Academic literature on the topic 'Crime Straits Settlements'

In 2021, Transparency International ranked Malaysia 62 out of 180 countries in the world, and the perceived level of corruption in the public sector was recorded at 63.30% as compared to 17.06% in the private sector. Historically, the effort to prevent corruption in Malaysia began in 1950 with the introduction of the Prevention of Corruption Ordinance (POCO) 1950 to replace the previous laws of the Federated Malays States (Enactment No. 23 of 1938), the State of Johore (Johore Enactment No. 14 of 1940) and the former Straits Settlements (Straits Settlements Ordinance No. 14 of 1937). Applying doctrinal research and adopting a historical and descriptive approach, the paper seeks to describe the history of the anti-corruption law and agencies created before and after independence focusing on the agencies’ organisational and structural development. There is also a brief discussion on the late Tan Sri Harun Mahmud Hashim who helmed the anti-corruption agency. Since independence, the government had tirelessly carried out efforts to combat corruption with the formation of the Criminal Investigation Department (Special Crime) and the Anti-Corruption Section (ACS) and then consolidated into one body called the Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) with the passing of the Anti-Corruption Agency Act 1982. In 2008, the government unanimously approved the establishment of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) by replacing the ACA Act 1997 with the Malaysia Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009, which came into effect on 1 January 2009. The MACC became an independent, transparent, and professional body to effectively and efficiently manage the nation’s anti-corruption initiatives

The article reviews some evidence of written sources about the Huns in the Crimea and the Huns’ burials found in the plains of the Crimea. Many researchers of the Crimean history dated the invasion of the Huns in the Northern Black Sea region to the time of the reign of Emperor Valens (364–378) taking into account the information of only some narrative sources. However, there is no information about the Huns’ crossing through the Cimmerian Bosporus Strait and the attack on the Bosporus cities in the 370s in the written sources. According to Syrian and Greek sources, N.V. Pigulevskaya reasonably attributed Huns’ crossing through Meotida and the Caucasus Mountains to Mesopotamia and the Syrian coast to 395. This date is confirmed by the updated chronology of nomadic burials known in the Crimea and ceramics from Bosporan cities and settlements. Apparently, the Huns appeared on the peninsula after their settlement in the Northern Black Sea region at the end of the 4th – 5th centuries. Huns tombs on the hillside of Koklyuk, from the State Farm named after Kalinin, from Belyaus and on the necropolis of Ust-Alma are dated back to the first half of the 5th century by polychrome things. According to the funeral rite, the described Crimean graves of the first half of the 5th century are similar to the graves excavated under the kurgans with horse skin known in steppes of the Northern Black Sea region. I.P. Zasetskaya reasonably associated them with the Turks, who were part of the Hunnic tribal union. Nomad burials in Izobilnoe were attributed to the second half of the 5th century, in Marfovka – to the end of the 5th century, and in Chykarenko – to the first half of the 6th century. The graves of nomads of the first half of the 5th century belonged to the Akatziri, and the graves of the second half of the 5th century – first half of the 6th century belonged to Huns-Altziagiri.

