Vol. 17 No. 1(44) (2026)

DOI: https://doi.org/10.46991/
Published: 2026-06-05

Full Issue

Civil Procedure

  • Civil Procedure

    Application of Interim Measures of Protection of Rights in Proceedings for Reversal of Execution of a Judicial Act

    Vahe Hovhannisyan, Anahit Antonyan
    View PDF
    Abstract

    In the article, the authors comprehensively examined the need for the application of interim measures of protection of rights during the proceedings for the reversal of the execution of a judicial act. The article substantiates that the court ensures the resolution of the issue of reversal of the execution of a judicial act based not on the private interest of one of the parties in this case, but on the public interest, namely that the Court is obliged to ensure the proper implementation of the mechanisms provided for the realization of the fundamental rights of a person defined in Articles 61 and 63 of the Constitution. Based on the above, the authors concluded that the court, based on the peculiarities of the proceedings for the reversal of the execution of a judicial act and having the duty to ensure the realization of the person's right to judicial protection and a fair trial, is not only obliged to reverse the judicial act on its own initiative, but also to ensure the execution of its own judicial act. The authors substantiated that, in order to ensure the execution of the judicial act, within the framework of the proceedings for the reversal of the execution of the judgment, the court should first apply such measures of protection of the right that are necessary to achieve the final goal of the proceedings.


    The article analyzes in detail the interim measures of protection of rights, the cases of their application and the initiators, also comparing them with the measures of securing the claim. The institute of ensuring the execution of the judgment within the framework of the proceedings under discussion was also analyzed. In the light of legal practice, legislative regulations and the conducted analyses, the authors proposed to provide regulations in the Civil Procedure Code that relate to interim measures of protection of rights in the proceedings for the reversal of the execution of the judgment and their application.

    References

    «Դատական ակտերի հարկադիր կատարման մասին» ՀՀ օրենք [«Datakan akteri harkadir

    katarman masin» HH orenqʿ]։

    Բուրդովն ընդդեմ Ռուսաստանի գործով Մարդու իրավունքների եվրոպական դատարանի

    07.05.2002 թվականի վճիռը [Burdovn ənddem Rossii gorcov Mardu iravunkʿneri evropakan

    datarani 07.05.2002 tʿvakani včʿiṛə]։

    Եվրոպայի խորհրդի «Ժողովրդավարություն՝ իրավունքի միջոցով» եվրոպական

    հանձնաժողովի 18.03.2016 թվականին ընդունած «Իրավունքի գերակայության հսկիչ ցանկ»։

    [Council of Europe-i «Žoġovrdavarutʿyun՝ iravunkʿi mijocov» evropakan hanjnajoġovi 18.03.2016

    tʿvakani əndunaç «Iravunkʿi gerakayutʿyan hskič cank»]։

    Կոլոցցան ընդդեմ Իտալիայի՝ «Colozza v. Italy» թիվ 9024/80 գանգատով Եվրոպական

    դատարանի 12.02.1985 թվականի վճիռը [Koloccan ənddem Italiayi «Colozza v. Italy» tʿiv

    9024/80 gangatov Evropakan datarani 12.02.1985 tʿvakani včʿiṛə]։

    ՀՀ Սահմանադրություն [HH Sahmanadrutʿyun]։

    Հովհաննիսյան Վ. Հայցի ապահովման քաղաքացիադատավարական կառուցակարգի

    սուբյեկտային շրջանակը որոշելու հիմնախնդիրները ՀՀ-ում // «Բանբեր Երևանի

    համալսարանի. Իրավագիտություն», 2022, № 1 [Hovhannisyan V. Hayci apahovman

    kʿaġakʿaciadātavarakan kaucakargi subyektayin šrjanak orošelu himnaxndirner HH-um //

    «Banber Yerevan State University-i. Iravagitutʿyun», 2022, № 1]։

    Հովհաննիսյան Վ. Սուբյեկտիվ իրավունքների և օրինական շահերի պաշտպանության

    քաղաքացիադատավարական կառուցակարգերի զարգացման հիմնախնդիրները

    Հայաստանի Հանրապետությունում // «Բանբեր Երևանի համալսարանի. Իրավագի-

    տություն», 2019, № 3 (30) [Hovhannisyan V. Subyektiv iravunkʿneri yev orinakan šaheṛi

    paštpanutʿyan kʿaġakʿaciadātavarakan kaucakargeri zargacman himnaxndirner Hayastani

    Hanrapetutʿyunum // «Banber Yerevan State University-i. Iravagitutʿyun», 2019, № 3 (30)]։

    Հորնսբին ընդդեմ Հունաստանի գործով Մարդու իրավունքների եվրոպական դատարանի

    19.03.1997 թվականի վճիռ [Hornsbin ənddem Hunastani gorcov Mardu iravunkʿneri evropakan

    datarani 19.03.1997 tʿvakani včʿiṛ]։

    Մեղրյան Ս. Հայցի ապահովումը քաղաքացիական դատավարությունում, Եր․ , ԵՊՀ հրատ․ ,

    2020 [Meġryan S. Hayci apahovumə kʿaġakʿaciakan datavarutʿyunum, Er., Yerevan State

    University hrat., 2020]։

    Ուզունիսը և մյուսներն ընդդեմ Հունաստանի՝ «Ouzounis and others v. Greece» թիվ 49144/99

    գանգատով Եվրոպական դատարանի 18042002 թվականի վճիռը, կետ 21 [Uzunisə yev

    myusnern ənddem Hunastani «Ouzounis and others v. Greece» tʿiv 49144/99 gangatov Evropakan

    datarani 18.04.2002 tʿvakani včʿiṛə, ket 21]։

    Պապամիկալոպոպուլոսն ընդդեմ Հունաստանի՝ Papamichalopopuulos v. Greece գործով Մարդու

    իրավունքների եվրոպական դատարանի 31.10.1995 թվականի վճիռ [Papamikalopopulosn

    nddem Hunastani «Papamichalopopuulos v. Greece» gorcov Mardu iravunkʿneri evropakan

    datarani 31.10.1995 tʿvakani včʿiṛ]։

    Սահմանադրական դատարանի 28.06.2013 թվականի ՍԴՈ-1102 որոշում [Constitutional Court of

