The Specific Character of the “Unclean Hands” Doctrine and the Balance of Probabilities (Preponderance of Documents) Standard in the Russian and Foreign Legal Systems
 
More details
Hide details
1
Moscow State Pedagogical University, RUSSIA
2
Kutafin Moscow State Law University, RUSSIA
3
Moscow Region Arbitration Court, RUSSIA
4
Moscow Technological University, RUSSIA
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Natalia A. Sheiafetdinova   

Department of State History and Law, Moscow State Pedagogical University; Department of Legal Support of National Security, Moscow Technological University, Russia
Online publish date: 2017-10-20
Publish date: 2017-10-20
 
Eurasian J Anal Chem 2017;12(Interdisciplinary Perspective on Sciences 7b):1467–1474
KEYWORDS
ABSTRACT
The relevance of the study is due to the necessity of making more precise some points referred to the problem range of fairness of the judicial proceedings, in particular, to the “unclean hands” doctrine, as well as the balance of probabilities (preponderance of documents) standard. With regard to this, the paper is aimed at finding out the essence of these legal maxims that are widely used in the international and foreign legal practice but have failed to get widespread in the Russian law so far. The main method of the research is the technical legal one that allows finding out the legal specific character of the phenomena under consideration as applied to various legal systems. In order to obtain the most valid scientific results, in preparing the paper the general scientific methods (the dialectical one, the systemic one, analysis, synthesis, analogy, specialization, and generalization) as well as the special legal ones (the technical legal and the comparative legal one) were also used. The paper presents legal regulation of the “unclean hands” doctrine of law and the balance of probabilities (preponderance of documents) standard in the international law and in legislation of foreign countries and explores various scientific approaches to defining them. The material is not only of theoretical interest but it has also the practical value for improving the Russian procedural law.
 
REFERENCES (30)
1.
Belkin, A.R. (2015). Analysis of the concept “Witness immunity”. Herald of MSTU MIREA, 4(9)-1, 229-239.
 
2.
Hoeffe, O. (2007). Justice. A philosophical introduction. Moscow: Praksis.
 
3.
Prokofiev, A. V. (2009). The lesser evil and the “dirty hands” problem. Beresten, 1(3), 73–78.
 
4.
European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms dated 04.11.1950, as amended by Protocol No. 11. (1950). Retrieved April 29, 2017, from: http://conventions.coe.int/tre....
 
5.
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. (1966). Adopted by Resolution No. 2200 A (XXI) of the UN General Assembly on 16.12.1966. Retrieved April 29, 2017, from: http://www.un.org/ru/documents....
 
6.
Redmayne, M. (1999). Standards of Proof in Civil Litigation. The Modern Law Review, 62(2), 167–195.
 
7.
Fair judicial proceeding in the international law: a collection on law. (2013). Warsaw: OSCE Office on Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR).
 
8.
Llamzon, A. (2015). Yukos Universal Limited (Isle of Man) v. The Russian Federation. The State of the “Unclean Hands” Doctrine in International Investment Law: Yukos as both Omega and Alpha. ICSID Review, 30(2), 315–325.
 
9.
Herbert, A. P. (1935). Uncommon Law. London: Methuen Publishing.
 
10.
Ramcharan, B. (1982). Evidence. International Law and Fact-Finding in the Field of Human Rights. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 63–84.
 
11.
Kaye, D. (1982). The Limits of the Preponderance of the Evidence Standard: Justifiably Naked Statistical Evidence and Multiple Causation. American Bar Foundation Research Journal, 7(2), 487–516.
 
12.
Kaplow, L. (2011). Burden of proof. Cambridge: Harvard Law School.
 
13.
Wilkinson, S. (2011). Standards of Proof in International Humanitarian and Human Rights Fact-Finding and Inquiry Missions. Retrieved April 29, 2017, from: https://www.geneva-academy.ch/....
 
14.
Wright, R. W. (2011). Proving Causation: Probability versus Belief. Perspectives on Causation. Oxford: Bloomsbury Publishing, 195–220.
 
15.
Engel, C. (2008). Preponderance of the Evidence versus Intime Conviction: A Behavioural Perspective on a Conflict between American and Continental European Law. Bonn: Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods. Retrieved April 26, 2017, from: https://www.coll.mpg.de/pdf_da....
 
16.
International News Service v. Associated Press 248 U.S. 215 (1918). Heard on May 2 and 3, 1918. Resolved on December 23, 1918. Retrieved April 29, 2017, from: https://zakon.ru/blog/2015/4/1....
 
17.
Unclean hands Doctrine. Business Dictionary. (2017). Retrieved April 29, 2017, from: http://www.businessdictionary.....
 
18.
Doctrine of Unclean Hands in Labor Controversies (1930). Harvard Law Review, 43(7), 1120–1122.
 
19.
Morton Salt Co. v. G. S. Suppiger Co., 314 U.S. 488 (1942). U.S. Supreme Court. Argued December 10, 1941; Decided January 5, 1942. Decision of the US Supreme Court on the case of “Morton Salt Co. v. G. S. Suppiger Co.” of 1942. Retrieved April 28, 2017, from: https://supreme.justia.com/cas....
 
20.
Adler, D. & Co, S. Maglio, V. 198 Wis. 24, 228 N. W. 123. (1929). Decision of the Supreme Court of Wisconsin on the case of “David Adler & Sons Co. v. Maglio” of 1929. Retrieved April 23, 2017, from: https://www.wicourts.gov.
 
21.
ENF 2/OP 18: Evaluating Inadmissibility. (2015). Citizenship and Immigration Canada. Retrieved April 23, 2017, from: http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/r....
 
22.
Schweizer, M. (2013). The civil standard of proof – what is it, actually? Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods. Retrieved April 29, 2017, from: https://www.coll.mpg.de/pdf_da....
 
23.
Preponderance of the Evidence. (2017). US Legal. Retrieved April 28, 2017, from: https://courts.uslegal.com/bur....
 
24.
Demougin, D., & Fluet, C. (2002). Preponderance of Evidence. CIRANO-2002. Retrieved April 24, 2017, from: http://www.cirano.qc.ca/pdf/pu....
 
25.
In Re H and others (minors) (A.P.) (respondents) (14 December 1995). (1995). Retrieved April 27, 2017, from: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases....
 
26.
In re B (Children). (2008). Retrieved April 27, 2017, from: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases....
 
27.
Case “F.H. v. McDougall”. Decision of the Supreme Court of Canada of 2008 No. 32085. (2008). Retrieved April 22, 2017, from: https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-....
 
28.
Georgia Code. (2017). Retrieved April 27, 2017, from: https://www.lexisnexis.com/hot....
 
29.
Case “Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.” Decision of the U.S. Supreme Court No. 477 U.S. 242 of June 25, 1986. (1986). Retrieved April 22, 2017, from: https://supreme.justia.com/cas....
 
30.
Clermont, K. M. (2004). Standards of Proof in Japan and the United States. Cornell International Law Journal, 37(2), 263–284. Retrieved April 22, 2017, from: http://scholarship.law.cornell....
 
eISSN:1306-3057