Administrative Discretion: Questions and Answers (Part 1)

P. P. Serkov, Yury P. Solovey
{"title":"Administrative Discretion: Questions and Answers (Part 1)","authors":"P. P. Serkov, Yury P. Solovey","doi":"10.19073/2658-7602-2022-19-4-374-383","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This material opens a series of scientific publications planned by the editors of the Siberian Law Review journal, the Authors of which analyze the problem of administrative discretion (discretion), which is very relevant for Russian administrative legal theory and law practice, in the “question-answer” format. The scientific, theoretical and practical significance of the noted problem is predetermined by the fact that the exercise of discretionary powers by the public administration (as opposed to powers strictly bound by law) is fraught with the greatest threat to the rights, freedoms and legitimate interests of citizens, the rights and legitimate interests of organizations. The purpose of the study is to clarify issues related to the concept and essence of administrative discretion, its regulatory legal framework, forms of implementation, ways to establish the limits of discretion of public administration, criteria for assessing the legality of discretionary administrative acts, judicial and agency control over administrative discretion. The subject of the research is normative legal acts, legal principles, administrative and judicial acts, scientific works of Russian and foreign legal scholars. The hypothesis of the study is that, despite the abundance of scientific publications on administrative-discretionary topics, the domestic doctrine of administrative discretion is a motley mixture of judgments that do not agree with each other, often divorced from the needs of administrative and judicial practice, characterized by the absence of a single categorical apparatus. According to Yuri P. Solovey, an important, if not the most important section of administrative discretionary issues, are the limits of judicial control over administrative discretion, which has practically fallen out of the field of view of Russian scholars, despite the fact that it has been thoroughly studied abroad for more than a century and a half. From the point of view of Petr P. Serkov, the domestic science of administrative law has not yet properly answered three fundamental questions, namely: what is administrative discretion, what is it intended for and how is it carried out. The Authors of the publication are unanimous that such a “doctrine” of administrative discretion does not contribute to the development of legislative solutions to bring such discretion to the standards of a legal, democratic state. In the process of research, dialectical, formal-logical, formal-legal, comparative-legal methods of cognition, the method of interpreting law, analysis of materials from administrative and judicial practice are used. The Authors attempt to streamline the categorical apparatus of the theory of administrative discretion, as well as to formulate its main provisions and some proposals for improving the current legislation.","PeriodicalId":33294,"journal":{"name":"Sibirskoe iuridicheskoe obozrenie","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-08","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/10.19073/2658-7602-2022-19-4-374-383","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 material opens a series of scientific publications planned by the editors of the Siberian Law Review journal, the Authors of which analyze the problem of administrative discretion (discretion), which is very relevant for Russian administrative legal theory and law practice, in the “question-answer” format. The scientific, theoretical and practical significance of the noted problem is predetermined by the fact that the exercise of discretionary powers by the public administration (as opposed to powers strictly bound by law) is fraught with the greatest threat to the rights, freedoms and legitimate interests of citizens, the rights and legitimate interests of organizations. The purpose of the study is to clarify issues related to the concept and essence of administrative discretion, its regulatory legal framework, forms of implementation, ways to establish the limits of discretion of public administration, criteria for assessing the legality of discretionary administrative acts, judicial and agency control over administrative discretion. The subject of the research is normative legal acts, legal principles, administrative and judicial acts, scientific works of Russian and foreign legal scholars. The hypothesis of the study is that, despite the abundance of scientific publications on administrative-discretionary topics, the domestic doctrine of administrative discretion is a motley mixture of judgments that do not agree with each other, often divorced from the needs of administrative and judicial practice, characterized by the absence of a single categorical apparatus. According to Yuri P. Solovey, an important, if not the most important section of administrative discretionary issues, are the limits of judicial control over administrative discretion, which has practically fallen out of the field of view of Russian scholars, despite the fact that it has been thoroughly studied abroad for more than a century and a half. From the point of view of Petr P. Serkov, the domestic science of administrative law has not yet properly answered three fundamental questions, namely: what is administrative discretion, what is it intended for and how is it carried out. The Authors of the publication are unanimous that such a “doctrine” of administrative discretion does not contribute to the development of legislative solutions to bring such discretion to the standards of a legal, democratic state. In the process of research, dialectical, formal-logical, formal-legal, comparative-legal methods of cognition, the method of interpreting law, analysis of materials from administrative and judicial practice are used. The Authors attempt to streamline the categorical apparatus of the theory of administrative discretion, as well as to formulate its main provisions and some proposals for improving the current legislation.
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(第一部分)
本材料打开了《西伯利亚法律评论》杂志编辑策划的一系列科学出版物,作者以“问答”的形式分析了与俄罗斯行政法律理论和法律实践非常相关的行政自由裁量权问题。公共行政部门行使自由裁量权(而不是严格受法律约束的权力)对公民的权利、自由和合法利益、组织的权利和合法利益构成最大威胁,这一事实决定了上述问题的科学、理论和实际意义。本研究的目的是澄清与行政自由裁量权的概念和本质、其监管法律框架、实施形式、确定公共行政自由裁裁量权限度的方法、评估自由裁量行政行为合法性的标准、司法和机构对行政自由裁定权的控制有关的问题。研究对象是规范性法律行为、法律原则、行政和司法行为、俄罗斯和外国法律学者的科学著作。该研究的假设是,尽管有大量关于行政自由裁量权主题的科学出版物,但国内的行政自由裁裁量权学说是一种混杂的判断,相互不一致,往往脱离了行政和司法实践的需要,其特点是缺乏一个单一的分类机构。根据尤里·P·索洛维的说法,行政自由裁量权问题的一个重要部分,如果不是最重要的部分,就是对行政自由裁裁量权的司法控制的限制,这实际上已经脱离了俄罗斯学者的视野,尽管在国外已经对其进行了一个半世纪的深入研究。在谢尔科夫看来,国内行政法学尚未正确回答三个基本问题,即:什么是行政自由裁量权,它的目的是什么以及它是如何执行的。该出版物的作者一致认为,这种行政自由裁量权的“学说”无助于制定立法解决方案,使这种自由裁量量权达到合法、民主国家的标准。在研究过程中,运用了辩证法、形式逻辑法、形式法学、比较法学的认识方法、法律解释方法、行政司法实践资料分析等方法。笔者试图对行政自由裁量权理论的分类机构进行精简,并对其主要条款进行梳理,提出完善现行立法的建议。
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