Везде
SEVERAL LEGAL QUESTIONS OF HUMAN BEING STATUS IN ANTENATAL PERIOD
Table of contents
Annotation Estimate Publication content
References Comments
Share
QR
Metrics
SEVERAL LEGAL QUESTIONS OF HUMAN BEING STATUS IN ANTENATAL PERIOD
Annotation
PII
S1026-94520000617-6-1
Publication type
Article
Status
Published
Authors
Oleg Salagai 
Edition
Issue 10
Pages
67-75
Abstract
Annotation: the article is focused on several legal questions of human being status in antenatal period of development. International law acts, foreign legislative documents and judicial practice which characterized existing views on antenatal status and embryon rights were studied by author. With regard to the undertaken analysis several proposals for Russian legislation betterment were made in the conclusion.
Keywords
comparative law, international law, embryon status, birth
Date of publication
01.10.2010
Number of purchasers
2
Views
939
Readers community rating
0.0 (0 votes)
Cite   Download pdf Download JATS

References



Additional sources and materials

1. Mezhdunarodnaya zaschita prav i svobod cheloveka. Sbornik dokumentov. M., 1990. S. 14-20.  
  
 2. Sbornik mezhdunarodnykh dogovorov SSSR. Vyp. XLVI. M., 1993.  
  
 3. Byulleten' Verkhovnogo Soveta RF. 1994. № 12.  
  
 4. Mezhdunarodnye akty o pravakh cheloveka. Sbornik dokumentov. M., 1998. S. 720-736.  
  
 5. Mejmanaliev A.S., Prokhorskas R. Nalichie dannykh po Tselyam razvitiya, sformulirovannym v Deklaratsii tysyacheletiya OON, v oblasti zdorov'ya v stranakh SNG // Vsemirnaya organizatsiya zdravookhraneniya. 2006.  
  
 6. Boso v. Italy (dec.), no. 50490/99, ECHR 2002-VII  
  
 7. Article 40.3.3, inserted by the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution Act, 1983.  
  
 8. Dietrich v. Inhabitants of Northampton, 138 Mass. 114, 114 (1884).  
  
 9. Bonbrest v. Kotz, 65 F. Supp. 138, 138 (D.C. 1946).  
  
 10. Smith v. Brennan, 157 A.2d 497, 497 (N.J. 1960).  
  
 11. Stallman v. Youngquist, 531 N.E.2d 355, 355 (Ill. 1988).  
  
 12. Nold v. Binyon, No. 94,292 (Kan. 09/21/2001).  
  
 13. Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113 (1973).  
  
 14. Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179, 188 (1973).  
  
 15. Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 492 U. S. 490 (1989).  
  
 16. BVerfG, 2 BvF 2/90 of 05/28/1993, para. No. (1-434).  
  
 17. Reshenie ot 11 oktyabrya 1974 g. Erk. Slg. № 7400 // Europaeische Grundrechtezeitschrift. 1975. P. 74.  
  
 18. Montreal Tramways Co. v. Léveillé (1933) 4 DLR 338.
  
 19. R. v. Morgentaler [1988] 1 S.C.R. 30  
  
 20. Tremblay v. Daigle [1989] 2 S.C.R. 530.  
  
 21. R. v. Sullivan [1991] 1 S.C.R. 489.  
  
 22. Dobson (Litigation Guardian of) v. Dobson [1999] 2 S.C.R. 753.  
  
 23. Law on Islamic Penalties 1991, Law No. 586 (na angl. yaz.) // International Labour Organisation (NATLEX database).  
  
 24. Zuhur S. Gender, sexuality and the criminal laws in the Middle East and North Africa: a comparative study. WWHR. 2005.  
  
 25. Diario de Republica, 91, 18.04.1998, 1714-1714.  
  
 26. Mikhajlova I.A. Grazhdanskaya pravosub'ektnost' fizicheskikh lits: problemy zakonodatel'stva, teorii i praktiki. Avtoref. diss.... doktora yurid. nauk. M., 2007.     
  
 27. Evans v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 6339/05, ECHR 2007-IV.  
  
 28. Journal official de la République francaise - Lois et Décrets, 1994, 100.  
  
 29. Boletin Oficial del Estado, 19, 22.01.1997, 32-43.  
  
 30. Davis v. Davis, 842 S.W.2d 588 (Tenn.), on reh'g in part, 1992 WL 341632 (Tenn. 1992).  
  
 31. Litowitz v. Litowitz, 146 Wash. 2d 514, 48 P.3d 261 (2002).

Comments

No posts found

Write a review
Translate