    Armenia-i 28.06.2013 tʿvakani SDO-1102 orošum։

    ՎԴ2/0111/05/21 վարչական գործով Վճռաբեկ դատարանի 12.06.2025 թվականի որոշումը

    VD2/0111/05/21 varčakan gorcov Court of Cassation of Armenia-i 12.06.2025 tʿvakani orošumə]։

    Վճռաբեկ դատարանի՝ թիվ 2-4247/2004 քաղաքացիական գործով 04.10.2013 թվականի

    որոշումը [Court of Cassation of Armenia-i՝ tʿiv 2-4247/2004 kʿaġakʿaciakan gorcov 04.10.2013 tʿvakani

    orošumə]։

    Վճռաբեկ դատարանի՝ թիվ ԵԿԴ/0479/02/14 քաղաքացիական 07.10.2022 թվականի որոշումը

    [Court of Cassation of Armenia-i՝ tʿiv EKD/0479/02/14 kʿaġakʿaciakan 07.10.2022 tʿvakani orošumə]։

    Քաղաքացիական դատավարության օրենսգիրք [Kʿaġakʿaciakan datavarutʿyan orensgirkʿ]։

  • Civil Procedure

    The Preclusive and Conclusive Effects of Prosecutor’s and Investigator’s Decisions on Termination of Criminal Prosecution and Dismissal of Criminal Proceedings in Criminal and Civil Procedures

    Tigran Markosyan, Artur Ghambaryan
    View PDF
    Abstract

    This paper is devoted to the analysis of the intra-branch effects and interbranch effects within the framework of civil proceedings of prosecutors’ and investigators’ decisions on the termination of criminal prosecution and dismissal of criminal proceedings at the pre-trial stage, as well as issues related to the use of criminal case materials as evidence in civil proceedings.


    Based on theoretical sources, legislation, and judicial practice, the paper examines the interrelationship between the concepts of preclusive effect, conclusive effect, res judicata, and non bis in idem. It identifies the preclusive nature of decisions on the termination of criminal prosecution and dismissal of criminal proceedings and substantiates the absence of their conclusive effect in both criminal and civil proceedings.


    Particular attention is given to the possibility of using the aforementioned decisions, as well as other materials of criminal proceedings, as evidence in civil litigation and to the limits of their evidentiary admissibility and probative value.


    Based on the conducted research, the authors present several theoretical and practical conclusions that may serve as guidance for clarifying the limits of interaction between criminal and civil proceedings, determining the boundaries of evidentiary value of criminal case materials, and contributing to the further development of judicial practice.

    References

    Hayastani Hanrapetut‘yan k‘reakan datavarut‘yan orensgirk‘. Yndunvel e 30.06.2021t‘., uzhi mej mtel

    e 01.07.2022t‘.: Miasnakan kayk‘ 2021.07.26-2021.08.08.

    Hayastani Hanrapetut‘yan k‘aghak‘atsiakan datavarut‘yan orensgirk‘. Yndunvel e 09.02.2018t‘., uzhi

    mej mtel e 09.04.2018t‘.: HHPT 2018.03.05/16(1374) Hod. 208.

    Hayastani Hanrapetut‘yan vardchakan datavarut‘yan orensgirk‘. Yndunvel e 05.12.2013t‘., uzhi mej

    mtel e 07.01.2014t‘.: HHPT 2013.12.28/73(1013).1 Hod. 1186.1.

    Sahmanadrakan datarani 2015 t‘vakani dektemberi 1-i SDO-1238 voroshumy.

    Sahmanadrakan datarani 2019 t‘vakani septemberi 4-i SDO-1476 voroshumy.

    Sahmanadrakan datarani 2025 t‘vakani mayisi 20-i SDO-1782 voroshumy.

    Vchrrabek datarani t‘iv EED/0126/13/11 k‘reakan gortsov 2013 t‘vakani p‘etrvari 15-i voroshumy,

    Vchrrabek datarani t‘iv EED/0030/01/12 k‘reakan gortsov 2014 t‘vakani hoktemberi 31-i voroshumy,

    Vchrrabek datarani t‘iv SD3/0080/01/12 k‘reakan gortsov 2014 t‘vakani hoktemberi 31-i voroshumy.

    Vchrrabek datarani t‘iv EAND/1097/02/10 k‘aghak‘atsiakan gortsov 2012 t‘vakani marti 23-i

    voroshumy.

    Vchrrabek datarani t‘iv GD4/0491/02/09 k‘aghak‘atsiakan gortsov 2012 t‘vakani hoktemberi 19-i

    voroshumy.

    Vchrrabek datarani t‘iv 2-3/2004 k‘aghak‘atsiakan gortsov 2012 t‘vakani hoktemberi 19-I voroshumy.

    Vchrrabek datarani t‘iv EAQD/1747/02/12 k‘aghak‘atsiakan gortsov 2015 t‘vakani aprili 30-i

    voroshumy.

    Vchrrabek datarani t‘iv EAND/1788/02/12 k‘aghak‘atsiakan gortsov 2022 t‘vakani septemberi 30-i

    voroshumy.

    Vchrrabek datarani t‘iv ARAD/0093/02/09 k‘aghak‘atsiakan gortsov 2010 t‘vakani aprili 22-i

    voroshumy.

    Vchrrabek datarani t‘iv ESHD/0448/02/11 k‘aghak‘atsiakan gortsov 2012 t‘vakani dektemberi 25-i

    voroshumy.

    Vchrrabek datarani t‘iv AVD1/0381/02/11 k‘aghak‘atsiakan gortsov 2012 t‘vakani dektemberi 25-i

    voroshumy.

    Vchrrabek datarani t‘iv EAQD/0132/02/11 k‘aghak‘atsiakan gortsov 2013 t‘vakani noyemberi 29-i

    voroshumy.

    Vchrrabek datarani t‘iv ESHD/1342/02/11 k‘aghak‘atsiakan gortsov 2014 t‘vakani hulisi 18-i

    voroshumy.

    Vchrrabek datarani t‘iv EAQD/1328/02/12 k‘aghak‘atsiakan gortsov 2015 t‘vakani noyemberi 27-i

    voroshumy.

    Vchrrabek datarani t‘iv ARD1/1063/02/15 k‘aghak‘atsiakan gortsov 2018 t‘vakani aprili 7-i

    voroshumy.

