La represión económica: los maestros leoneses ante la incautación de bienes durante la Guerra Civil (1936-1939) = Economic Repression: Leonese Teachers Facing Property Confiscation during the Civil War

<p><span style="left: 177.165px; top: 678.037px; font-size: 13.3333px; font-family: serif; transform: scaleX(1.00108);">Resumen</span></p><p><span style="left: 177.165px; top: 697.203px; font-size: 13.3333px; font-family: serif; transform: scaleX(1.08397);">Este artículo analiza el proceso de incautación de bienes </span><span style="left: 141.732px; top: 716.37px; font-size: 13.3333px; font-family: serif; transform: scaleX(1.1158);">desarrollado en la provincia de León entre 1937 y 1939. León fue </span><span style="left: 141.732px; top: 735.537px; font-size: 13.3333px; font-family: serif; transform: scaleX(1.10752);">ocupada por las tropas de Franco durante las primeras semanas de </span><span style="left: 141.732px; top: 754.703px; font-size: 13.3333px; font-family: serif; transform: scaleX(1.11794);">la contienda. Esta situación favoreció la implantación de un siste</span><span style="left: 527.056px; top: 754.703px; font-size: 13.3333px; font-family: serif;">-</span><span style="left: 141.732px; top: 773.87px; font-size: 13.3333px; font-family: serif; transform: scaleX(1.09829);">ma represivo pensado para la eliminación de la disidencia política. </span><span style="left: 141.732px; top: 793.037px; font-size: 13.3333px; font-family: serif; transform: scaleX(1.10296);">En este contexto, los maestros fueron sometidos a un proceso para </span><span style="left: 141.732px; top: 812.203px; font-size: 13.3333px; font-family: serif; transform: scaleX(1.10621);">acabar con todos aquellos que mostraban ideas contrarias a las del </span><span style="left: 141.732px; top: 831.37px; font-size: 13.3333px; font-family: serif; transform: scaleX(1.12923);">nuevo régimen. Por ello, los maestros fueron asesinados, tortura</span><span style="left: 527.056px; top: 831.37px; font-size: 13.3333px; font-family: serif;">-</span><span style="left: 141.732px; top: 850.537px; font-size: 13.3333px; font-family: serif; transform: scaleX(1.12868);">dos, encarcelados y depurados. Todos estos castigos fueron com</span><span style="left: 527.056px; top: 850.537px; font-size: 13.3333px; font-family: serif;">-</span><span style="left: 141.732px; top: 869.703px; font-size: 13.3333px; font-family: serif; transform: scaleX(1.1141);">plementados por la represión económica ejercida por la Comisión </span><span style="left: 141.732px; top: 888.87px; font-size: 13.3333px; font-family: serif; transform: scaleX(1.0914);">Provincial de Incautación de Bienes de León.</span></p><p><span style="left: 141.732px; top: 888.87px; font-size: 13.3333px; font-family: serif; transform: scaleX(1.0914);">Abstract</span></p><p><span style="left: 141.732px; top: 888.87px; font-size: 13.3333px; font-family: serif; transform: scaleX(1.0914);"><span style="left: 590.551px; top: 697.203px; font-size: 13.3333px; font-family: serif; transform: scaleX(1.10066);">This article discusses the process of confiscation of property </span><span style="left: 555.118px; top: 716.37px; font-size: 13.3333px; font-family: serif; transform: scaleX(1.12387);">in León between 1937 and 1939. León was occupied by Franco’s </span><span style="left: 555.118px; top: 735.537px; font-size: 13.3333px; font-family: serif; transform: scaleX(1.10653);">troops during the first weeks of the war. This situation favored the </span><span style="left: 555.118px; top: 754.703px; font-size: 13.3333px; font-family: serif; transform: scaleX(1.12596);">implantation of a repressive system to eliminate political dissent. </span><span style="left: 555.118px; top: 773.87px; font-size: 13.3333px; font-family: serif; transform: scaleX(1.12138);">In this context, school teachers were put under purge, looking for </span><span style="left: 555.118px; top: 793.037px; font-size: 13.3333px; font-family: serif; transform: scaleX(1.12921);">eradicating opposite ideas and customs within the Franco regime </span><span style="left: 555.118px; top: 812.203px; font-size: 13.3333px; font-family: serif; transform: scaleX(1.16665);">out. They were killed, tortured, imprisoned, and purged. These </span><span style="left: 555.118px; top: 831.37px; font-size: 13.3333px; font-family: serif; transform: scaleX(1.12151);">punishments were complemented by the economic repression de</span><span style="left: 940.442px; top: 831.37px; font-size: 13.3333px; font-family: serif;">-</span><span style="left: 555.118px; top: 850.537px; font-size: 13.3333px; font-family: serif; transform: scaleX(1.09835);">veloped by the Provincial Commissions of Property Confiscation</span></span></p>

Legislative Regulation Paradoxes of Criminal Liability for Corruption-related Crimes

The article raises the problem of the property confiscation absence as an additional measure of punishment in modern Russian criminal legislation. The authors analyze the reasons for excluding property confiscation from the types of criminal punishment in 2003, reveal the difference between property confiscation as a punishment and property confiscation as a measure of criminal law, and provide examples of the property confiscation practice. The article examines the issues of ensuring the compliance of sanctions with the nature and degree of social danger of the crime, with the tasks of preventing the crimes under consideration, and with the justice principles implementation. The article compares the criminal legislation of the Soviet period and modern Russian legislation on liability for corruption crimes. It is proposed that property confiscation must be included in the Criminal Code of Russia as an additional measure of punishment for grave and especially grave crimes, first of all, corruption related crimes. It is also proposed to abandon the establishment of a fine as the main punishment in sanctions for the most dangerous crimes of a corruption nature, including such ones as taking a bribe. According to the authors` opinion the main punishment for such crimes should be imprisonment.

