Adversarial Principle and Principle of Equality of Arms as a Subject of Adversarial Type of Criminal Proceeding
Abstract
The article concerns adversarial principle and principle of equality of arms as a subject of adversarial type of criminal proceedings. Adversariality, being complex legal phenomenon, also has its structure and system of features that includes: (1) functions of prosecution, defense and resolution of criminal cases are separated from each other and cannot be imposed on the same authority or the same official; (2) court is not an authority of persecution, it acts neither on the part of prosecution, nor on the part of defense. Court provides necessary conditions for parties’ execution of their procedural obligations and exercise of their granted rights. The prosecution and the defense are of equal rights to the court. The subject matter of adversarial system implies: presence of equal parties; separation of main procedural functions; presence of impartial arbitrator – the court that is aimed at resolution of procedural conflicts of parties. Exclusion of any of denoted elements would not only make the subject of considered principle incomplete, but also put in question the very possibility of its existence. So, modern criminal court is an active participator of proving procedure in all its aspects playing operational and control role in the present sphere of criminal procedural activity.
References
[2] Artz, B. 2012. Does the impact of union experience on job satisfaction differ by gender? Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 65(2): 225-243.
[3] Cheltsev, M.A. 1958. Inadmissibility of transfer of bourgeois schemes to Soviet criminal proceedings theory. All-union Correspondence Judicial Institute.
[4] D’Amours, M., and Bilodeau, P.-L. 2015. Fondements des relations industrielles. Montréal: Chenelière Éducation.
[5] Daev, V.G. 1974. Procedural functions and adversarial principle in criminal proceedings. Legal Science, 1: 71.
[6] Devinatz, V. 2013. Organizing workfare workers as contingent employees: lessons from the New York City ‘work experience program’ worker unionization campaign, 1996-1997. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 25(1): 1-21.
[7] Doucet, A., McKay, L., and Tremblay, D.-G. 2009. Parental Leave in Canada and Québec: how to explain the different routes taken? In: The Politics of Parental Leave Policies. Policy Press, 31-48.
[8] Dzhatieva, V. 1995. Prosecution and defense. Russian Justice, 2: 17.
[9] Efimichev, S.P. 2001. Provision of person’s rights, interests of society and state. Priority component of judicial and legal reform. Journal of Russian Law, 11: 41.
[10] Hodder, A. 2014. Organising young workers in the public and commercial services union. Industrial Relations Journal 45(2): 153-168.
[11] Hogler, R. 2015. Killing unions with culture: institutions, inequality, and the effects of Labor’s decline in the United States. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal 27(1): 63-79.
[12] Koni, A.F. 2000. Selected works and speeches. TLN.
[13] Larin, A.M., Melnikov, E.B., and Savitsky, V.M. 1997. Criminal proceeding in Russia. Science.
[14] Lepie, J. 2014. Is there a winning formula for union organizing? Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 26(2): 137-152.
[15] Mariupolsky, L.A. and Golst, G.R. 1963. Revisiting the procedural functions of investigator. Soviet State and Law, 6: 114.
[16] Moss, P., and Kamerman, S. 2009. Politics of Parental Leave Policies. Policy Press.
[17] Nazhimov, V.P. 1973. About criminally-remedial functions. Legal Science, 5: 77.
[18] Panko, N.K. 2000. Activity of lawyer in provision of adversariality. Science.
[19] Petrukhin, I.L. 2001. Critical proceedings reform: problems and prospects. Legislation, 3: 74.
[20] Rhéaume, J., Maranda, M.-F., and Saint-Jean, M. 2001. Réorganisation du travail et action syndicale: défis et paradoxes. Le travail et ses malentendus. PUL.
[21] Rhéaume, J., Maranda, M.-F., Deslauriers, J.-S., St-Arnaud, L., and Trudel L. 2008. Action syndicale, démocratie et santé mentale au travail. Nouvelles Pratiques Sociales, 20(2): 82-110.
[22] Rooks, D. 2003. The cowboy mentality: Organizers and occupational commitment in the new labor movement. Labor Studies Journal, 28(3): 33–62.
[23] Sarkar, S., and Charlwood, A. 2014. Do cultural differences explain differences in attitudes towards unions? Culture and attitudes towards unions among call centre workers in Britain and India. Industrial Relations Journal, 45(1): 56-76.
[24] Shestakova, S.D. 1998. Problems of adversariality in modern Russian criminal proceedings. PhD diss., St. Petersburg State University.
[25] Shestakova, S.D. 2001. Adversariality of Criminal Procedure. St. Petersburg State University.
[26] Shpilev, V.N. 1974. Subject and Forms of Criminal Proceedings. Minsk Publ.
[27] Smirnov, A.V. 2001. Adversary Procedure. St. Petersburg State University.
[28] Smirnov, V.P. 1998. Confrontation of parties as the subject matter of adversarial principle in criminal proceedings. State and Law, 3: 61.
[29] Smirnov, V.P. 1999. Division of general procedural functions and equality of the principles of criminal proceeding. Legal Science, 3: 177.
[30] Strand, G., and Skogseid, I. 2013. Management and employees’ collaboration: is the Norwegian work life model suited for all? Systemic Practice and Action Research, 26(1): 53-74.
[31] Strogovich, M.S. 1962. Adversariality and procedural functions in Soviet criminal proceedings. Legal Science 2: 107.
[32] Tremblay D.-G. 2012. Work-family balance; is the social economy sector more supportive and if so, is this because of a more democratic management? Review of Social Economy, 65(2): 200-232.
[33] Tremblay D.-G. 2015. Work-family balance for women lawyers today: a reality or still a dream? In Connerley, M.L. and Wu, J. 2016. Handbook on Well-Being of Working Women. The Netherlands: Springer and the International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies (ISQOLS).
[34] Tremblay, D.-G., and Mascova E. 2013. Les avocats, les avocates et la conciliation travail-famille, Éditions du Remue-Ménage.
[35] Tushev, A. 2003. Role of prosecutor in realization of adversarial principle in criminal proceeding. Russian Justice: 4: 33-34.
[36] Wharton, A.S., and Blair-Loy, M. 2002. The ‘overtime culture’ in a global corporation: a cross-national study of finance professionals’ interest in working part-time. Work and Occupations, 29: 32–64.
The Copyright Transfer Form to ASERS Publishing (The Publisher)
This form refers to the manuscript, which an author(s) was accepted for publication and was signed by all the authors.
The undersigned Author(s) of the above-mentioned Paper here transfer any and all copyright-rights in and to The Paper to The Publisher. The Author(s) warrants that The Paper is based on their original work and that the undersigned has the power and authority to make and execute this assignment. It is the author's responsibility to obtain written permission to quote material that has been previously published in any form. The Publisher recognizes the retained rights noted below and grants to the above authors and employers for whom the work performed royalty-free permission to reuse their materials below. Authors may reuse all or portions of the above Paper in other works, excepting the publication of the paper in the same form. Authors may reproduce or authorize others to reproduce the above Paper for the Author's personal use or for internal company use, provided that the source and The Publisher copyright notice are mentioned, that the copies are not used in any way that implies The Publisher endorsement of a product or service of an employer, and that the copies are not offered for sale as such. Authors are permitted to grant third party requests for reprinting, republishing or other types of reuse. The Authors may make limited distribution of all or portions of the above Paper prior to publication if they inform The Publisher of the nature and extent of such limited distribution prior there to. Authors retain all proprietary rights in any process, procedure, or article of manufacture described in The Paper. This agreement becomes null and void if and only if the above paper is not accepted and published by The Publisher, or is with drawn by the author(s) before acceptance by the Publisher.