Arbitration — Jurisdiction — Dispute concerning coastal State rights in Black Sea, Sea of Azov and Kerch Strait — Ukraine instituting proceedings against Russian Federation under Annex VII of United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982 — Ukraine alleging unauthorized activities of Russian Federation violating its rights under Convention — Whether Tribunal having jurisdiction — Basis of Tribunal’s jurisdiction — Whether Tribunal having jurisdiction to rule on sovereignty over Crimea — Legal status of Crimea — Objection that Tribunal having no jurisdiction over Ukraine’s claims concerning activities in Sea of Azov and Kerch Strait — Whether objection possessing exclusively preliminary character — Objection that Tribunal having no jurisdiction in light of Parties’ declarations under Article 298(1) of Convention — Objection that Tribunal having no jurisdiction over fisheries claims in light of Article 297(3)(a) of Convention — Objection that Tribunal having no jurisdiction over fisheries, protection and preservation of the marine environment, and navigation in light of Annex VIII to Convention — Objection that Tribunal having no jurisdiction pursuant to Article 281 of Convention — Whether Tribunal having jurisdiction in light of Parties’ declarations under Article 298(1) of Convention — Exceptions — Military activities — Law enforcement — Delimitation — Historic bays or titles Treaties — United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982 — Interpretation — Application — Article 288(1) — Tribunal constituted under Annex VII of Convention — Scope of jurisdiction of Tribunal — Dispute between Parties — Whether dispute concerning interpretation or application of Convention falling within jurisdiction of court or tribunal under Article 288(1) — Whether Tribunal having jurisdiction over Ukraine’s sovereignty claim Territory — Sovereignty — Crimea — Legal status — Russian Federation recognizing Ukraine’s sovereignty over Crimea before March 2014 — Events in 2014 — Russian Federation claiming sovereignty over Crimea after March 2014 — Opposing views of Parties on sovereignty over Crimea — Question as to whether Russian Federation or Ukraine having sovereignty over Crimea — Whether prerequisite for decision of Tribunal on Ukraine’s claims under United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982 — Whether Russian Federation or Ukraine coastal State for purposes 2of Convention — Whether sovereignty dispute over Crimea existing vel non — Whether ancillary to maritime dispute brought by Ukraine — Russian Federation’s claim that legal status of Crimea altered — Whether Russian Federation’s claim of sovereignty admissible — Principle of non-recognition — Article 41 of International Law Commission’s Articles on State Responsibility — United Nations General Assembly resolutions — Principles of good faith and estoppel — Whether Tribunal having jurisdiction over Ukraine’s sovereignty claim International organizations — United Nations — General Assembly — Resolutions — Legal effect and meaning — Interpretation — Relevance — Customary international law — Factual and legal determinations made in resolutions — Effect and weight — Content, conditions and context of adoption of resolutions — Whether Tribunal having power to interpret texts of international organizations — Whether recognizing objective fact of existence of dispute over Crimea contravening resolutions — Whether Tribunal having jurisdiction over claims of sovereignty over Crimea Sea — Maritime zones — Entitlements — Exclusive economic zone — Entitlements to maritime zones generated by Crimean coast — Overlapping entitlements — Whether determination possible — Jurisdiction of Tribunal to make determination in respect of dispute or on coastal State — Question of sovereignty over Crimea — Jurisdiction of Tribunal Treaties — Application — United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982 — Coastal State rights — Crimean peninsula — Ukraine instituting proceedings under Annex VII to Convention — Scope of Convention — Dispute concerning coastal State rights in Black Sea, Sea of Azov and Kerch Strait — Claims under Convention — Ukraine claiming that Russian Federation violating its rights under Convention — Determination of coastal State necessary for purposes of Convention — Question as to whether Ukraine or Russian Federation having sovereignty over Crimea — Whether determination prerequisite for determining significant part of Ukraine’s claims — Whether Tribunal having jurisdiction over Ukraine’s sovereignty claim — Jurisdiction of Tribunal Treaties — United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982 — Scope — Sea of Azov and Kerch Strait — Status — Parties 3agreeing internal waters of Union of Soviet Socialist Republics prior to dissolution — Disagreement as to status thereafter — Legal regime — Historic title — Whether questions for merits phase — Whether outside scope of Convention if underlying events occurring in internal waters — Whether issue regulated by Convention — Whether pertaining to interpretation and application of Convention — Whether Tribunal having jurisdiction over Ukraine’s claims concerning activities in the Sea of Azov and in the Kerch Strait — Whether objection of Russian Federation possessing exclusively preliminary character Treaties — Interpretation — State Border Treaty, Article 5 — Azov/Kerch Cooperation Treaty, Article 1 — Textual interpretation — Context — Negotiating history — Whether Article 4 of Azov/Kerch Cooperation Treaty excluding jurisdiction of Tribunal — Whether Articles 1 and 5 dispute settlement clauses within meaning of Article 281 of United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982 — Whether Tribunal having jurisdiction over dispute

