Статья ' Дискреционные полномочия как фактор коррупции в системе исполнительной власти ' - журнал 'Административное и муниципальное право' - NotaBene.ru
по
Journal Menu
> Issues > Rubrics > About journal > Authors > About the Journal > Requirements for publication > Editorial board > Peer-review process > Policy of publication. Aims & Scope. > Article retraction > Ethics > Online First Pre-Publication > Copyright & Licensing Policy > Digital archiving policy > Open Access Policy > Article Processing Charge > Article Identification Policy > Plagiarism check policy > Editorial collegium
Journals in science databases
About the Journal

MAIN PAGE > Back to contents
Administrative and municipal law
Reference:

Дискреционные полномочия как фактор коррупции в системе исполнительной власти

Bratanovskii Sergei Nikolaevich

Doctor of Law

Professor at the Plekhanov Russian University of Economics, Department of Administrative and Financial Law

410017, Russia, Saratov, ul. Serova, 3337, kv. 77

bratfoot@mail.ru
Other publications by this author
 

 
Zelenov Mikhail Fridrikhovich

PhD in Law

Associate Professor at the Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration, Department of Administrative Law and Proceedings 

410017, Russia, Saratov, ul. Serova, 3337, kv. 77

bratfoot@mail.ru
Other publications by this author
 

 

DOI:

10.7256/2454-0595.2016.4.16725

Received:

21-10-2015


Published:

24-04-2016


Abstract: The research object covers social relations arising in the process of exercise of powers by executive authorities. The research subject is the range of legal norms defining the discretionary powers of the officials. The authors analyze the discretionary authorities in the process of executive decision-making as a possible corruption element of such decisions. Special attention is paid to the authors’ position on the essence of this legal category. The authors state that discretionary powers become a factor, provoking the improper behavior (including the cases of bribery) of an official, when its limits are not clearly defined, or the criteria of its application are absent. The research methodology comprises general scientific methods (dialectics, analysis synthesis), and special methods (technical, system-structural, and comparative-legal). They allow carrying out a comprehensive and complex analysis of the research subject, formulate theoretical generalizations, offer practical recommendations, and formulate the conclusions. The dialectical approach was largely applied for the analysis of the contradictory character of a managerial discretion. The authors conclude that the exercise of executive function, like any other governmental function, is not possible without a certain space for a free discretion (administrative discretion); the existence of discretionary powers presupposes the freedom of discretion of an official within the legal framework; in the authors’ opinion, discretionary powers should be considered as a specific form of law enforcement activity. It shouldn’t be the matter of a radical elimination of law enforcement discretion, but the matter of development and legal consolidation of the criteria of a proper exercise of such powers. 


Keywords:

corruption, discretionary powers, executive authority, discretion, exercise, organization, accretion of power, powers, argument, legislator