    Vchrrabek datarani t‘iv SnD/1294/04/21 snankut‘yan gortsov 2024 t‘vakani hulisi 4-i voroshumy.

    Simon Michelle S. “Offensive Issue Preclusion in the Criminal Context: Two Steps Forward, One Step

    Back.” Mem. L. Rev. 753, 2004.

    Sibileva Yu.E. “O sovremennykh nauchnykh podkhodakh k ponyatiyu preyuditsii.” Yuridicheskaya

    nauka i praktika: Vestnik Nizhegorodskoi akademii MVD Rossii.

    Shcherba S.P., Chashchina I.V. Preyuditsiya v ugolovnom protsesse Rossii i zarubezhnykh stran.

    Moscow: Yurlitinform, 2013.

    Chashchina I.V. “Preyuditsii v ugolovnom protsesse: ponyatie i znachenie.” Vestnik Universiteta

    prokuratury Rossiiskoi Federatsii, 2009.

    Meghryan S.G. Arajin at‘yani datarani datakan akteri iravabanakan bnuyty ev vorakakan kayunut‘yan

    apahovman himnakhndirnery k‘aghak‘atsiakan datavarut‘yunum. YSU Press, Yerevan, 2020.

    Sharipova A.R. Kontseptual’nye osnovy mezhotraslevoi konvergentsii v sudebnom proizvodstve po

    ugolovnym delam: monografiya. Moscow: Prospekt, 2023.

    Dosudebnoe proizvodstvo po ugolovno-protsessual’nomu zakonodatel’stvu Rossiiskoi Federatsii i

    inykh gosudarstv-chlenov SNG: ucheb. posobie / pod red. A.V. Grinenko. Moscow: Yurlitinform,

    2019.

    Sharipova A.R. “Preyuditsiya v mekhanizme konvergentsii protsessual’nykh otraslei (na primere

    proizvodstva po ugolovnym delam o nalogovykh prestupleniyakh).” Vestnik Saratovskoi

    gosudarstvennoi yuridicheskoi akademii, 2021.

    Ghambaryan A. “Hantsakitsneri meghadrankneri p‘okhazdets‘ut‘yuny` datavarakan akteri bats‘arogh

    bnuyti (preclusion) u nakhadateliut‘yan (praejudicium) hamatekstum.” Orinakanut’yun, 2017, No.

    97.

    Meghryan S.G. Apats‘utsumy ev apats‘uytsnery Hayastani Hanrapetut‘yan k‘aghak‘atsiakan

    datavarut‘yunum. Ardaradatut‘yan akademia, Yerevan, 2020.

    https://adilet.zan.kz/rus/docs/S2400000047

Theory of State and Law

  • Theory of State and Law

    Law-Making Technique in the Context of Legal Technique

    Sergey Kocharyan
    View PDF
    Abstract

    The purpose of this study is to identify the semantic differences between the terms “legal technique”, “law-making technique” and “legislative technique”, and to substantiate the existence of “lawmaking technique” as a separate type of legal technique.


    Legal technique encompasses not only legal practice but also other areas of legal practice.
    Generally, it encompasses the rules, techniques, and methods of preparing, drafting, and executing legal documents, and includes both legal practice technique and legislative technique.


    To achieve this goal, the article examines various approaches to their understanding in the theoretical literature, the main issues of distinguishing legal technique into types and subtypes, which made it possible to identify subtypes of law-making technique.

    References

    Նազարյան Վ․ Օրենսդրական տեխնիկայի տարրական կանոնները, Երևան, 1999 թ., 131 էջ։

    [Nazaryan V. Orensdrakan te[nikaji tarrakan kanwnnery, Yerevan, 1999 t., s. 131].

    Քոչարյան Ս․ Իրավաբանական տեխնիկայի և օրենսդրական տեխնիկայի հարաբերակ-

    ցությունը, ԵՊՀ իրավագիտության ֆակուլտետի պրոֆեսորադասախոսական կազմի

    գիտաժողովի նյութերի ժողովածու / Գլխ․ խմբ․ Գ․ Ս․ Ղազինյան․ - Եր․։ ԵՊՀ հր․,

    2012, 608 էջ։ [Kocharyan S. Iravabanakan texnikayi yev orensdrakan texnikayiharaberakcutyuny. EPH iravagitutyan fakulteti profesoradasaxosakan kazmi gitajoghovi

    nyuteri jwghovacu / Glx. Xmb. G. S. Ghazinyan. – Yer.: Eph, 2012, s. 608].

    Vozniak I․ Legislative drafting technique as a factor of guaranteeing the rule of low, Visegrad

    Journal on Human Rights, № 3, 2025, p. 94-99, DOI: https://doi.org/10.61345/1339-

    7915.2025.3.15։

    Алексеев С. С. Общая теория права։ учебник – 2-ое изд., - М.։ Проспект, 2009, с. 576. [Alekseev

    S. S. Obshaya teoriya prava: uchebnik. – 2-e izd., pererb. i dop. – M.: Prospekt, 2009, s. 576].

    Венгеров А. Б. Теория государства и права։ учеб. для юрид. вузов. – 4-е изд., стер. – Москва։

    Омега-Л, 2007, с. 528. [Vengerov A. B. Teoria gosudarstva i prava: ucheb/ dlya yurid. vuzov. –

    4-e izd., ster. – Moskva: Omega-L, 2007, s. 528].

    Карташов В. Н. Юридическая техника, тактика, стратегия, технология (к вопросу о

    соотношении) / В кн.: Проблемы юридической техники. Т. 1. – Н. Новгород, 2000, с. 547.

    [Kartashov V. N. Teoriya pravovoy sistemi obshestva. V 2 t. T. 1. – Yaroslavl: YarGu, 2005, s.

    547].

    Кашанина Т. В. Юридическая техника․ - М. Эксмо, 2007, с. 512. [Kashanina T. V.

    Yuridicheskaya texnika: uchebnik. – M.: Eksmo, 2007, s. 512].

