Griswold v. Connecticut

The scientific article explores the influence of methods of protection of subjective civil rights on the dynamics of contractual binding legal relations. Scientific approaches to understanding the concepts of «protection» and «protection of civil rights» have been identified. Reference is made to the relevance of the concept of «protection of civil rights» as the application of a system of methods provided for by law aimed at «termination of violation, restoration or recognition of a civil right or compensation of damages caused to the entitled person». Features are described and the concept of ways to protect subjective civil rights is defined. The concepts of «means of protection» and «measures of protection» are distinguished. Special and general ways of civil rights are described. It is concluded that special ways of protecting civil rights are provided for in the legal rules governing specific legal relations, in particular with regard to contractual binding legal relations. It is determined that civil law grants every person the right to protection of his civil right in case of its violation, non-recognition or challenge. It is stated that certain types of contractual obligations apply means of protection, which are measures of liability. The relationship between «operational measures» and «methods of self-protection» has been studied, and it has been determined that operational measures are a form of self-protection methods, as they have a number of common features. It has been proven that any legal relationship is in the dynamics associated with legal facts from the moment of its occurrence to the moment of termination, which are mostly distant from each other in time and space. It is justified that both general and special ways of protecting civil rights are possible at the stage of the establishment of a contractual binding legal relationship. Along with the emergence of a legal relationship, the stages of change and termination of the legal relationship occupy a place.

Проблема создания в современном российском обществе собственной концепции защиты гражданских прав, в частности, зависит от инструментария правотворческого процесса. В статье обоснован тезис о том, что допустимо применение инструментария рецепции. Целесообразно рассматривать дозированное правовое заимствование, проводимое с учетом многочисленных обстоятельств, включая достижения отечественной правовой науки. Создание новой правовой нормы должно быть идейно наполненным, осуществляться профессионалами при наличии у них соответствующих полномочий (компетентными органами), опираться на достижения юридической техники национального права, а также учитывать более развитые правовые формы иностранных правовых систем государств, имеющих схожую правовую культуру. Особое внимание в статье уделено самому явлению рецепции в правовой сфере, представлено его определение. В статье дана оценка возможности рецепции для российского правопорядка по отношению к Республике Беларусь, Республике Казахстан и Китайской Народной Республике. Автором выбраны следующие критерии сопоставления: идентичность социокультурных и правовых систем, уровень правовой разработки института защиты гражданских прав, возможность усвоения (восприятия) российской системой права заимствованного материала в сфере защиты гражданских прав, мера заимствования, возможность модернизировать институт защиты гражданских прав России с учетом заимствования. Автором проведен сравнительный анализ содержания правовых норм гражданских кодексов перечисленных стран, посвященных способам защиты гражданских прав и прав личности, с аналогичными гражданско-правовыми нормами, содержащимися в ГК РФ. В заключении статьи сформулирован вывод о возможных перспективах по совершенствованию действующего российского гражданского законодательства с учетом опыта перечисленных зарубежных стран. The problem of creating in modern Russian society its own concept of civil rights protection, in particular, depends on the tools of the law-making process. The article substantiates the thesis that the use of reception tools is permissible. It is advisable to consider metered legal borrowing, carried out with account of numerous circumstances, including the achievements of domestic legal science. The creation of a new legal norm should be ideologically filled, carried out by professionals with the appropriate powers (competent authorities), based on the achievements of the legal technique of national law, and taking into account the more developed legal forms of foreign legal systems with a similar legal culture. The article pays special attention to the phenomenon of reception in the legal sphere, its definition is presented. The article assesses the possibility of reception for the Russian law and order in relation to the Republic of Belarus, the Republic of Kazakhstan and the People’s Republic of China. The author uses the following comparison criteria: the identity of socio-cultural and legal systems, the level of legal development of the institute for the protection of civil rights, the possibility of assimilation (perception) by the Russian legal system of borrowed material in the field of civil rights protection, the degree of borrowing, the possibility of modernizing the institute for the protection of civil rights of Russia with regard to borrowing. The author conducts a comparative analysis of the content of the legal norms of the civil codes of the listed countries in terms of the ways of protecting civil rights and individual rights, with similar civil law norms contained in the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. Finally, the article formulates a conclusion about possible prospects for improving the current Russian civil legislation, considering the experience of the listed foreign countries.