References
1. Postanovlenie Pravitel'stva RF ot 26.02.2010 № 96"Ob antikorruptsionnoi ekspertize normativnykh pravovykh aktov i proektov normativnykh pravovykh aktov" // SZ RF 2010. № 10. St. 1084.
2. Nozdrachev A.F. Korruptsiya kak pravovaya problema v voprosakh i otvetakh // Advokat. 2007. № 10.
3. Kudashkin A.V., Kozlov T.L. Eshche raz o pravovom ponyatii korruptsii // Sovremennoe pravo. 2010. № 6.
4. Chistov A.A. Administrativno-pravovoe regulirovanie protivodeistviya korruptsii v federal'nykh organakh ispolnitel'noi vlasti v sovremennykh usloviya. Avtoref. dis. ... kand. yurid. nauk. M., 2010.
5. Rossiiskaya gazeta. 2006. 8 dek.
6. Golovshchinskii K.I. Diagnostika korruptsiogennosti zakonodatel'stva / Pod red. G.A. Satarova, M.A. Krasnova. M., 2004.
7. Malinovskii A.A. Zloupotreblenie sub''ektivnym pravom kak yuridicheskii fenomen: avtoref. dis. ... dokt. yurid. nauk. M., 2008.
8. Sitdikova L.B., Svirin Yu.A. Analiz effektivnosti deyatel'nosti sudebnykh pristavov-ispolnitelei i puti sovershenstvovaniya ikh raboty // Ispolnitel'noe pravo. 2010. № 3.
9. Kurakin A.V. Aktual'nye problemy administrativno-pravovykh sredstv preduprezhdeniya i presecheniya korruptsii v sisteme gosudarstvennoi sluzhby RF // Administrativnoe i munitsipal'noe pravo. 2008. № 8.
10. Bol'shoi yuridicheskii slovar'. M., 1997.
11. Bratanovskaya M.S., Galitskaya N.V. Yuridicheskaya kharakteristika tselei, zadach i sposobov gosudarstvennogo upravleniya obespecheniem bezopasnosti Rossii Grazhdanin i pravo. 2013. № 7.
12. M.A., Talapina E.V., Yuzhakov V.N. Korruptsiya i zakonodatel'stvo: analiz zakona na korruptsiogennost' // Zhurnal rossiiskogo prava. 2005. № 2.
13. Bratanovskii S.N.Gosudarstvennoe upravlenie: ponyatie i sotsial'naya sushchnost' //Vestnik EAAN.2011.№6.
14. Kleandrov M.I. Status sud'i: pravovoi i smezhnye komponenty / Pod red. M.M. Slavina. M., 2008. .
15. Entsiklopedicheskii slovar'. 2009.
16. Entsiklopediya yurista. 2005.
17. Kondzhakulyan K.M.Nekotorye problemy v sisteme gosudarstvennogo upravleniya (Sravnitel'no-pravovoi analiz) // Zakon i pravo. 2014. №11.
18. Opalev R. O. Otsenochnye ponyatiya v arbitrazhnom i grazhdanskom protsessual'nom prave. M.: Volters Kluver, 2008. S. 77.
19. Berg L. N. Sudebnoe usmotrenie i ego predely: obshcheteoreticheskii aspekt: avtoref. dis. ... kand. yurid. nauk. Ekaterinburg. 2008. .
20. Bratanovskii S.N. Ponyatie i vidy pravovykh rezhimov v rossiiskom zakonodatel'stve i pravovoi nauke// Grazhdanin i pravo.2012.№11 21Tikhomirov Yu.A. Teoriya kompetentsii. M., 2001. 22.Dityatkovskii M.Yu. Ponyatie otdel'nykh gosudarstvennykh polnomochii, kotorymi nadeleny libo mogut nadelyat'sya organy mestnogo samoupravleniya // Sovremennoe pravo. 2006. № 10. 23.Bratanovskii S.N.Administrativnoe pravo Rossii: uchebnoe posobie.M.:2003 24.Lazarev V.V. Sotsial'no-psikhologicheskie aspekty primeneniya prava. Kazan', 1982. 25.Tikhomirov Yu. A. Administrativnoe usmotrenie i pravo // Zhurnal rossiiskogo prava. 2000. № 4. 26.Papkova O. A. Ponyatie sudeiskogo usmotreniya // Zhurnal rossiiskogo prava. 1997. № 12.
21. Budai S.N. Voprosy organizatsii vzaimodeistviya federal'nykh organov ispolnitel'noi
vlasti s pravookhranitel'nymi organami v sfere protivodeistviya korruptsii // Politseiskaya deyatel'nost'. - 2011. - 5. - C. 5 - 10.

22. Kostennikov M.V., Kurakin A.V., Kalita I.A. Prokuratura i protivodeistvie korruptsii // NB: Administrativnoe pravo i praktika administrirovaniya. - 2013. - 10. - C. 166 - 186. DOI: 10.7256/2306-9945.2013.10.9929. URL: http://www.e-notabene.ru/al/article_9929.html
Link to this article

You can simply select and copy link from below text field.


Other our sites:
Official Website of NOTA BENE / Aurora Group s.r.o.