    Кокориков Д․ В․ Содержание понятия «правотворческая техника», его научная новизна и

    ценность․ Общество и право․ 2011, № 2 (34), 55-60 էջեր

    file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/soderzhanie-ponyatiya-pravotvorcheskaya-tehnika-egonauchnaya-

    novizna-i-tsennost.pdf. [Kokorikov D. V. Soderjanie ponyatiya “pravotvorcheskoy

    texniki”, ego nauchnaya novizna i cennost. Obshestvo i pravo. 2011, № 2 (34), s. 55-60

    file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/soderzhanie-ponyatiya-pravotvorcheskaya-tehnika-egonauchnaya-

    novizna-i-tsennost.pdf].

    Кругликов Л. Л., Спиридонова О.Е. Юридические конструкции и символы в уголовном

    праве. СПб.: Издательство Р. Асланова «Юридический центр Пресс», 2005, с. 336․

    [Kruglikov L. L., Spirilonov O. E. Yuridicheskie konstrukcii i simvoli v ugolovnom prave. SPb.:

    Izdatelstvo R. Aslanova «Yuridicheskiy centr Press», 2005, s. 336].

    Лызлов Д. Н., Картухин В. Ю. Юридическая техника: учебное пособие. – М.: Ось-89, 2009, с.

    174. [Lizlov D. N., Kartuxin V. Yu. Yuridicheskaya texnika: uchebnoe posobie. - M.: Os-89,

    2009, s. 174].

    Мухаев Р. Т. Теория государства и права։ Учебник. – М.: Юрист, 2006, с. 572. [Muxayev R. T.

    Teoria gosudarstva i prava: Uchebnik. – M.: Yurist, 2006, s. 572].

    Проблемы теории государства и права։ учебник / под ред. В. М. Сырых․ М., 2008, с. 528.

    [Problemi teorii gosudarstva i prava: uchebnik / pod red. V. M. Sirix. M.. 2008, s. 528].

    Пьянов Н. А. Теория государства и права: учеб. пособие. В 2 ч. Ч. 2. Теория права. – Иркутск:

    Изд-во Иркут. гос. ун-та, 2011, с. 300. [Pyanov N. A. Teoria gosudarstva i prava: ucheb.

    posobie. V 2 ch. Ch. 2. Teoria prava. – Irkutsk: Izd-vo Irkut. gos. un-ta, 2011, s. 300].

    Соловьев О. Г. Преступления в сфере налогообложения (ст. 194, 198, 199 УК РФ): проблемы

    юридической техники и дифференциации ответственности: автореф. дис. … канд. юрид.

    наук. Казань, 2002, с. 18․ [Solovyov O. G. Prestuplenia v sfere nalogooblojenia (st. 194, 198, 199

    UK RF): problem yuridicheskoy texniki i differenciacii otvestvennosti: avtoref. dis. … kand. yurid.

    nauk. Kazan, 2002, s. 18].

    Соловьев Օ․ Г., Санташов А. Л. Дискуссионные вопросы определения видов юридической

    техники в теории права. Юридическая наука. 2013, № 4, 35-38,

    https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/diskussionnye-voprosy-opredeleniya-vidov-yuridicheskoytehniki-

    v-teorii-prava/viewer․ [Solovyov O. G., Santashov A. L. Disskusionnie voprosi

    opredeleniya vidov yuridicheskoy texniki v teorii prava. Yuridicheskaya nauka. 2013, № 4, 35-38, https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/diskussionnye-voprosy-opredeleniya-vidov-yuridicheskoytehniki-

    v-teorii-prava/viewer].

    Суслин Э. В. Юридическая техника: учебное пособие. – СПб, СЮА, 2017, с. 336. [Suslin E. V.

    Yuridicheskaya texnika: uchebnoe posobie. – SPb, SYuA, 2017, s. 336].

    Теория государства и права: учеб. для вузов / под ред. М. М. Рассолова, В. О. Лучина, Б. С.

    Эбзеева. М.: Юнити-Дана, 2000, с. 640. [Teoria gosudarstva i prava: ucheb. dlya vuzov / pod

    red. M. M. Rassalova, V. O. Luchina, B. S. Ebzaeeva. M.։ Yuniti-Dana, 2000, s. 640].

    Томин В. А. Юридическая техника: учебное пособие. – 2-е изд., перераб. и доп. – СПб, Санкт-

    Петербургский юридический институт (филиал) Академии Генеральной прокуратуры

    Российской Федерации, 2015, с. 84. [Tomin V. A. Yuridicheskaya texnika: uchebnoe posobie

    – 2-e izd., pererab. i dop. - SPb, Sankt-Peterburgskiy yuridicheskiy institute (filial) Akademii

    Generalnoy prakuraturi Rossiyskoy Federacii, 2015, p. 84].

    Черданцев А. Ф. Теория государства и права: Учебник для вузов. - М.։ Юрайт-М, 2002, с. 432.

    [Cherdancev A. F. Teoria gosudarstva i prava: Uchebnik dlya vuzov. – M.: Yurayt-m, 2002, s.

    432].

    Яловенко Т. В. Юридическая техника: учебное пособие. – Волгоград: ВА МВД России, 2022,

    с. 88. [Yakovenko T. V. Yuridicheskaya texnika: uchebnoe posobie. – Volgograd: VA MVD

    Rossii, 2022, s. 88].

  • Theory of State and Law

    John Rawls’s Theory of “Justice as Fairness” as the Foundation of Lawmaking

    Meline Sahradyan
    View PDF
    Abstract

    This paper analyzes John Rawls’s theory of Justice as Fairness, considering it as a normative standard for evaluating public governance and legal systems. The study argues that formal legality and administrative efficiency, in themselves, do not guarantee justice. The methodological approach of the “veil of ignorance” makes it possible to formulate legal norms that are impartial and equally acceptable to all, regardless of social position or individual circumstances.

    The 2015 constitutional amendments of the Republic of Armenia, particularly the institution of the “stable majority,” are examined in light of Rawlsian theory, revealing challenges related to political participation and institutional balance.

    It is concluded that the legitimacy of public authority requires a shift from formal legality to substantive justice, ensuring equal opportunities, accountability, and institutional transparency.