The ability of an authorized person to exercise their rights without restrictions can lead to arbitrariness, negatively impacting the stability and resilience of the civil law system, as well as the ability of other entities to exercise their property rights. This is unacceptable in a rule-of-law state. Therefore, in the context of a legal state, it is necessary to develop and establish an effective mechanism for limiting property rights, one that ensures a balance between the property interests of authorized persons and the opposing rights of other individuals and the interests of society. Such limitations should promote stability, the proper development of property rights for individuals, and their appropriate exercise. Restrictions on individuals’ property rights can prevent unlawful behavior for the sake of societal interests and the rights of other authorized persons. When setting limitations, the nature of subjective civil rights must be taken into account, as they are more fundamental and primary compared to restrictions. The essence of subjective civil rights, which are exercised at the discretion of the individual, must be preserved, provided that this does not contradict important societal interests or the rights of other authorized persons. At the same time, the fulfillment of private interests, which are prioritized, should be ensured as much as possible. To this end, when imposing restrictions on the property rights of individuals, it is essential to consider the phenomena and regularities in the development of property rights, as well as the interests of other individuals and society. This idea involves the necessity of proportionate restrictions on property rights, aiming for a sufficient level of limitation while maintaining the ability to exercise property rights, considering the rights of others and societal interests. The limitations on individuals’ property rights should be based on key principles such as proportionality, reasonableness, legality, and social orientation. The application of these fundamental ideas in legal regulation helps protect the rights of individuals and ensures their proper exercise in compliance with the rights of all subjects of civil law. A promising and practically significant approach to identifying the specific characteristics of restrictions on individuals’ property rights, according to Ukraine’s civil law system, is their classification within the major civil law institutions that govern property rights (property law, contract law, non-contractual obligations, and inheritance law). One of the prerequisites for establishing restrictions on individuals’ property rights is the public interest or societal necessity that justifies limiting an individual’s rights.

Let us keep in mind that the Mexican-American can easily become the front-line of defense of the civil liberties of ethnic minorities. The racial, cultural, and historical involvements in his case embrace those of all of the other minority groups. Yet, God bless the law, he is white! So, the Mexican-American can be the wedge for the broadening of civil liberties for others (who are not so fortunate as to be white and Christian!). George I. Sanchez (1958) By embracing whiteness, Americans have reinforced the color line that has denied people of African descent full participation in American democracy. In pursuing White rights, Americans combined Latin American racialism with Anglo racism, and in the process separated themselves and their political agenda from the Black civil rights struggles of the forties and fifties. Neil Foley (1998) (1) THE HISTORY OF RACE AND CIVIL RIGHTS IN THE AMERICAN SOUTH IS complex and exciting. The history of American civil rights is also promising, particularly so in regard to understanding the role of whiteness. Both selections above, the first from a American intellectual of the mid-twentieth century and the last a recently published statement from a historian of race and identity, are nominally about whiteness. But the historical actor and the historian discuss whiteness differently. The quotation from the 1950s advocates exploiting legal whiteness to obtain civil rights for both Americans and other minority groups. The one from the 1990s views such a strategy as inherently racist. The historical figure writes of Americans and African Americans cooperating in the pursuit of shared civil rights goals; the historian writes of the absence, the impossibility of cooperation due to American whiteness. This contrast is worth further consideration. This essay examines the American civil rights movement by focusing on the work and ideas of George I. Sanchez--a prominent activist and professor of education at the University of Texas--in the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s. Sanchez is the most significant intellectual of what is commonly referred to as the Mexican American Generation of activists during this period. As a national president of the major American civil rights organization of the era, however, Sanchez's political influence within the American community was just as important as his intellectual leadership. Sanchez pondered notions of whiteness and actively employed them, offering an excellent case study of the making of American civil rights. (2) First, this work examines how Sanchez's civil rights efforts were vitally informed by an ideological perspective that supported gradual, integrationist, liberal reform, a stance that grew out of his activist research on African Americans in the South, Americans in the Southwest, and Latin Americans in Mexico and Venezuela. This New Deal ideological inheritance shaped Sanchez's contention that Americans were one minority group among many needing governmental assistance. Second, this liberal ideology gave rise to a nettlesome citizenship dilemma. During the Great Depression and World War II, Americans' strategic emphasis on American citizenship rhetorically placed them shoulder-to-shoulder with other U.S. minority groups. It also marginalized immigrant Mexicans. The significance of citizenship was controversial within the American community and coincided with the emergence of an aggressive phase of Americans' civil rights litigation that implemented a legal strategy based on their whiteness. Third, Sanchez's correspondence with Thurgood Marshall of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) in the 1940s and 1950s reveals early, fragmentary connections between the American and African American civil rights movements. All these topics address important interpretive debates about the role of whiteness. …

