title: The identiy of concepts “cognition” and “criminal procedure proving”
metadata.name: dc.contributor.author
metadata.value: Skoblik, Konstantin V.
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.date.accessioned
metadata.value: 2017-07-18T14:57:32Z
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.date.available
metadata.value: 2017-07-18T14:57:32Z
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.date.issued
metadata.value: 2017-06
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.identifier.citation
metadata.value: Skoblik K. V. The identiy of concepts “cognition” and “criminal procedure proving”. Vestnik SPbSU. Law, 2017, vol. 8, issue 2, pp. 217–224.
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.identifier.other
metadata.value: 10.21638/11701/spbu14.2017.208
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.identifier.uri
metadata.value: http://hdl.handle.net/11701/6915
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.description.abstract
metadata.value: Examining theses about the nature of the concepts “cognition” and “proof of criminal procedure”, the
  author refutes the understanding of the latter as a species of cognition which has remained since Soviet
  times. The author believes this detail sets a strong cornerstone for adopting epistemological theses into
  the proof of criminal procedure. If this step is absent, it shall be impossible to think of forming rules of
  making the cognitive and prognostic criminal procedure decisions as pre-developed by K. V. Skoblik.
  The criminal procedure form does not have a specific character in order to create proofs of criminal
  procedure as the species of cognition. This statement is also argued in the article. The subordination
  between these concepts is based on nonessential features. If we use essential features, these concepts
  will be identical. Consequently, the criminal procedural form must not ignore objective laws of cognition
  so we must construct it using these laws. Thereupon, the discrepancies of Russian CrPC towards
  understanding proving as cognition are shown in the academic paper.
  The historical method, methods of definitional concepts and division of concepts were applied by
  K. V. Skoblik in the current research. Refs 26.
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.language.iso
metadata.value: ru
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.publisher
metadata.value: St Petersburg State University
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.relation.ispartofseries
metadata.value: Vestnik of St Petersburg University. Law;Volume 8; Issue 2
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.subject
metadata.value: cognition
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.subject
metadata.value: criminal procedure proving
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.subject
metadata.value: form
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.subject
metadata.value: species
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.subject
metadata.value: nonessential and essential features
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.title
metadata.value: The identiy of concepts “cognition” and “criminal procedure proving”
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.type
metadata.value: Article
metadata.lang: en_GB
resources.filename: 08-Skoblik.pdf
resources.url: https://dspace.spbu.ru/bitstream/11701/6915/1/08-Skoblik.pdf
resources.format: Adobe PDF
resources.size: 605,79 kB