     

    References

    Ամիրյան Կ. Պետական իշխանության հանրային իրավական պատասխանատվությունը

    ժամանակակից իրավունքում և դրա կենսագործման հիմնախնդիրները, ի.գ.թ. գիտա-

    կան աստիճանի հայցման համար ատենախոսություն, ԵՊՀ, 2017 [Amiryan K. Petakan

    išxanutʿyan hanrayin iravakan patasxanatvutʿyunə žamanakakic iravunkʿum yev dra kensagorcm

    an himnaxndirnerə, i.g.tʿ. gitakan astiçani haycman hamar atenaxosutʿyun, Yerevan State

    University, 2017]։

    Դանիելյան Գ. Բ., Այվազյան Վ. Ա., Մանասյան Ա. Ա. Սահմանադրական բարեփոխումների

    հայեցակարգի դրույթները և դրանց իրացման հիմնական ուղղությունները

    Հայաստանում. Գիտագործնական հետազոտություն. ԱՊՀ ՄԽՎ երևանյան

    մասնաճյուղ, 2015 [Danielyan G. B., Ayvazyan V. A., Manasyan A. A. Sahmanadrakan

    barepoxumnerri hayecakargi druytʿnerə yev dranc iracman himnakan uġġutʿyunnerə Hayastanum.

    Gitagorcakan hetazotutʿyun. CIS Interparliamentary Assembly Yerevan Branch, 2015]։

    ՀՀ Սահմանադրություն (2015) [HH Sahmanadrutʿyun (2015)]։

    Bentham Jeremy. An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. 1780. A New Edition,

    Corrected by the Author, Published 1823. Early Modern Texts, 2017.

    https://www.earlymoderntexts.com/assets/pdfs/bentham1780.pdf.

    Kelsen Hans. General Theory of Law and State. Harvard University Press, 1945.

    Rawls John. A Theory of Justice. Revised Edition. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1999,

    n.d.

    Peterdy Kyle. A Theory of Justice. Corporate Finance Institute, 2020.

    https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/esg/a-theory-of-justice/.

    In E. N. Zalta & U. Nodelman (Eds.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (2023). Original

    Position. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2024 Edition).

    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/original-position/

    Арендаренко А. В. Основные Современные Подходы к Понятию Социальной Справедливости в

    Теории Права. Право и Управление. XXI Век. 2, no. 11 (2009): 21–29 [Arendarenko A. V.

    Osnovnye Sovremennye Podxody k Ponyatiyu Socialʹnoj Spravedlivosti v Teorii Prava. Pravo i

    Upravlenie. XXI Vek. 2, no. 11 (2009): 21–29].

    Оганесян, А. К. Этическая Мысль: Науч.-Публицист. Чтения; Равенство и Справедливость

    (Концепции Д. Роулса и Д. Белла). 1990; Политиздат, n.d. [Oganesyan, A. K. Etičeskaya Myslʹ:

    Nauč.-Publicist. Čteniya; Ravenstvo i Spravedlivostʹ (Koncepcii D. Roulsa i D. Bella). 1990;

    Politizdat, n.d.].

    Савсерис О. А. Проблема справедливости в концепции Дж. Роулза: социально-философский

    анализ. Кандидат философских наук, Чита, 2007 [Savseris O. A. Problema spravedlivosti v

    koncepcii Dž. Roulza: socialʹno-filosofskij analiz. Kandidat filosofskix nauk, Čita, 2007].

    Хоффе О. Политика. Право. Справедливость. Основоположения критической философии права

    и государства. Гнозис, 1994 [Hoffe O. Politika. Pravo. Spravedlivostʹ. Osnovopoloženiya

    kritičeskoj filosofii prava i gosudarstva. Gnozis, 1994].

International Law

  • International Law

    Legal Nature of Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights and Specifics of Their Implementation

    Stepan Kartashyan
    View PDF
    Abstract

    This article analyzes the legal nature of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights and the specifics of their execution within the conventional human rights system. It demonstrates that judgments of the ECHR have a dual legal nature: on the one hand, they are binding inter partes for the respondent state, while on the other, they form authoritative standards of interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights for all member states (res interpretata). The article examines the main forms of implementation of ECHR judgments in national legal systems, including individual and general measures of execution, as well as the mechanism of international supervision of their execution, carried out by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. It concludes that the ECHR's practice has a significant impact on the development of national legal systems and contributes to the formation of pan-European standards for the protection of human rights.

    References

    Оганесян В.А. Актуальные проблемы международного права в контексте изменяющегося

    мирового порядка // European and Asian Law Review. 2023. № 3. стр. 29–50.

    Asatryan A. "The Re-Opening of Judicial Proceedings in the Armenian Law and Practice Following

    the Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights" // Proceedings of YSU. Jurisprudence.

    2023. № 2. pp. 106–107.

    Barbera, Messegue and Jabardo v. Spain, Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, 6

    December 1988.

    Broniowski v. Poland, Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, 22 June 2004.

    Cançado Trindade A.A. The Access of Individuals to International Justice. Oxford: Oxford University

    Press, 2011, pp. 45–52.

    Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, adopted 4 Nov. 1950,

    entered into force on 3 Sept. 1953.

    Council of Europe, Committee of Ministers. Supervision of the Execution of Judgments and Decisions

    of the European

    Court of Human Rights: Annual Report 2023. Strasbourg: Council of Europe, 2024.

    De Salvia M. Compendium of the Case-law of the European Court of Human Rights. The Hague:

    Kluwer Law International, 2001, pp. 863–865.

    Guide for the Drafting of Action Plans and Reports for the Execution of Judgments of the European

    Court of Human Rights. Strasbourg: Department for the Execution of Judgments of the ECtHR,

    2015.

    Harris D., O’Boyle M., Bates E., Buckley C. Law of the European Convention on Human Rights. 4th

    ed., Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018, pp. 38–40.

    Hirst v. the United Kingdom (No. 2), Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, 6 October

    2005.

    Ilgar Mammadov v. Azerbaijan (infringement proceedings), Judgment of the Grand Chamber of the

    European Court of Human Rights, 29 May 2019.

    Kavala v. Türkiye, Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, 10 December 2019.

    Lambert-Abdelgawad E. The Execution of Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. Council

    of Europe Publishing, 2008, pp. 13–25. Leach P. Taking a Case to the European Court of Human Rights. 3rd ed., Oxford University Press,

    2012, pp. 83–106.

    Letsas G. A Theory of Interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights. Oxford University

    Press, 2007, pp. 71–75.

    Mowbray A. Cases, Materials and Commentary on the European Convention on Human Rights. 3rd ed.,

    Oxford University Press, 2012, pp. 26–30.