Legal Analysis of Supporting Methods of Foreign Investors in Nationalization and Property Confiscation

Nationalization of foreign investor assets does not serve the interests of countries because it disrupts the economic security of states and ultimately leads to a reduction in foreign investment. Governments have sought to minimize investor nationalization and property confiscation in order to attract foreign investment. In the event of expropriation of a foreign investor, governments are required to compensate the investor. The position of customary international law on how to pay compensation and methods of assessing damages includes procedures based on national law, treaties and judicial decisions or arbitration. In order to support investors, it is necessary that the right to nationalize property and expropriation of investors should be very limited. Further, in case of nationalization, the damage must be compensated in a desirable and effective manner. The foreign investor must enjoy the same rights as domestic investors and at the same time have the right to transfer their capital and profits abroad. Appropriate measures should also be taken to amend national laws in order to consolidate and guarantee the ownership of foreign investors.

Russia

In 1941, Germany invaded the Soviet Union, in violation of the 1939 Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. The invasion marked the beginning of what Russia would later call the Great Patriotic War during which the Soviet Union suffered tens of millions of civilian and military losses. Private property in the Soviet Union was earlier confiscated through Lenin and Stalin’s nationalization programs. Nazi-occupied territories of the Soviet Union suffered property confiscation by the German forces, with most of the confiscation taking place in the Soviet Republics of Belarussia and Ukraine and western Russia. Russia does not have any private or communal property restitution and/or compensation laws relating to Holocaust-era confiscations, or return of property confiscations dating back to the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917. Russia also does not have any special legislation dealing with heirless property. Russia endorsed the Terezin Declaration in 2009, but declined to endorse the 2010 Guidelines and Best Practices.

Denmark

Germany invaded Denmark in 1940. The country was granted relative autonomy until 1943, with the forced deportation of Danish Jews. With the assistance of Danish religious and nonreligious groups, several thousand Danish Jews were transported by boat to neutral Sweden, but hundreds were still captured and sent to concentration camps. There was no state policy of property confiscation during World War II. Immediately after the war, government offices were established and laws passed to assist victims of the occupation with restitution and compensation. Denmark endorsed the Terezin Declaration in 2009 and the Guidelines and Best Practices in 2010.

Socialized into Smuggling

The chapter analyzes the cultural value of smuggled goods in Spanish America and Europe as a means to understand the acculturation to illicit activity that early modern Venezuelans experienced. For their cacao, Venezuelans received, not the exotic items typically associated with illicit trade, but rather mundane wares and foodstuffs such as flour, coarse cloth, liquor, and firearms. Inventories of contraband confiscated from homes and businesses suggest both the tremendous inability of the Spanish Empire to supply its more marginal colonies with simple trade and the ways that Venezuelans creatively used smuggling to deal with this dearth of subsistence goods. Furthermore, court cases of smuggling highlight the importance of women as retail distributors of contraband on land. All of these circumstances revealed the colonists’ viewpoint on illegality: the cultural superiority manifested in consuming even simple European items merited the complications of illicit trade including bloodshed, commercial policing, and property confiscation. Black-market commerce at even the pettiest levels initiated coastal residents into a criminal world where they developed justifications and subterfuges for their everyday actions. In essence, residents had been socialized into smuggling.

Problems of Application of Civil-Law Institute of Confiscation of Property As Means of Fighting Corruption

The article considers the most effective mechanisms for realizing the confiscation of property as a means of counteracting corruption. The confiscation institute is investigated in its civil, not criminal-legal meaning. The authors of the article paid special attention to the analysis of international legal regulation of various issues of confiscation in rem and the problems of implementing this institution in the domestic legal field. An analysis of domestic anti-corruption legislation showed that, for all its similarity with the institution, confiscation in rem, the domestic civil-legal institution of confiscation is not such. In the process of its definition, vices are laid, which nullify the effectiveness of the implementation of this institution. When investigating the civil-law institute of property confiscation, the authors used methods of analysis, synthesis, systemic and functional approaches, formal legal and comparative legal methods. On the basis of these methods, the authors come to the conclusion that Russian legislation ensuring the implementation of Art. 235 GCRF, at the moment does not contain effective tools to combat corruption. The author draws attention to the problem of corruption-relatedness of the anti-corruption legislation. In his opinion, the solution of this problem will require a serious analysis of all normative material, a detailed forecast of the application of legal norms in real social conditions.

The “Judaic-Reasoning Novgorod Heretics” and Some Echoes of Spain in Late Medieval Russia

In October 1490 Archbishop Gennadii of Novgorod sent a report from the Imperial (Holy Roman Empire) envoy of the Spanish Inquisition to the new Metropolitan of Moscow Zosima. This was in the light of the upcoming synod trial of the accused “Judaic-reasoning Novgorod Heretics,” some of whom Gennadii was then empowered to subject to a humiliating auto-da-fé, without, however, any executions. The overall manuscript evidence indicates that Gennadii’s “judaizing” charges must be taken cum grano salis, that Russian churchmen were clearly concerned with other challenges to Orthodoxy, and the Russian Church’s relationship to Jewish texts was not uniformly hostile. But the report, if quite inaccurate, did have some effect in Russia, even though Russia’s inquisitional proceedings were unique to local conditions and traditions and evinced little influence from any part of the Roman Catholic world. Gennadii’s report dangled the prospects of several thousand immolations and accompanying lucrative property confiscation to the benefit of the royal fisc, but the Russian authorities of the day actually found few such culprits worthy of imprisonment and execution—this in contrast to the former Novgorod Republic’s immense church lands, many of which the state seized and converted into pomest’ia, that is service tenures.