Protection Indicator in the Constitutions of the European Federations

Marina V.  Markhgeym; Alevtina E.  Novikova; Evgeniy E.  Tonkov; Alla N.  Gutorova; Aleksandr M.  Tsaliev

doi:10.6000/1929-4409.2020.09.282

Authors

Marina V. Markhgeym Belgorod State University, 85 Pobedy Street, Belgorod, 308015, Russia
Alevtina E. Novikova Southwest State University, 94, 50 Years of October Street, Kursk, 305040, Russia
Evgeniy E. Tonkov Southwest State University, 94, 50 Years of October Street, Kursk, 305040, Russia
Alla N. Gutorova Southwest State University, 94, 50 Years of October Street, Kursk, 305040, Russia
Aleksandr M. Tsaliev North Caucasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy (State Technological University), 44 Nikolaeva Street, Vladikavkaz, RSO-Alania, 362021, Russia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.6000/1929-4409.2020.09.282

Keywords:

Constitution, human rights, risk, human rights risk, protection.

Abstract

The article presents the results of a comparative legal analysis of the constitutions of European federal states (Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Germany, and Switzerland) with a view to identifying the norms that minimize human rights risks. The identification of such constitutional provisions is associated with the formalization of the protection of the human rights and freedoms, as well as its legal statuses and conditions. The research was based on a dialectical approach to the disclosure of legal phenomena and processes using general scientific (systematic and logical methods, analysis and synthesis) and specific scientific methods. The unity of the constitutional approach of the European federal states to formalize the judicial protection of the rights and freedoms of the individual (Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Germany, Switzerland) has been determined. The identification of such constitutional provisions are associated with the formalization of the protection of the human rights and freedoms, as well as its legal statuses and conditions. The Novelty of the study is carrying out the declared constitutional analysis of the defense was on the example of European federal states.

References

Askari, H., Iqbal, Z., Krichene, N., & Mirakhor, A. (2012). Risk sharing in finance: The Islamic finance alternative. John Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119199328 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119199328

Butko, L. V., Markhgeym, M. V., Novikova, A. E., Pozharova, L. A., & Tonkov, E. E. (2017). Personal Dignity in the European Legal Culture. Journal of History Culture and Art Research, 6(4), 296-303. https://doi.org/10.7596/taksad.v6i4.1174 DOI: https://doi.org/10.7596/taksad.v6i4.1174

Cardenas, S. (2003). Emerging global actors: The United Nations and national human rights institutions. Global Governance, 9(1), 23-42.

Habashi, J., Wright, L., & Hathcoat, J. D. (2012). Patterns of human development indicators across constitutional analysis of children’s rights to protection, provision, and participation. Social indicators research, 105(1), 63-73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-010-9763-8 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-010-9763-8

Harwood, V. J., Levine, A. D., Scott, T. M., Chivukula, V., Lukasik, J., Farrah, S. R., & Rose, J. B. (2005). Validity of the indicator organism paradigm for pathogen reduction in reclaimed water and public health protection. Applied and environmental microbiology, 71(6), 3163-3170. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.71.6.3163-3170.2005 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.71.6.3163-3170.2005

High Commissioner for Human Rights United Nations. (2010). National human rights institutions: history, principles, roles and responsibilities. UN.

Kornyushkina, A. Y., Markhgeym, M. V., Novikova, A. E., Doronina, O. G. N., & Zajcev, S. Y. (2017). Minimization of human rights risks: the constitutional legal experience of post-soviet states. Turkish online journal of design art and communication, 7, 352-356.

Kuksin, I. N., Tonkov, E. E., Safronova, E. V., Vasekina, E. M., & Shabalina, E. I. (2017). The constitutional experience of consolidation the human rights function of the state in the post-soviet space. Turkish Online Journal of Design Art and Communication, 7, 303-308.

Lyudmila, O. L., Alevtina, E. N., Azamat, M. S., Lyudmila, A. T., & Vassiliy, A. Z. (2018). Formalization of Guarantees of Human and Civil Rights and Freedoms in the Constitutions of the Commonwealth of Independent States. Helix, 8(5), 3682-3685. https://doi.org/10.29042/2018-3682-3685 DOI: https://doi.org/10.29042/2018-3682-3685

Makogon, B. V., Markhgeym, M. V., Minasyan, A. A., Nincieva, T. M., & Novikova, A. E. (2019). Legal form of action: the issues of content and methodology. 402-409.

Makogon, B. V., Nikulin, M. I., Samsonov, V. N., Sorokoletova, M. A., & Tovstukha, O. O. (2017). Objectives and Principles of Administrative Proceedings: Doctrinal Ideas and Legislative Wordings of the Eastern European Countries. Journal of Politics and Law, 10(4), 221. https://doi.org/10.5539/jpl.v10n4p221 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5539/jpl.v10n4p221

Makogon, B. V., Savel’eva, I. V., Lyahkova, A. I., Parshina, A. A., & Emel’anov, A. S. (2017). Interpretation of legal responsibility as a universal instrument of procedural legal restrictions. Turkish Online Journal of Design Art and Communication, 7, 328-332.

Pierson, P., & Schickler, E. (2020). Madison's Constitution under Stress: A Developmental Analysis of Political Polarization. Annual Review of Political Science, 23, 37-58. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-050718-033629 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-050718-033629

Shapiro, S., & Glicksman, R. (2002). Risk regulation at risk: restoring a pragmatic approach. Stanford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9780804779180

Sunstein, C. R. (2002). Risk and reason: Safety, law, and the environment. Cambridge University Press.

Thorpe, D. H. (1994). Evaluating child protection. Open University Press.