    Oleksandr Volkov v. Ukraine, Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, 9 January 2013.

    Papamichalopoulos and Others v. Greece, Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, 31

    October 1995.

    Protocol No. 11 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms,

    restructuring the control machinery established thereby (Strasbourg, 11 May 1994), entered into

    force on 1 November 1998.

    Protocol No. 14 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms

    (Strasbourg, 13 May 2004), entered into force on 1 June 2010.

    Scordino v. Italy (No. 1), Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, 29 March 2006.

    Scozzari and Giunta v. Italy, Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, 13 July 2000.

    Sedrakyan A. "The Strategic Perspective for the Execution of Judgments of the European Court of

    Human Rights" // Proceedings of YSU. Jurisprudence. 2023. № 2. pp. 11–12.

    Spielmann D., Stone Sweet A. "The European Court of Human Rights: The Institutionalization of

    Subsidiarity". Human Rights Law Review, 2014, pp. 1–17.

    Stone Sweet A., Keller H. A Europe of Rights: The Impact of the ECHR on National Legal Systems.

    Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008, pp. 12–15.

    Sudre F. Droit européen et international des droits de l’homme. 11e éd., Presses Universitaires de

    France, 2016, pp. 157–160.

    Torreggiani and Others v. Italy, Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, 8 January 2013.

    Tyrer v. United Kingdom, Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, 25 April 1978.

    Wildhaber L. The European Court of Human Rights 1998–2006: History, Achievements, Reform.

    N.P. Engel Verlag, 2007, pp. 45–52.

CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS

  • CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS

    The Problem of Using the Results of Operational-Intelligent Activities Carried Out for the Purpose of Detecting Crime in the Criminal Judiciary of the RA

    Karen Amiryan
    View PDF
    Abstract

    The purpose of the article is to analyze the issue of using the results of operational-investigative activities carried out for the purpose of revealing a crime in the criminal proceedings of the Republic of Armenia. The legal norms are such that often both the investigating authorities and the prosecutor's office, as well as the court interpret them in different ways.

    This refers to a certain contradiction between Part 3 of Article 96 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Armenia and Article 4 of the Law “On Operative-Investigative Activities”.

    In other words, the article aims to present a problem that has arisen or may arise in legal practice. In this regard, the article is also relevant, since the approaches presented may be of interest to students, lawyers, law enforcement officers, and judges.

    References

    ՀՀ քրեական դատավարության օրենսգիրք՝ ընդունված 2021 թվականի հունիսի 30-ին (HH qreakan datavarutyan orensgirk, yndunvats 2021 tvakan hunsisi 30-in)։

    «Նորմատիվ իրավական ակտերի մասին» ՀՀ օրենք՝ ընդունված 2018 թ․ մարտի 21-ին (Normativ-iravakan akteri masin hh orenq yndunvats 2018t. marti 21-in)։

    «Օպերատիվ–հետախուզական գործունեության մասին» ՀՀ օրենք՝ ընդունված 2007 թ․ հոկտեմբերի 22-ին («Operativ-hetakhuzakan gortzuneutyan masin» HH orenk yndunvats 2007.t hoktemberi 22-in)։

Civil Law

  • Civil Law

    Artificial Intelligence in the Military Beyond Laws: Conceptual Clarifications and a Functional Approach

    Tatevik Davtyan
    View PDF
    Abstract

    Debates about “lethal autonomous weapon systems” (LAWS) and so-called “killer robots” have dominated legal and ethical discussions of military artificial intelligence in recent years. Yet contemporary military AI capabilities extend well beyond autonomous weapons, encompassing intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR), command-and-control decision support, cyber operations, logistics, and training. This article maps how “autonomy” and “military AI” have been framed in policy, law, and ethics, and proposes a functional framework aligned with current military practice and emerging AI-enabled operations. It first situates today’s autonomy discourse within a longer trajectory of military automation and delegated control. It then shows how academic and strategic literature has expanded from a LAWS-centered lens toward broader conceptions of algorithmic warfare and AI-enabled defense. Building on this evolution, the article presents a three-axis framework organized by (i) purpose of use, (ii) type of effects, and (iii) role in the decision chain, alongside working definitions of autonomous weapon systems (AWS) and LAWS. It concludes that structuring legal, ethical, and policy analysis around functions, effects, and control modalities—rather than labels alone—better captures the spectrum of military AI and supports coherent governance.

    References

    Anderson K., Waxman M.C., Law and Ethics for Autonomous Weapon Systems: Why a Ban Won’t

    Work and How the Laws of War Can, 2013.

    Anneken M. et al., Ethical Considerations for the Military Use of Artificial Intelligence in Visual

    Reconnaissance, arXiv, 2025.

    Arkin R.C., Lethal Autonomous Systems and the Plight of the Noncombatant, 2013.

    Asaro P., On Banning Autonomous Weapon Systems: Human Rights, Automation, and the

    Dehumanization of Lethal Decision-Making, International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 94, 2012,

    pp. 687–709.

    Beard J.M., Autonomous Weapons and Human Responsibilities, Georgetown Journal of International

    Law, Vol. 45, 2014, pp. 617–681.

    Bhuta N. et al., Autonomous Weapons and International Law, 2016.

    Blom J.A., Unmanned Aerial Systems: A Historical Perspective, Combat Studies Institute Press, 2010.

    Bode I., Practice-Based and Public-Deliberative Normativity: Retaining Human Control over the Use

    of Force, European Journal of International Relations, Vol. 29, 2023, pp. 753–776.

    Bode I., Watts T.F.A., Algorithmic Warfare: Taking Stock of a Research Programme, Global Society,

    Vol. 37, 2023, pp. 1–24.

    Bode I. et al., Algorithmic Warfare: Taking Stock of a Research Programme, Global Society, Vol. 38,

    2024.

    Bode I. et al., Prospects for the Global Governance of Autonomous Weapons: Comparing Chinese,

    Russian, and U.S. Practices, Ethics and Information Technology, 2023.

    Bruun L., Bo M., Bias in Military Artificial Intelligence and Compliance with International

    Humanitarian Law, SIPRI, 2025.

    Caballero W.N., Jenkins P.R., On Large Language Models in National Security Applications, Stat,

    2024.

