Law

The aim of this paper is to explain what corporate governance is, what the principles of corporate governance are, what standards are formally valid at a global level (including both American and European rules) and how deviant practice appeared both prior to and during the financial crisis which began in 2007. It also aims to explain the difference between the institutional axiology (written codes used within companies, the state law) and the real axiology (deviance on the part of companies, breaking promises) in companies. My approach is based on Jonathan Macey's promissory theory of corporate governance and Cornelis de Groot's legal analysis of corporate governance, and this paper takes a stance against hypocrisy in matters of business and of the state. Axiological analysis of the crisis in the global economy is necessary, since corporate governance, as an element of company law, constitutes an important branch of the law and of both legal and business practice. In conceptual terms, it has a close relationship with business ethics. I maintain that the crisis in corporate governance and business ethics was one of the main factors behind the financial crisis, and that the financial crisis brought about changes in the classical rule of law paradigm.

The purpose of the paper is to highlight philosophy of Nature (cosmology), but also of environment, society, man and life, made by Sami people by centuries. Sami people developed own philosophy of Nature and life. It was a kind of really beautiful and fascinating spiritual heritage. At the centre of that philosophy, Nature is like a mother and people are like her children. It is absolutely forbidden to destroy Nature or environment. It is necessary to live according to Nature that is material and spiritual entity. Man is a part of Nature and must respect Nature. Harmony between people and Nature is so important as harmony between people in their communities and families. Greed or lust are anti-values. Sami traditional way of life was full of human solidarity and cooperation. This way was based on reindeer grazing and husbandry, fishing and hunting, so for Sami a near contact with Nature that was a mother for them became quite obvious. They did not understand the state borders. They lived in a "state of nature", as would say Hobbes or Locke. But it was flashed on peaceful harmony, cooperation and respect for the environment they live in. Their customary laws were related to traditional way of life. Ear-marking system was one of the greatest examples of Sami rules. Rules concerning reindeer grazing, living in the villages or forest, shamanism, sacred "sieidi", divinities of Nature, natural spirits and powers, hunting and fishing were unwrittenit was both philosophy of life and law. But it was not a state law or official law. In this sense it was an unofficial law (customary law) that based on their traditional way of life and philosophy. The problem appeared in the 19 th and 20 th century when in the whole Northern Scandinavia the Sami system of rules and beliefs and the traditional way of life were totally destroyed by the nation states which were founded on idea of nationalism, development, colonialism, progress, that was also supported by official religions (especially Protestantism) or state ideology. Sami customary laws were not recognized at all. Sami culture was depreciated. Even now in Finland land rights of Sami people are still unresolved human rights problem (in Norway their status is better).

The paper focuses on how Sami people as indigenous people have been depreciated by Scandinavian states that brought with it Enlightenment ideas to do with the nation state, progress, and Protestantism, and destroyed the traditional way of life of so-called "dark", "dirty" people.

The paper concerns a legal-philosophical and legal-theoretical (but in fact more interdisciplinary) problem of so called cognitive enhancement and of what to do with influence of neuroscience on legal and moral responsibility. A problem of responsibility in the law is treated as one of the most important themes in jurisprudence. We say that some people are responsible for behavior (e.g. the competent, adults). But we must seek the limits of the idea that responsibility "tracks" mental capacity. According to the paper assumptions, we should consider two fundamental questions. The first, have some professionals such as surgeons, soldiers, pilots a responsibility (duty) to cognitively enhance themselves (by e.g. drugs)? The second, if so, after the enhancement should they be acquired by greater responsibilities (greater standard of care)? I see some dangers for morality, freedom, human rights in the case of two positive answers for these questions. I analyze some projects of recommendation of the law change. I strictly highlight really potential axiological problems, too.

The paper focuses on indigenous peoples, their rights and customary laws in the North in context of the Saami people situation in Scandinavia  and Russia. The paper structure is as the following (of course, we start with the introduction, and in the end, the whole text is followed by the bibliography): 1. Fields and measures of cooperation between universities in the North. 2. Legal pluralism and Saami customary laws. 3. The institutional axiology and the real axiology. 4. Finland’s legislation on Saami. 5. Sweden’s constitutional rules on Saami. 6. Norway’s Constitution on Saami. 7. Conflicts of laws – Saami laws v. national laws and interests. 8. The Canadian project on multiculturalism – how to evaluate the Nordic countries? 9. Russia’s laws and Saami problems. The Ponoi case. 10. Problems, solutions; behind the current state of things; the inspiration by the keynote speech. 11. Instead of the conclusions. The end of ends, we can use the concepts: “Saami”, “Sami”, “Sámi” changeably (it is so difficult to say which one is better), except citing the original legal acts. However, I prefer the first one. Moreover, I use also “points” (enumeration) and italics to highlight the most important issues on the legal and social status of Saami, in some chapters.

The paper focuses on indigenous peoples, their rights and customary laws in the North in context of the Sámi people situation in the Nordic countries and Russia. It is to analyse and conceptualise some important issues concerning Sámi customary laws in the light of indigenous rights, constitutional law and legal pluralism as well as to propose new forms of cooperation between universities or scholars in the North in research in this field. First, after proposing new forms of academic cooperation, we flash focus on theory of legal pluralism and on Sámi customary laws. Secondly, we differ the institutional axiology from the real axiology in state legal orders. Thirdly, we analyse rules concerning the Sámi in Finland's legislation, Sweden's constitutional acts and Norway's Constitution. Fourthly, we express some chosen conflicts of laws: Sámi laws versus national laws and interests. Fifthly, using many criteria, we try to evaluate the Nordic countries in the field of recognition of indigenous rights. Sixthly, we show Russia's laws and Sámi problems (the Ponoi case and violation of the Russian Sámi rights). Seventhly, we consider contemporary problems of Sámi: the right of indigenous peoples to customary law, the right to self-determination as a basis of Sámi claims, and finally, treating Sámi as "people", "nation", not "ethnic minority". I also analyse what was behind the current state of affairs in Scandinavia, proposing a classification of political, ideological, religious and educational, economic, and cultural factors. In the conclusion, I maintain that indigenous rights, including Sámi rights to land and political self-government, should be better recognised in the North. It still remains a paradox, as the problem is not resolved in Scandinavian liberal societies, which are supposed to be sensitive in the field of human rights and protection of cultural diversity. I think that going back to customary laws or legal pluralism is such an inspiration for seeking new forms of political organisation of the Sámi people in Scandinavia (and maybe in Russia).