Диссертация (1155724), страница 38
Текст из файла (страница 38)
1133–1145.149. Тарибо Е.В. Конституционная проверка законодательства обадминистративных правонарушениях: актуальные проблемы // Журналконституционного правосудия. 2014. № 5. С. 32–38.150. Тимошина Е.В., Краевский А.А., Салмин Д.Н. Методологиясудебного толкования: инструменты взвешивания в ситуации конкуренцииправ человека // Вестник Санкт-Петербургского университета. Право. 2015.Вып. 3. C. 4–34.151. Тимошина Е.В.
Проблема юстициабельности прав человека вситуациях их конкуренции и принцип пропорциональности // ВестникРоссийского университета дружбы народов. Серия: Юридические науки.2017. Т. 21. № 4. C. 464–485.152. ТолстыхВ.Л.Конституционноеправосудиеипринциппропорциональности // Российское правосудие. 2009. № 12 (44). С. 47–56.185153. Троицкая А.А. Пределы прав и абсолютные права: за рамкамипринципапропорциональности?ТеоретическиевопросыипрактикаКонституционного суда РФ // Сравнительное конституционное обозрение.2015.
№ 2 (105). С. 45–69.154. Цакиракис С. Пропорциональность: посягательство на правачеловека? // Сравнительное конституционное обозрение. 2011. № 2 (81). С.47–66.155. ШаблинскийИ.ДискриминацияВИЧ-инфицированныхиностранцев в России: позиция Европейского Суда по правам человека:Комментарий к постановлениям ЕСПЧ от 8 и 15 марта 2016 года (жалобы №46280/14, 75781/14 и другие) // Международное правосудие. 2017.
№ 2 (22).С. 3–16.156. Шаганян А.М. Понятие ограничений прав и свобод человека игражданинавРоссийскойФедерации//Юридическаянаукаиправоохранительная практика. 2010. № 4(14). С. 4–9.157. Aleinikoff T. A. Constitutional Law in the Age of Balancing // TheYale Law Journal. 1987. Vol. 96. No. 5. P. 943–1005.158. Alexy R. The Construction of Constitutional Rights. // Law & Ethics ofHuman Rights. 2010. Vol.4. Iss. 1.
P. 21–32.159. AndreescuM.PrinciplesofProportionalityContributionsofPhilosophy and Juridical Doctrines // Fiat Iustitia 2015. No. 1. P. 19–38.160. Auby J-B. L'influence du droit européen sur les catégories juridiquesdu droit public // Informations sociales. 2013/1.
No. 175. P. 60–68.161. Baker R.B. Proportionality in the Criminal Law: The DifferingAmerican versus Canadian Approaches to Punishment // Miami Inter-AmericanLaw Review. 2008. Vol. 39. Iss. 3. P. 483–502.162. Bernal-Pulido C. The Migration of Proportionality across Europe //New Zealand Journal of Public and International Law. 2013. Vol. 11. Iss. 3. P.483–515.186163. Blankenagel A. Gentechnologie und Menschenwürde.
Über dieStrapazierung von juristischem Sachverstand und gesundem Menschenverstandanläßlich eines ernsten Themas // Kritische Justiz. 1987. Vol. 20. Heft 4. S. 379–393.164. Braibant G. Le principe de la proportionnalité (de la sanction à la faute)// Mélanges offerts à Marcel Waline. Le juge et le droit public. Paris: L. G. D. J.,1974. P. 297–306.165. Cianciardo J. The Principle of Proportionality: The Challenges ofHuman Rights // Journal of Civil Law Studies. 2010.
Vol. 3. No. 1. P. 177–186.166. Daci J. Legal Principles, Legal Values and Legal Norms: are they thesame or different? // Academicus International Scientific Journal, EntrepreneurshipTraining Center Albania. 2010. Iss. 2. P. 109–115.167. Duncan K. A Transnational Genealogy of Proportionality in PrivateLaw // The Foundations of European Private Law / Ed. by R. Brownsword, H.-W.Micklitz, L. Niglia, S. Weatherill.