    Canellas M.C., Haga R.A., Toward Meaningful Human Control of Autonomous Weapons Systems

    Through Function Allocation, in 2015 IEEE International Symposium on Technology and Society

    (ISTAS), 2015, pp. 1–7.

    Chapa J., Military AI Ethics, Journal of Military Ethics, Vol. 23, 2024.

    Christie E.H. et al., Regulating Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems, AI and Ethics, 2023.

    Crootof R., The Killer Robots Are Here: Legal and Policy Implications, Cardozo Law Review, Vol. 36,

    2014, pp. 1837–1915.

    Demy T., Human–Machine Decision Authority, 2020.

    Devitt S.K., Normative Epistemology for Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems, in Lethal

    Autonomous Weapons: Re-Examining the Law and Ethics of Robotic Warfare, Oxford University

    Press, 2020.

    Ehrhard T.P., Air Force UAVs: The Secret History, Mitchell Institute, 2010.

    Haney B., Applied Artificial Intelligence in Modern Warfare and National Security Policy, 2019.

    Homayounnejad M., Military AI and Command Responsibility, 2019.

    Johnson A.M., Moral Responsibility and Autonomous Systems, 2022.

    Johnson A.M., Axinn S., The Morality of Autonomous Robots, Journal of Military Ethics, 2013. Kastan B., Autonomy and Accountability, 2012.

    Keane J.F., Carr S.S., A Brief History of Early Unmanned Aircraft, Johns Hopkins APL Technical

    Digest, Vol. 32, 2013, pp. 558–571.

    Khalil A. et al., Assessing the Legality of Autonomous Weapon Systems, 2024.

    Koch W. et al., [հոդվածի հղման մեջ վերնագիրն ամբողջությամբ նշված չէ], 2023.

    Kwik J., van Engers T., Algorithmic Fog of War: When Lack of Transparency Violates the Law of

    Armed Conflict, Journal of Future Robot Life, Vol. 1, 2021, pp. 53–75.

    Maathuis C., Cools A., Human Oversight in Military AI, 2025.

    Mamak K., Kowalczewska K., Human Oversight and Autonomous Systems, 2023.

    Martynova E., Navigating Regulation of AI-Powered Cyber Operations in the Realm of the Use of

    Force, 2024.

    McFarland T., Autonomous Weapon Systems and the Law of Armed Conflict, Cambridge University

    Press, 2020.

    Meier M.W., Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems, in Complex Battlespaces, Christopher M. Ford &

    Winston S. Williams eds., 2018.

    Morgan F.E. et al., Military Applications of Artificial Intelligence: Ethical Concerns in an Uncertain

    World, RAND Corporation, 2020.

    Nalin G., Tripodi P., Hybrid Warfare and Emerging Technologies, 2023.

    Nunes A.S., The Legality and Accountability of Autonomous Weapon Systems, 2022.

    O’Rourke R., Navy Shipboard Lasers and the Phalanx Close-In Weapon System (CIWS),

    Congressional Research Service, R45098, 2020.

    Pacholska M., Military Artificial Intelligence and the Principle of Distinction: A State Responsibility

    Perspective, 2022.

    Prisacariu V., The History and the Evolution of UAVs from the Beginning till the 70s, Journal of

    Defense Resources Management, Vol. 8, 2017, pp. 181–189.

    Rivera J.P. et al., Escalation Risks from Language Models in Military and Diplomatic Decision Making,

    2024.

    Roberson T. et al., A Method for Ethical AI in Defence (MEIAD), 2022.

    Roberts A., Venables A., The Role of Artificial Intelligence in Kinetic Targeting from the Perspective

    of International Humanitarian Law, in Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Cyber

    Conflict (CyCon): Going Viral, NATO Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence, 2021,

    pp. 43–57.

    Roff H., The Strategic Robot Problem, 2014.

    Sassòli M., Autonomous Weapons and International Humanitarian Law: Advantages, Open Technical

    Questions and Legal Issues to Be Clarified, International Law Studies, Vol. 90, 2014, pp. 308–340.

    Schneider J., Macdonald J., The Rise of Unmanned Technologies, in The Hand Behind Unmanned:

    Origins of the U.S. Autonomous Military Arsenal, Oxford University Press, 2025.

    Schraagen J.G.W.C., Responsible Use of AI in Military Systems: Prospects and Challenges,

    Ergonomics, 2023.

    Schuller A.L., At the Crossroads of Control: The Intersection of Artificial Intelligence in Autonomous

    Weapon Systems with International Humanitarian Law, International Law Studies, Vol. 95, 2019,

    pp. 437–471.

    Sharikov P., International Regulations of Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems: Transatlantic Security

    Dialogue, World Economy and International Relations, 2024.

    Sharkey N., The Evitability of Autonomous Robot Warfare, International Review of the Red Cross,

    Vol. 94, 2012, pp. 787–799.

    Shekh et al., Operational Ethics of Autonomous Systems, 2025.

    Shinbo, Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems (LAWS) Confronting the Robot Law Perspectives,

    IEICE ESS Fundamentals Review, 2020.

    Simmons-Edler et al., Human–AI Interaction in Military Systems, 2025.

    Sparrow R., Killer Robots, in Political Minefields, 2019.

    Syse H., Cook M., Ethics of Military AI, 2023.

    Taddeo M., The Ethics of Artificial Intelligence in Defence, Oxford University Press, 2024. Taddeo M., Blanchard A., A Comparative Analysis of the Definitions of Autonomous Weapons

    Systems, Science and Engineering Ethics, Vol. 28, 2022, Article 10.

    Taddeo M., Floridi L., Regulate Artificial Intelligence to Avert Cyber Arms Race, Nature, Vol. 556,

    2018, pp. 296–298.

    Taddeo M. et al., Ethical Principles for Artificial Intelligence in National Defence, Philosophy &

    Technology, Vol. 34, 2021, pp. 439–465.

    Warren A., Hillas A., Autonomy and Moral Responsibility, 2020.

    Wasilow S., Thorpe J., Artificial Intelligence, Robotics, Ethics, and the Military: A Canadian

    Perspective, AI Magazine, Vol. 40, 2019, pp. 47–56.

    Werrell K.P., The Evolution of the Cruise Missile, Air University Press, 1985.

