Administrative Discretion: Questions and Answers (Part 3)

Yu. P. Solovey, P. P. Serkov
{"title":"Administrative Discretion: Questions and Answers (Part 3)","authors":"Yu. P. Solovey, P. P. Serkov","doi":"10.19073/2658-7602-2023-20-3-224-271","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article completes a series of three scientific publications planned by the Editorial Board of the Siberian Law Review, the Authors of which discuss the problem of administrative discretion, which is very relevant for Russian administrative legal theory and legal practice, in a question-answer format. Contrary to the opinion justified by Petr P. Serkov in the previous article about the impossibility of a fruitful study of administrative discretion without referring to the “analytical potential of the mechanism of administrative legal relations”, Yuri P. Solovey gives arguments indicating the unsuitability of this “logical structure” for studying legal realities. From his point of view, the use of this artificial and meaningless concept, without a doubt, is a violation of the well-known methodological principle “Occam’s Razor”: one should not multiply things unnecessarily. In this regard, PetrP. Serkov was asked two questions: firstly, could he conduct, within the framework of this article, an indicative analysis of a specific discretionary administrative act using the “logical structure of the mechanism of administrative legal relations”, which would make it possible to draw a conclusion about the legality (illegality ) of such an act, and, secondly, what is its relation to the principles of administrative procedures as legal means of control over administrative discretion and the need for their extensive legislative consolidation. Anticipating the answers to the questions posed, Petr P. Serkov critically analyzes the arguments of “discretionary disagreement” of the specified Author. It is concluded that the phenomenon of administrative discretion covers any managerial decision made by any official of state executive bodies and local governments in the exercise of any of the powers assigned to him. Such a vision of administrative discretion implies a significant adjustment of the method of its research, the priorities of which should be a person, his consciousness and psyche. Concerning the first of the questions asked, Petr P. Serkov, using the “analytical potential of the mechanism of legal relations”, analyzes a hypothetical situation in which a police officer performs a discretionary administrative action by stopping a vehicle. The Author argues that the named “potential” clarifies not only what administrative discretion is, but also how it is formed and what it is intended for. Answering the second question, Petr P. Serkov notes that the procedural legal regulation of the activities of state executive bodies will certainly bring positive effects to the phenomenon of administrative discretion, but it is not clear to what extent the principles of administrative procedures are able to prevent illegal administrative discretion. It should be taken into account that scientific controversy regarding the understanding of legal principles has been going on for decades without the prospect of reaching a doctrinal consensus. In general, the discussion of the essence of administrative discretion shows, according to Petr P. Serkov, the imperfection of the current state and the conceptual vulnerability of the methodology of conducting scientific research and scientific controversy.","PeriodicalId":33294,"journal":{"name":"Sibirskoe iuridicheskoe obozrenie","volume":"46 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sibirskoe iuridicheskoe obozrenie","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.19073/2658-7602-2023-20-3-224-271","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article completes a series of three scientific publications planned by the Editorial Board of the Siberian Law Review, the Authors of which discuss the problem of administrative discretion, which is very relevant for Russian administrative legal theory and legal practice, in a question-answer format. Contrary to the opinion justified by Petr P. Serkov in the previous article about the impossibility of a fruitful study of