analyzed with the help of the works by B. Collins, N. Grachev, D. Rant, A. Inshakova, K. Frohnapfel, V. Letyayev, etc.

When defining a self-sufficient group of corporate conflicts by the primary content criteria, the research authors have relied on the works by V. Dolinskaya and V. Slesarev, devoted to the subject of the private law theory.

V. Yadov’s scientific research has helped state corporate conflicts’ goals in terms of their classification. Here we imply the research, pointing out that such conflicts will either directly or indirectly be connected with the property sphere.

The actions of corporate conflicts’ parties, which predetermine their classification by the correlation with lawful behavior, have been examined owing to the works of L. Coser.

The issue of corporate conflicts and economic relations’ criminalization by embezzling, seizure, and rearranging the property, which includes bankruptcy proceedings, has been studied by means of Yu. Borisov, V. Dolinskaya, and N. Kavelina’s works.

The works by A. Inshakova and V. Slesareva, devoted to the sources of law, have contributed to corporate conflicts’ classification study.

The interconnection between the completion stage of the corporate conflicts dynamics and their settlement has been investigated in the framework of justifying the classification, basing on the completion method, taking into account the scientific results, reflected in the works by A. Antsupov, A. Danelyan, V. Laptev, and A. Shipilov.

In the course of study, corporate conflicts’ classification by their consequences, which can either be destructive and constructive, the research authors have used the studies by R. Freeman, devoted to the stakeholders’ theory, their interests’ balance, and the ways of forming the business’s economic environment.

The normative basis of the research are the provisions of sectoral codified acts by: the Arbitration Procedural Code of the Russian Federation, the Civil Code of the Russian Federation and the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, as well as special federal laws – The Federal Law “On Joint Stock Companies” as of December 26, 1995, No. 208.

The empirical basis of this research relies on the of the Russian Federation’s Constitutional Court’s Resolution as of July 18, 2003, No.14-P “On the case of verifying the constitutionality of the provisions of Article 35 of the Federal Law “On Joint-Stock Companies,” Articles 61 and 69 of the Russian Federation Civil Code, Article 31 of the Russian Federation Tax Code, and Article 14 of the Russian Federation Arbitration Procedure Code; the Russian Federation Constitutional Court Provisions as of March 15, 2003, No.3-P “On the Case of Constitutionality Review of Article 278 Paragraph 2 and Article 279 of the Russian Federation Labour Code and para 2 of Paragraph 4 of the Article 69 of the “On Joint-Stock Companies” Federal Law.

The following general scientific and specific scientific methods have been applied in this chapter: observation, complex and multi-sectoral analysis, synthesis, analogy, comparison, explanation, justification, induction, deduction, reduction, elementarism, system approach, comparative law method, specific sociological studies, logical, statistic, and so on.

The 1922 Supreme Court anti-trust exemption awarded to organized baseball was quick to grasp the prerogatives of the emerging U.S. popular culture industries, and displays the anomalies of performance in the law. The trade and commerce in cultural performances yield contradictory opinions about the distinctions between the functions of work and play, as well as the properties of work and the performing arts. The interconnecting functions of a sport like organized baseball, as an industry, an art, and a popular cultural entertainment makes baseball a rich object for analysis in the perplexing historical puzzle of decentralized U.S. cultural policy.

Presented at the “Disarm! For a Climate of Peace,” meeting held on September 30 – October 3, 2016 in Berlin and organized by the International Peace Bureau.

This paper examines the labor policies of the United Typothetae of America (UTA) from its birth in 1887 through the late 1920s and argues that labor policy differences among its members (personified by two prominent New York City-based printing employers, Theodore DeVinne and Charles Francis) created a “house divided” that not only prevented it from creating and maintaining a unified labor policy but also ultimately led to its demise as an employers' association and reconstitution primarily as a trade association. It will do so by analyzing key episodes in the UTA's labor history to show how the two competing labor philosophies – DeVinne's absolute authority & independence and Francis's stability & order – interacted with industry conditions – intense price competition, a decentralized industry structure, proprietor autonomy, the relative power of unions, and economic conditions – to impact the UTA's labor policies and its institutional survival. The UTA's experience reveals the diversity of American employers' experiences as well as the challenges that they have faced when attempting to act collectively in the industrial relations arena. Moreover, recent IR research on employers' associations around the world also reveals that, as unions have declined in power, many also are shifting their focus away from labor relations to other member services.

The issue of employment status lies at the heart of much conflict in the gig economy, with many gig economy workers effectively excluded from statutory employment protection because of it. Establishing employment status continues to be the gateway to accessing most UK statutory employment rights, a fact which makes the exclusion of casual workers from much statutory protection seem arbitrary and unjust. Employment status has been historically determined by common law conceptions of the contract of employment. This creates particular difficulties for casual workers, who have typically had to prove a requirement to perform personal service and to show that the contract was based on mutual obligations in order to be recognised as employees. The advent of the gig economy has seen the concept of employment status evolve as courts and legislators have struggled to adapt to a more flexible labour market. Likewise, gig economy employers have gone to considerable lengths to try to circumvent the legal protections available to their workers. This chapter will examine the evolving role of common law doctrine in defining employment status and the emergence of the category of ‘worker’ as an definition of employment status for those who work in the gig economy. It will analyse prominent cases involving gig economy employers (such as Uber BV v Aslam) and explore how these cases have re-defined contractual doctrine. Finally, the chapter will analyse the Taylor Review (2017) and examine the viability of a conceptual uncoupling of statutory employment protection from contractual doctrine.

This chapter considers the school-to-prison pipeline (STPP) within the United States as a network of flows and feedback loops that connects the education and delinquency systems. This system is heavily biased to funnel students with disabilities, disproportionately from low-income minority families, away from productive educational outcomes through punitive, exclusionary, and restrictive measures that too often result in incarceration. Congress intended special education and disability rights laws to ameliorate injustice and ensure long-term positive outcomes for all students. Through a systems theory perspective, this chapter outlines key leverage points inherent in disability rights laws, which can and should be activated to interrupt and reverse the STPP. Many provisions within the law are overlooked or inadequately enacted within current educational practices. The authors present problem-solving strategies, rooted in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and other disability rights laws, for educators, juvenile justice advocates, and policymakers to use in order to reduce school exclusion and incarceration of vulnerable youth and to provide education opportunity for all students.