Civil Rights: An American HistoryyBook Introduction

The paper examines the connection between online security and the protection of civil rights from a legal viewpoint, that is, considering the different types of rights and interests that are at stake in national and international law and whether, and to what extent, they concern matters of balancing. Over the past years, the purpose of several laws, and legislative drafts such as ACTA, has been to impose “zero-sum games”. In light of current statutes, such as HADOPI in France, or Digital Economy Act in UK, the paper intends to illustrate how more satisfactory solutions are feasible in the field of online security, such as the new “Police and Criminal Justice Data Protection Directive” that the European Commission presented in January 2012. At least in Western legal systems, it should be clear that either civil rights prevail over security (no balancing), or such balance has to satisfactorily protect individual rights (proportionality).

Clinician Perspectives on Ethics and COVID-19: Minding the Gap in Sexual and Reproductive Health.

Resisting “Law and Order” in California: Howard Moore Jr., Angela Davis, and the Politics of Prison Radicalism

As part of the study, examples of notarial actions were selected that demonstrate the legal role of a notary in the implementation and protection of civil rights and legitimate interests of individuals and legal entities, and a definition of legitimate interest was given. It is established that the notary is one of the forms of realization of the system of legitimate private interests, which are the basis of the subjective civil rights of individuals and legal entities. The author presents a classification of civil rights and legitimate interests of individuals and legal entities, depending on the need for a notary to participate in their implementation.

Class Struggle, Group Rights and Socialist Pluralism on the Lower East Side – Radical Lawyering and Constitutional Imagination in the Early Twentieth Century

<i>Forging Rivals: Race, Class, Law, and the Collapse of Postwar Liberalism</i> by Reuel Schiller

The article examines the peculiarities of self-defence as a form of protection of civil rights, in particular, under martial law. The author establishes that the Civil Code of Ukraine provides for various possibilities of protection of civil rights, among which scholars distinguish jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional forms of protection. It is found that jurisdictional forms of protection are specified in current legislation and are carried out by various bodies specially authorized by the State for this type of activity with a specific procedure inherent in each of them. Jurisdictional forms include judicial, administrative and notarial forms. The article shows that non-jurisdictional forms of civil rights protection do not have a clear legislative definition and allow for any actions which will contribute to the protection of the violated right or prevent such a violation. Self-defence of civil rights belongs to non-jurisdictional forms of protection and should be carried out with the use of countermeasures which are not prohibited by law and do not contradict the moral foundations of society. The author proves that the protection of civil rights in arbitration or international commercial arbitration can be classified as non-jurisdictional (alternative) ways of protecting civil rights only if the parties to arbitration (arbitration) proceedings voluntarily comply with the decisions of these non-state bodies. If a party to the conflict refuses to enforce an arbitral award or international commercial arbitration decision made in favour of the other party, jurisdictional remedies may be applied by the interested party applying to the court for recognition and enforcement of the international commercial arbitration award if its seat is outside Ukraine (Article 474 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine) or to issue a writ of execution to enforce an arbitral award (Article 483 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine). If such applications are subject to state coercion in the form of enforcement of arbitral awards or international commercial arbitration by the State Enforcement Service (Article 3 of the Law of Ukraine ‘On Enforcement Proceedings’), this form of protection cannot be considered self-defence, as in this case the activities of the judicial authorities and the State Enforcement Service, i.e. jurisdictional bodies, are carried out. The author suggests that in the time of war which our country is currently experiencing, the importance of self-defence as a legal opportunity to protect one’s civil rights without involving the assistance of state institutions is growing significantly. It is stated that self-defence is the least legally regulated form of civil rights protection and requires more detailed legal regulation.