    Work R.O., Establishment of an Algorithmic Warfare Cross-Functional Team (Project Maven),

    Memorandum, Apr. 26, 2017.

    Yucel et al., Drones, Bots, and the Law, 2023.

    Zakharchuk, AI and Escalation Control, 2025.

    International and institutional documents

    Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW), Group of Governmental Experts on Emerging

    Technologies in the Area of Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems, Final Report, U.N. Doc.

    CCW/GGE.1/2019/3, Sept. 25, 2019.

    Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, Group of Governmental Experts on Emerging

    Technologies in the Area of Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems, Report of the 2019 Session,

    U.N. Doc. CCW/GGE.1/2019/3, Sept. 25, 2019.

    Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, Group of Governmental Experts on Emerging

    Technologies in the Area of Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems, Report of the 2021 Session,

    U.N. Doc. CCW/GGE.1/2021/CRP.2, Dec. 3, 2021.

    Council of the European Union, EU Statement on Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems, Statement to

    the CCW GGE on LAWS, Apr. 9, 2018.

    Heyns C., Report of the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions, U.N.

    Doc. A/HRC/23/47, 2013.

    Human Rights Watch & Harvard Law School International Human Rights Clinic, Losing Humanity:

    The Case Against Killer Robots, 2012.

    International Committee of the Red Cross, Autonomous Weapons: Decisions to Kill and Destroy Are

    a Human Responsibility, Statement to the CCW Meeting of Experts on LAWS, Apr. 11, 2016.

    International Committee of the Red Cross, Autonomous Weapon Systems: Implications of Increasing

    Autonomy in the Critical Functions of Weapons, 2016.

    International Committee of the Red Cross, Autonomous Weapon Systems: Implications of Increasing

    Autonomy in the Critical Functions of Weapons, 2017.

    International Committee of the Red Cross, Views of the ICRC on Autonomous Weapon Systems, Nov.

    2016.

    NATO, NATO Artificial Intelligence Strategy, Oct. 22, 2021.

    NATO, Summary of the NATO Artificial Intelligence Strategy, Oct. 22, 2021.

    Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of

    Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), June 8, 1977, 1125 U.N.T.S. 3.

    U.N. GGE on Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems, Report of the 2017 Session, U.N. Doc.

    CCW/GGE.1/2017/CRP.1, 2017.

    U.S. Department of Defense, Directive 3000.09, Autonomy in Weapon Systems, Nov. 21, 2012,

    incorporating Change 2, May 8, 2017.

    U.S. Navy, MK 15 – Phalanx Close-In Weapon System (CIWS) Fact File, last updated Sept. 20, 2021.

    Internet resource

    Campaign to Stop Killer Robots, About Us.

    U.N. Office at Geneva, CCW Group of Governmental Experts on Lethal Autonomous Weapons

    Systems to Meet Next Week, Press Release, Nov. 10, 2017.

    U.N. Office for Disarmament Affairs, Timeline of LAWS in the CCW.

  • Civil Law

    Legal Consequences of Classifying Land Plots and Attached Buildings and Structures as Independent Civil-Law Objects: A Comparative Analysis and Reform Perspective

    Narine Avagyan
    View PDF
    Abstract

    This article analyzes the legal consequences of classifying a land plot and the buildings and structures erected on it as independent civil-law objects under Article 134 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Armenia. It demonstrates that the separation of ownership rights to land and to the attached structure generates conflicts over use and disposition, restricts the effective exercise of property rights, and creates legal uncertainty, particularly with respect to buildings constructed on municipally owned land. The study offers a historical and comparative perspective grounded in the Roman-law principle superficies solo cedit and examines legal systems in which buildings generally follow the legal fate of the land. The paper also evaluates Armenian legal mechanisms aimed at preserving land–building unity and highlights their practical limitations. As a reform vision, it proposes re-centering the concept of immovable property on the land plot, while treating buildings and structures as constituent parts of the land, subject to narrowly defined exceptions for condominium ownership and building rights.

    References

    «Անշարժ գույքի մասին» ՀՀ օրենք, ՀՕ-29, ընդունված՝ 27.12.1995թ., ուժը կորցրել է

    01.01.1999թ. [«Anšarž guykʿ i masin» HH orenqʿ , HO-29, əndunvaç՝ 27.12.1995 tʿ ., uži

    kʿ orcʿ rel ē 01.01.1999 tʿ .]։

    ՀՀ հողային օրենսգրքի 63.1 հոդված, «Պետություն-մասնավոր գործընկերության մասին»

    ՀՀ օրենքի 4-րդ հոդված [HH hoġayin orensgrkʿ i 63.1 hodvaç, «Petutʿ yun-masnavor

    gorcənkerutʿyan masin» HH orenqʿ i 4-rd hodvaç]։

    ՀՀ հողային օրենսգրքի 6-րդ հոդվածը [HH hoġayin orensgrkʿi 6-rd hodvaçə]։

    German Civil Code, Section 94

    https://mll-legal.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/TELFA_COUNTRY_

    BY_COUNTRY_REAL_ESTATE_TRANSACTION_GUIDE.pdf (վերջին այց՝ 06.12.2025)։

    https://mll-legal.com/wpcontent/uploads/2019/12/TELFA_COUNTRY_BY_

    COUNTRY_REAL_ESTATE_ TRANSACTION_GUIDE.pdf (վերջին այց՝ 06.12.2025)։

    https://ojs.utlib.ee/index.php/juridica/article/view/JI.2014.22.05 (վերջին այց՝ 06.12.2025)։

    https://www.academia.edu/97112289/The_superficies_solo_ cedit_ principle_in_Polish_civil_law

    (վերջին այց՝ 06.12.2025)։

    https://www.fig.net/resources/proceedings/2012/2012_3d_workshop/ss1_ dimopoulou.pdf

    (վերջին այց՝ 06.12.2025)։

    https://www.yerevan.am/uploads/media/default/0002/57/daca1c89cc6bf87568a85d8ecfd6a21989d

    cfa79.pdf

    Римское частное право, под редакцией профессора И.Б. Новицкого и профессора И.С.

    Перетерского, М․, 2014, էջ 170 [Rimskoe častnoe pravo, pod redakciej professora I.B. Novickogo i

    professora I.S. Pereterskogo, M., 2014, ēj 170]։