Oxford; Portland: Hart Publishing, 2011. P.185–220.168. Endicott T. Proportionality and Incommensurability // Proportionalityand the Rule of Law: Rights, Justification, Reasoning / Ed. by G. Huscroft, B.W.Miller, G. Webber. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014. P.
311–342.169. Engle E. The History of the General Principle of Proportionality: AnOverview. Dartmouth Law Journal. 2012. Vol. 10. Iss. 1. P. 1–11.170. Faigman D.L. Madisonian Balancing: A Theory of ConstitutionalAdjudication // Northwestern University Law Review. 1994. Vol. 88. No. 2. P.641–694.171. Gottlieb S.E. The Paradox of Balancing Significant Interests // HastingsLaw Journal. 1994. Vol. 45. Iss. 4.
P. 825 – 866.172. Grimm D. Proportionality in Canadian and German ConstitutionalJurisprudence // University of Toronto Law Journal. 2007. Vol. 57. Iss. 2. P. 383–397.187173. Gross O., Ní Aoláin F. From Discretion to Scrutiny: Revisiting theApplication of the Margin of Appreciation Doctrine in the Context of Article 15 ofthe European Convention on Human Rights // Human Rights Quarterly. 2001. Vol.23. P. 625 – 629.174.
Ienilieieva A.Е. Basic Approaches to the History of the Principle ofProportionality // Ученые записки Таврического национального университетаим. В. И. Вернадского Серия «Юридические науки». 2013. № 2-1 (Ч. 1). C.10–16.175. Johansen А. A Process of Civilisation? Legitimisation of ViolentPolicing in Prussian and French Police Manuals and Instructions, 1880–1914 //European Review of History – Revue europe´enne d’Histoire. 2007. Vol.
14. No.1. P. 49–71.176. Lacey N. The Metaphor of Proportionality // Journal of law and society.2016. Vol. 43. Iss. 1. P. 27–44.177. Lacey N., Pickard H. The Chimera of Proportionality: InstitutionalisingLimits on Punishment in Contemporary Social and Political Systems // ModernLaw Review. 2015. Vol. 78.
Iss. 2. P. 216–240.178. Ledford K.F. Formalizing the Rule of Law in Prussia: The SupremeAdministrative Law Court, 1876-1914 // Central European History. 2004. Vol. 37.No. 2. P. 203–224.179. Lillich R.B. The Paris Minimum Standards of Human Rights Norms ina State of Emergency // The American Journal of International Law. 1985.
Vol. 79.P. 1070–1085.180. Lüdtke A. Polizeiverständnis preußischer Polizeihandbücher im 19.Jahrhundert // Wissenschaft und Recht der Verwaltung seit dem Ancien Régim.Europäische Ansichten. Hg. Erk Volkmar Heyen. Frankfurt am Main, 1984. S.307–346.188181. McGoldrick D.
The Interface between Public Emergency Powers andInternational Law // International Journal of Constitutional Law. 2004. Vol. 2. Iss.2. P. 380–429.182. McFadden P.M. The Balancing Test // Boston College Law Review.1988. Vol. 29. No 3. P. 585–656.183. Millen P. Interpretation of the Eighth Amendment – Rummel, Solem,and the Venerable Case of Weems v. United States // Duke Law Journal.
1984.Vol. 1984. No. 4. P. 789–804.184. Mulligan W.H. Cruel and Unusual Punishments: The ProportionalityRule // Fordham Law Review. 1979. Vol. 47. Iss. 5. P. 639–650.185. Ní Aoláin F. The Individual Right of Access to Justice in Times ofCrisis: Emergencies, Armed Conflict, and Terrorism // Access to Justice as aHuman Right / Ed. by F. Francioni. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007. P.139–191.186. Panomariovas A., Egidijus L. Proportionality: from the Concept to theProcedure // Jurisprudence. 2010.