ObjectiveTo investigate Q fever pathogen distribution among ixodic ticks, myomorphic rodents, febrile patients, residents of enzootic areas with Q fever and persons in contact with Q fever, specifically infected persons in the Southern and Western regions of Ukraine.IntroductionImprovement of the Q fever epizootic and epidemiological surveillance system remains an urgent veterinary service and healthcare problem in Ukraine. The grounds for this should be laid by the results of monitoring studies of persons with a professional infection risk (livestock farms, animal processing enterprises, veterinary specialists, etc.) and living in enzootic territories , as well as research of Q fever pathogen possible sources reservoirs.MethodsReal-time PCR - detection of specific DNA segments of Coxiella burnetii with application of commercial reagent kits. Immunofluorescence microscopy - detection of antigens/antibodies of studied rickettsia in biological substrates using luminescent immune sera labeled with fluorescein-5-isothiocyanate. Epidemiological methods - analysis of infectious diseases foci epidemiological maps. Statistical methods - data analysis using such software as Excel and Quantum GIS (1.6.0).ResultsPrimarily, Q fever endemic areas are formed because of the circulation of Coxiella burnetii in warm-blooded animal populations and their blood-sucking ectoparasites, which are the main source of the infection in humans. Based on the aggregated data received from multi-year research projects in Ukraine, Q fever enzootic territories were found in 18 administrative regions, Crimea and the city of Sevastopol. Currently we know of 257 areas where the pathogen was detected. The epidemic process in these territories is manifested by sporadic human diseases and the detection of the pathogen in natural carriers. The possibility of the natural foci epidemic potential increase in these territories is confirmed by the higher titers of Q fever pathogen specific antibodies detected in the local population.The results of the research of the infected material that was collected in Southern Ukraine during 2014-2016, showed the preservation of the Q fever causative agent in natural foci both in Danube-Dniester interfluve area of Odesa region and in Trans-Dnistrer areas, and its significantly less prevalent in the area adjacent to Odessa. In addition, the signs of natural foci formation have been revealed in other areas, which is indicative of current epidemic activity of natural foci of the infection. The results of serological studies and clinical and epidemiological surveys indicate that in the immunological structure of the population of the Danube-Dniester interfluve areas of Odessa region, Q fever is most common in rural population of working age, especially those constantly contact with farm animals. In the Ivano-Frankivsk region, serological studies in 2014 -2016, detected no Q fever seropositive people, indicating the pathogen being in the reserve stage, which corresponds to the inter-epidemic period. At the same time, the detection of C. burnetii in ticks in the enzootic territories indicates the possibility of the pre-epidemic process being formed.Since by pathogen range and transmission mechanisms Q fever in Ukraine is associated with many natural-focal zoonotic infections, it is advisable to monitor endemic areas using a modern observation algorithm using the introduction of geoinformation systems and the molecular genetic characteristics of circulating strains. This will increase the effectiveness of the detection of current natural and anthropurgic foci of such infections, will contribute to their detailed characterization and systematization, improve epidemiological surveillance and prevent the emergence of epidemic outbreaks among the population. The results of the research will contribute to the improvement of differential diagnosis of febrile states with an unclear etiologic agent.ConclusionsThe results of the Q fever pathogen detection in the material collected in Southern and Western regions of Ukraine showed that the area of prevalence of this agent has been expanded to the areas and settlements that are not included in the list of enzootic territories. Involvement in the ecological cycles of ixodic ticks and mouse-like rodents was observed. The presence of polyvectoral and polyhostal natural foci of this infection was found. The circulation of the causative agent of Q fever in the territories of Odesa and Ivano-Frankivsk regions where epidemic outbreaks and sporadic disease in people were also observed.References1. Surveillance Atlas of Infectious Diseases // http://atlas.ecdc.europa.eu/public/index.aspx.2. UCDCM Information Sheet as of 07/21/2010 No. 04.4-31/40/868 On Epidemic and Epizootic Situation with Zoonotic Infections Common for Humans and Animals and Methods of their Prevention in Ukraine.

The article deals with the amphora material from the excavations of 1996–2020 at the Belinskoye settlement in the Eastern Crimea. The purpose of the article is to correct the previously proposed chronological scheme of settlement development in the Ancient and Early Byzantine periods. According to the place of discovery, the fragments of profiled parts of amphorae (1688 fragments) are divided by the author into three groups corresponding to three periods in the history of the settlement. Within each group, the dominant types of amphorae have been identified and the dating of all amphorae fragments has been compared. In the end the paper has confirmed the chronological framework of the first two periods (early/first half 2nd – the middle/third quarter of the 3rd centuries BC and the second quarter 3rd – the end of the first quarter of 4th centuries BC) and established the continuity of the development of the settlement at this stage. The chronological framework of the third period has been significantly adjusted. After the destruction of the settlement at the end of the first quarter of the 4th century AD, new settlers do not appear here until the first half/middle of the 5th century AD. The end of the third period is determined by the boundary of the first and second quarters of the 4th century AD. There is no continuity with the earlier settlement.

Kytaion was a small Bosporan town. It originated in the process of internal colonization by the Hellenes of the lands of Eastern Crimea. Literary sources, starting with the Periplus of Ps.-Scylax (3rd quarter of the 4th century BC), call it πόλις. At the same time, settlements similar to it in size and urban appearance in Strabo’s “Geography” (and in later sources) are attributed to the number of κῶμαι. (Some of them were probably founded as independent apoi kiai as a result of the Great Greek Colonization, but lost the polis’ status due to their entry into the power of the Spartokids.) In Russian historiography the term κῶμαι is usually translated and understood as “villages”, “rural settlements”, although it is polysemantic (settlement; the Dorian equivalent to Attic demes; urban area, quarter). The author of the article, relying on the testimony of Polyaenus (Strat. VI. 9, 3) about appointment by Leucon I to relatives of suspected treason of trierarchs in the management of κῶμαι, tried to prove that here we are not talking about individual “villages”, but about rural districts – the lowest district in the administrative-territorial system of the Bosporus state. From this angle, he analyzed information about these κῶμαι in Strabo, descended from writing of Artemidorus of Ephesus. As a result, the author concluded that, unlike the larger cities that retained elements of polis’ form organization (Pantikapaion, Phanagoria, Theodosia, Nymphaion, Kepoi, Hermonassa, Gorgippia), the so-called “small Bosporan towns” (Strabo’ κῶμαι) were mainly urban centers of territorial districts. The formation of such a structure dates back to the reign of Leucon I, although the beginning of this process must apparently be dated back to the last decades of his father’s life. Probably, these districts were named after their urban centers, and the demoticon of their inhabitants remained used, at least as early as the 3rd century AD (CIRB 942).