The aim of this study is to shed light on the legal examination of stabilisation clauses in petroleum contracts in Cameroon. Stabilisation clauses forms one of the pillars in protecting the interest of foreign investors in petroleum contractual arrangements. These clauses act as a shield to investors as they protect oil companies from attempts by the host government to modify the agreement through subsequent changes in legislation. Their legal validity in the Cameroonian petroleum industry has been guaranteed by the Petroleum Law of the country. However, the findings of this paper reveals that the applicability of these clauses remains questionable as the Cameroonian government can implement nationalisation and expropriation on the grounds of public utility, security or national interest, subject to appropriate compensation. Furthermore, the study reveals that the Cameroonian government can introduce new legislative or regulatory changes in the petroleum contracts, the terms of which must be agreed by both parties. In case where an agreement is not reached, the matter will be referred to arbitration. This study concludes that the State can continue enacting new legislations, and in some arbitration cases to breach an agreement, which defeats the essence of stabilisation clauses in petroleum contracts.

The article studies general positions on limitation periods and peculiarities of their application in isolated disputes on bringing the persons controlling the debtor to subsidiary liability within the framework of cases on insolvency (bankruptcy) of legal entities. The article considers subjective and objective limitation periods, their specifics, as well as grounds and conditions for restoration of missed periods. Special attention is paid to the legal positions of the European Court of Human Rights, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, and the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation. Problematic aspects of the application of different versions of bankruptcy legislation in time and the influence of actual circumstances on the beginning of the limitation period are analyzed. It is concluded that the current regulation of the institute of limitation in bankruptcy cases is generally effective, but a number of issues related to the transitional provisions of the legislation remain discussable.

The article is devoted to the retrospective analysis of terrorism as a social phenomenon and criminal-legal norms establishing responsibility for various forms of its manifestation in the sources of law of medieval Russia, the Russian Empire and the USSR. In the period of formation of the legal system of Tsarist Russia, the norms on criminal responsibility for committing crimes of terrorist orientation were not singled out from the general normative material, were dissolved in crimes against the state; this provision was retained in the legislation of the Russian Empire. The social processes of XIX gave rise to a wave of political crime, the Decembrists and, later, the member of Narodnaya Volya, expressing their protest against serfdom and tsarism, committed a number of high-profile assassination attempts against prominent state officials. The legislator responded to the growth of crime by expanding the range of offenses establishing liability. The Code of Criminal and Corrective Penalties of Russia 1845 contained chapters “On crimes against the sacred person of the sovereign emperor and members of the imperial house”, “On rebellion against the supreme power and treason”. During the establishment of the USSR, terror was considered by the Bolsheviks as a permissible means of class struggle. In domestic criminal legislation, the category of “terrorist act” first appeared in the Criminal Code of the RSFSR of 1960, where it was understood as the murder of a state official for political reasons.