No 2. P. 257–272.187. Pati R. Rights and Their Limits: The Constitution for Europe inInternational and Comparative Legal Perspective // Berkeley Journal ofInternational Law. 2005. Vol. 23. Iss. 1. P. 224–280.188. Poole T. Proportionality in Perspective // New Zealand Law Review.2010. No. 2. P. 369–391.189. Popelier P., Van De Heyning C. Procedural Rationality: Giving Teethto the Proportionality Analysis // European Constitutional Law Review. 2013. Vol.9. Iss. 2. P. 230–262.190.
Porat I. The Dual Model of Balancing: A Model for the Proper Scopeof Balancing in Constitutional Law // Cardozo Law Review. 2006. Vol. 27. No 3.P. 1393–1448.191. Pozsár-Szentmiklósy Z. The Formal and Substantive Functions of thePrinciple of Proportionality // Acta Juridica Hungarica. 2015. Vol. 56. Iss. 2–3. P.191–198.189192. Raymond M. “No Fellow in American Legislation”: Weems v.
UnitedStates and the Doctrine of Proportionality // Vermont Law Review. 2006. Vol. 30.No. 2. P. 251–301.193. Lillich R. B. The Paris Minimum Standards of Human Rights Norms ina State of Emergency // The American Journal of International Law. 1985. Vol. 79.P. 1072–1081.194. Ristroph А. Proportionality as a Principle of Limited Government //Duke Law Journal.
2005. Vol. 55. No. 2. P. 263–331.195. Rivers J. Proportionality and Discretion in International and EuropeanLaw // Transnational Constitutionalism / Ed. by N. Tsagourias. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 2007. P. 107–133.196. RomeroL.M.PunitiveDamages,CriminalPunishment,andProportionality: the Importance of Legislative Limits // Connecticut Law Review.2008. Vol. 41.
No. 1. P. 109–160.197. Scalia A. The Rule of Law as a Law of Rules // The University ofChicago Law Review. 1989. Vol. 56. No 4. P. 1175–1188.198. Schlink B. Proportionality (1) // The Oxford Handbook ofComparative Constitutional Law / ed. by M. Rosenfeld, A. Sajó. Oxford : OxfordUniversity Press, 2012. P. 719–737.199. Schlink B.
Proportionality in Constitutional Law: Why Everywhere ButHere? // Duke Journal of Comparative and International Law. 2010. Vol. 22. No. 2.P. 291–302.200. Stolleis M. Judicial Review, Administrative Review, and ConstitutionalReview in the Weimar Republic // Ratio juris. 2003.
Vol. 16. Iss. 2. P. 266–280.201. Stone Sweet A., Mathews J. Proportionality, Balancing and GlobalConstitutionalism // Columbia Journal of Transnational Law. 2009. Vol. 47. No. 1.P. 68–149.202. Urbina F.J. A Critique of Proportionality // The American Journal ofJurisprudence. 2012. Vol. 57. Iss. 1. P. 49–80.190203. Weinrib L.E. The Postwar Paradigm and American Exceptionalism //The Migration of Constitutional Ideas / Ed. by S.
Choudhry. Cambridge, NewYork, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore, São Paulo: CambridgeUniversity Press, 2006. P. 84–112.204. Yutaka A.T. Proportionality // The Oxford Handbook of InternationalHuman Rights La w/ Ed. by D. Shelton. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. P.446–468.Диссертации и авторефераты диссертаций205. Анисимова Н.В. Принцип субсидиарности в европейском праве:дис. … канд. юрид. наук. М., 2005. – 173 с.206. АрендаренкоА.В.Общеправовойпринципсоциальнойсправедливости и его реализация в современном уголовном праве России:дис. … д-ра юрид.
![](https://s.studizba.com/z.php?f=/templates/si/i/noavatar.png&w=100&h=100&t=1"){kind=avatar}
