Object Of Legal Protection Research Articles

Ecological protection of agriculture through Serbia's legal regulations and judicial practice

Within the codification of Criminal law of Republic of Serbia, which was conducted in 2005, legal protection of agriculture was introduced into ecological delicti which were then emphasised by having them unified in the sole Head of the Criminal code as well as by partially aggravating penal policy. Certain criminal offences, which prior to the codification were a part of a different field of legal protection, are now listed in the ecological delicti catalogue, and that positions them, according to the number of listed deliciti, on a very high place in comparison to the other groups of criminal offences. Within the ecological delicti, there is a total of 18 (eighteen) offences, which are divided into 4 (four) groups depending on the object of legal protection. In this paper, besides the introductory conceptual defining the object of research, we described the normative arrangement of all the ecological delicti, within the agricultural protection, by researching their essential elements which include the capital and the qualified form of execution, perpetrators features, type of responsibility and penalty. Empirical research covers the four year period, more precisely the years 2009-2012, according to the parameters related to the number of adult persons accused for criminal offenses against the environment which are endangering agriculture, or the number of accused and convicted persons, shown globally and individually according to the structure criminal offenses. Furthermore the research includes the penal policy which refers to the already stated penalties, that is- jail sentences and their duration, and that also is depicted individually and globaly according to the criminal offences structure.

Legal protection of land from pollution

Situated in the study conducted in this paper, using the method of analysis of contents, induction and deduction, historical and legal dogmatic indicated that ecology as their object of legal protection has three global natural values: air, water, land, and atmosphere, hydrosphere and lithosphere as constituent elements of the biosphere. Land as a special natural product comprises a solid layer of the Earth that is specific to the biosphere. The importance of land from the perspective of sustainable development is multifaceted, especially when seen through its environmental, industrial, manufacturing, socio-economic, educational, scientific, cultural, historical and any other useful functions. Its most important function is to fertility and the ability to flora supplying water, oxygen and mineral substances. Natural processes that led to the creation of land argue the view that it belongs to the so-called renewable resources, but only if it's a man rational use and encourages their natural reproduction. In accordance with current legislation and categorization of land, this survey includes agricultural land. In this paper, we have opted for ecological and legal land protection as one of the most important natural resources whose quality and extent of a very significant impact on the environment as a whole. The introductory part of the paper included a terminological demarcation and specificity of the case study of environmental law, as well as the possible forms of soil pollution. Methodological framework of research, using the method of content analysis of existing domestic and international legal legislation, method comparison and synthesis were studied legal documents that protect the land from pollution.

Theoretical foundations of recognition of remote communication as an object of legal protection

The paper examines the main philosophical, sociological and legal concepts of vision remote communication as a subject of legal regulation as well as the method of application of public relations in the information society.

Taking Religion Seriously: On the Legal Relevance of Religious Self-Concepts

How can the law deal with religion in an adequate manner, if on one hand it must guarantee religion its status of autonomy and therefore cannot construct its own idea of religion, and on the other it needs to know the object of legal protection? The present paper scrutinizes one possible solution to this problem developed by the German Federal Constitutional Court. According to this judicial strategy, the law orients itself by referring to the relevance of religious self-concepts that are to a certain degree legally binding.

Data Screening of Muslim Sleepers Unconstitutional

Shocking news for police and intelligence agencies in Germany: the search for inland sleepers following the terrorist attacks in 2001 on the World Trade Centre in New York and the Pentagon was unconstitutional. Preventive data screening is incompatible with the fundamental right of informational self-determination according to Article 2 (I) in connection with Article 1 (I) of the Grundgesetz (GG - Basic Law). Since the ruling of the Bundesverfassungsgericht (BverfG - Federal Constitutional Court) of 4 April, 2006 (1 BvR 518/02), such numerous acquisition of data is not permitted unless a concrete threat to important objects of legal protection is existent.

The "utility" principle within the scope of forensic determination of blood kinship using serostatistics

A "realistic" prior probability is always based on case experience (Akten-a-priori). In serological opinions pertaining to parentage, the realistic prior probability is only one piece of information in the whole body of evidence before the judge and does not have any special significance per se. There is no such thing as a "neutral" prior probability. It either implies "ignorance," in which case it cannot be "information," or it must be taken in connection with the utility principle, in which case it is not a "probability." The utility principle is defined in law and cannot be expressed in figures. The utility principle takes effect only when the judge reaches a decision (on the basis of all the evidence before him). It determines the relative importance of the participant's objects of legal protection which are at issue in the case. The expert is bound to apply a neutral utility component, i.e., in a two-hypothesis case (the normal situation) the significance of both the null and the counter hypothesis must carry the same weight. A null and/or a counter hypothesis can combine several single hypotheses; the mean value of their frequencies is taken. As a rule, one should avoid using a "prior case probability" ("Akten-a-priori") when calculating a W value. An "expectation of error" should be as realistic as possible and hence be obtained using a "prior case probability."