administrative discretion without referring to the “analytical potential of the mechanism of administrative legal relations”, Yuri P. Solovey gives arguments indicating the unsuitability of this “logical structure” for studying legal realities. From his point of view, the use of this artificial and meaningless concept, without a doubt, is a violation of the well-known methodological principle “Occam’s Razor”: one should not multiply things unnecessarily. In this regard, PetrP. Serkov was asked two questions: firstly, could he conduct, within the framework of this article, an indicative analysis of a specific discretionary administrative act using the “logical structure of the mechanism of administrative legal relations”, which would make it possible to draw a conclusion about the legality (illegality ) of such an act, and, secondly, what is its relation to the principles of administrative procedures as legal means of control over administrative discretion and the need for their extensive legislative consolidation. Anticipating the answers to the questions posed, Petr P. Serkov critically analyzes the arguments of “discretionary disagreement” of the specified Author. It is concluded that the phenomenon of administrative discretion covers any managerial decision made by any official of state executive bodies and local governments in the exercise of any of the powers assigned to him. Such a vision of administrative discretion implies a significant adjustment of the method of its research, the priorities of which should be a person, his consciousness and psyche. Concerning the first of the questions asked, Petr P. Serkov, using the “analytical potential of the mechanism of legal relations”, analyzes a hypothetical situation in which a police officer performs a discretionary administrative action by stopping a vehicle. The Author argues that the named “potential” clarifies not only what administrative discretion is, but also how it is formed and what it is intended for. Answering the second question, Petr P. Serkov notes that the procedural legal regulation of the activities of state executive bodies will certainly bring positive effects to the phenomenon of administrative discretion, but it is not clear to what extent the principles of administrative procedures are able to prevent illegal administrative discretion. It should be taken into account that scientific controversy regarding the understanding of legal principles has been going on for decades without the prospect of reaching a doctrinal consensus. In general, the discussion of the essence of administrative discretion shows, according to Petr P. Serkov, the imperfection of the current state and the conceptual vulnerability of the methodology of conducting scientific research and scientific controversy.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
行政裁量权:问答(第三部分)
本文是由《西伯利亚法律评论》编委会策划的三篇系列科学出版物的结束语,作者以问答的形式探讨了与俄罗斯行政法学理论和法律实践息息相关的行政自由裁量权问题。谢尔盖夫(peter P. Serkov)在前一篇文章中认为,如果不考虑“行政法律关系机制的分析潜力”,就不可能对行政自由裁量权进行富有成效的研究。与此相反,索洛维(Yuri P. Solovey)提出的论点表明,这种“逻辑结构”不适合研究法律现实。从他的观点来看,使用这种人为的、毫无意义的概念,无疑违反了著名的方法论原则“奥卡姆剃刀”:人们不应该不必要地增加事物。在这方面,彼得?Serkov被问到两个问题:首先,他能否在本文的框架内,利用“行政法律关系机制的逻辑结构”对具体的自由裁量行政行为进行指示性分析,从而有可能得出这种行为的合法性(非法性)的结论;它与作为控制行政自由裁量权的法律手段的行政程序原则有何关系?是否需要对其进行广泛的立法巩固?peter P. Serkov在对所提出的问题作出回答之前,批判性地分析了特定提交人的“酌情不同意”论点。行政自由裁量权现象包括国家行政机关和地方自治团体的任何官员在行使赋予他的任何权力时所作的任何管理决定。这种对行政自由裁量权的看法意味着对其研究方法的重大调整,其重点应该是人,他的意识和心理。关于所提出的第一个问题,peter P. Serkov利用“法律关系机制的分析潜力”分析了一种假设的情况,即一名警官通过拦截一辆汽车来执行酌情行政行动。作者认为,所谓的“潜力”不仅澄清了什么是行政自由裁量权,而且也澄清了行政自由裁量权是如何形成的以及它的目的是什么。在回答第二个问题时,彼得·谢尔科夫指出,对国家执行机构活动的程序性法律规制肯定会对行政自由裁量权现象带来积极影响,但行政程序原则在多大程度上能够防止非法行政自由裁量权,目前尚不清楚。应当考虑到,关于对法律原则的理解的科学争论已经持续了几十年,没有达成理论共识的前景。总的来说,对行政自由裁量权本质的讨论,在彼得·谢尔科夫看来,显示了现状的不完善以及科学研究和科学争议方法论的概念脆弱性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
14
审稿时长
21 weeks
期刊最新文献
Administrative Discretion: Questions and Answers (Part 3) Some Features of the Criminal Procedural Status of a Witness On the Origins of Administrative and Judicial Discretion in Russian Administrative and Jurisdictional Activities The Legal Concept of “Source of Increased Danger” Exhaustion of Exclusive Rights to Computer Programs Under the Laws of Russia, the USA, the EU, China and India
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1