The 1964 Supreme Court decision in New York Times v. Sullivan established the “actual malice” rule in libel law, requiring that in order to win a libel suit, a public official must show that a defamatory statement was false and that the speaker made the statement knowing that it was false or “with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.” Sullivan involved a libel suit brought by segregationist Alabama officials against the New York Times (“Times”) and leaders of the civil rights movement. Sullivan arose from sectional battles over civil rights and integration in the 1960s. An all-white jury awarded Sullivan $500,000. The purpose of the lawsuit was to attack the civil rights movement directly, and also indirectly, by stifling press coverage of civil rights protest activities. The Times and the civil rights leaders appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, claiming that Alabama’s strict libel laws, which were similar to most libel laws at the time, violated constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech. Sullivan has been memorialized as a case that was principally about the First Amendment. Even though observers at the time saw it as a “civil rights case,” Sullivan’s connections to the civil rights movement were lost over time. This Article tells the story of New York Times v. Sullivan as both a First Amendment story and as a “civil rights story.” Sullivan grew out of the civil rights movement and transformed the course of that movement. The Supreme Court’s efforts to assist the civil rights movement resulted in a decision that broadly protected the freedom to comment on government and public affairs. Situating Sullivan in its civil rights context not only complements our understanding of the ways that civil rights and freedom of speech have been intertwined in American history, but may also help to strengthen the image of Sullivan when the ruling is under assault. Many of the attacks on Sullivan are premised on Sullivan as a “press case,” one that primarily protects the institutional press. Sullivan is vulnerable in an era when the public’s opinion of the press is generally low. These attacks might be countered if the public were reminded that Sullivan not only protects the press but also individual dissenters and critics, as the history of Sullivan makes clear.

The article aims to investigate the issue of the mechanism of protection of civil rights and the differentiation of procedural forms of protection of the right to medical assistance. The article examines the existing doctrinal approaches to the definition of the concept of "protection of civil rights", "means", "forms", "methods of protection of civil rights" arising in the field of providing medical assistance and health care. The work states that the methods of protection of rights are actions provided for by law, which are directly aimed at the protection of rights. They are final acts of protection in the form of material and legal actions or jurisdictional actions, which are aimed at eliminating obstacles in the way of subjects exercising their rights (interests) or at stopping the offense, restoring the situation that existed before the offense. Instead, the form of protection characterizes the order of protection and constitutes a set of internally agreed measures for the protection of subjective rights and protected interests that take place within the limits of one legal regime. Emphasis is placed on the fact that in the field of health care, first of all, the patient has the right to independently determine, by means of which form to protect his rights, which, in his opinion, have been violated during the provision of medical care. It can be the application of various pre-trial procedures, administrative appeal or appeal to the court. The article analyzes the implementation of judicial, pre-judicial and administrative forms of protection of a person's medical right in the field of health care. It was concluded that the non-jurisdictional form of protection of the patient's rights is a form of protection, in the implementation of which the patient can independently choose self-defense measures that are not prohibited by law and correspond to the nature of the actions that violated his right, as well as the consequences caused by the offense.

This article analyzes the formation and protection of civil rights and duties based on the Concept of improving the civil legislation of the Republic of Uzbekistan, approved by the Decree of the President of the Republic of Uzbekistan No F-5464 dated April 5, 2019. It analyzes the legal nature of the decisions of the meeting as a basis for the formation of civil rights and duties, their place and essence as a legal fact based on foreign law, and substantiates proposals to include provisions on the decisions of the meeting in the new edition. The rules on the independence of civil rights from political rights were also analyzed in terms of their impact on the emergence of civil rights and duties, and the idea of including them in the new edition of the Civil Code was put forward. In addition, this article analyzes the issue of including in the FC the norm of the right of a person to the protection of his civil rights in case of violation, non-recognition, or conflict. In addition, the article examines the conditions, criteria, and limits of self-protection of the individual to the FC, and argues that the new requirements in this regard should be reflected in the legislation. The issue of defining the rules for the institution of lost profits in the protection of civil rights is also relevant today, and it is necessary to establish clear conditions for determining the existence and amount of lost profits. At the same time, the rules on compensation for damages caused by state bodies and officials in the protection of civil rights are also relevant today, as they are regulated on the basis of modern realities.